The kid was no user, he was a con man. He used their system in a way it was not designed to be used, and did so maliciously. Your time estimates are well below childish.
Um, not everyone programs on and for a Windows machine in C.
Re:Many "software engineering" books are trash.
on
Why Software is Hard
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Utter bullshit. I use UML for not only analysis, but design, programming and working on things in daily life. It's a matter of understanding the techniques. I've designed four cooperative wire transfer subsystems using it myself.
"we need to listen to what Brooks said... more specifically their knowledge and experience."
Let's see: the idea is that technology is hostile and hard for humans and the conclusion is that a decade from now everyone with either be digital natives who have no problems or digital immigrants who are learning. Kind'a contradictory.
By #1 I presume you mean because we don't have telepathic reader devices yet? Voice recognition, typing, mouse, pad, text recognition, visual plotting; what's missing?
"Fair use allows for clips, etc. Viacom could bitch if the entire show was uploaded, but copyright is not ownership, it is just exclusive right to publish for a limited time ( well, sorry Mickey ) with the ability of others to use excerpts, and make parodies."
Well, lookie look, you just shot YouTube in the ass. YouTube ignores the content creater's exclusive right to publish. Those excerpts are entire segments, not snippets and YouTube is not hosting parodies or referential content, just the raw content.
Funny, but inaccurate. The tattoo belongs to the person who paid the tatter. The tattoo is a piece of art created for the express purpose of allowing the owner to show it. My son's a tatter.
As you're not familiar with copyright, fair use does not mean 'anything short of the full product'. It means providing a snippet which indicates what you're referring to. YouTube is not fair use at all, as there is no surrounding content which needs the snippet in the first place. The length of the copy is not relevant here.
So then, you would favor a return to a non-electronic medium? No? Then provide legal coverage for the content producers and quit the lame cannard that the media dictates whether the owner has rights or not.
It is unbecoming to whine because an access to 'free' illegal material is made to dry up.
Funny how it always seems to be the copyright holder that's considered the dick and not those illegally hosting/posting illegal content some people want for free.
True, they cannot prevent uploading, but they could provide copyright owners with the names of the uploaders. This would allow them to direct their attentions to the actual culprits.
Do you also think the little guy should just "shut up for the good" when his content is illegally uploaded?
No, it's not just advertising, it's infringement. Your opinion is totally irrelevant in this, as is mine. The opinion of the copyright owner is the only one that matters when it comes to distribution.
So, a publisher is not responsible for publishing another author's work under a new 'author' name? Bullshit. The whole point of 'Tube was to allow people to upload ANY content ANONYMOUSLY. How does one not foresee the inclusion of copyrighted material? They initially didn't give a crap, so now they reap. Tuff tit.
Uh, no. You need to check out the state you work in. In Missouri, you can quit, work for a competitor or start a competing business. They, however, can terminate at their heart's content. YANAL.
Expect, no. But, that can happen. I'm still fast friends with two managers I worked with in 1990. Now, if I'd kept a shit list and squirreled it away, that might have tainted the friendship. Then again, if they'd kept a shit-list about me, it might have as well.
People who keep a job that requires them to keep shit-lists are asses.
3a - NYC is not similar to the bulk of US cities. Kansas City, for instance is about fifty miles north and south. If NYC would relinqish their strangle hold on mass transit dollars, maybe others could catch up. As it is, the rest of the US supports AMTrack, which is a failure.
3b - No they do not have less parts and are less complex. It's just a different tech. Your argument ignores the currency of the situation and it's enormous energy cost.
3c - You ignore the distances again (see K.C.). And, I guess your attitude is screw the folks who cannot physically do that, eh?
3d - Ibid. Until that breakthrough, solar, wind and tide don't cut the mustard in either cost or product.
3e - Then the uberGreens ought to shut their mouths about them instead of organizing resistance?
We don't. And, in fact, that's already being done. People in their early twenties or younger have no personal basis, but as an older person, I see great improvements all the time. Cars get more mpg, solar, wind, tide, more efficient tech; all not available when most here were but a gleam or mistake.
One way would be to check if the models are backwards compatible. In other words, do the models that people use to project the climate accurately map what we know to have occurred in the past? The answer so far is no.
Thank you Sir, very well writ. One thing is, you fail to make the distinction between someone failing to make a distinction and someone knowing full well his argument boils down to "I want it free, screw everyone else".
The "information wants to be free" crowd knows that people will quit producing the moment everyone can legally rip them off at the post. They just don't care beyond their immediate wants.
If you don't condone bad rhetoric, then don't use it.
"CAse in point, if everybody on earth was copying FFIX and sony would still have done the same sale in the past, then they would STILL BE WRITING THE SAME NUMBER AT THE END OF THEIR FISCAL Q."
See? Twisted logic.
If everybody was copying FFIX, then Sony would be entering a zero on their fiscal qtr from that point on for that product. And, to further your own example, if everybody copied, Sony would have sold one, count 'em, one copy, which would have then been broadcast to everyone else.
FUD. The prize is $15 in payments over 20 or some years. The $7M is a cash payout option, besides which it's usually more like 60% which would be $9M. You've conflated the two, I think on purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
The kid was no user, he was a con man. He used their system in a way it was not designed to be used, and did so maliciously. Your time estimates are well below childish.
Um, not everyone programs on and for a Windows machine in C.
Utter bullshit. I use UML for not only analysis, but design, programming and working on things in daily life. It's a matter of understanding the techniques. I've designed four cooperative wire transfer subsystems using it myself.
"we need to listen to what Brooks said... more specifically their knowledge and experience."
Basically what I said.
"Solid developers will produce solid software."
Ibid.
Let's see: the idea is that technology is hostile and hard for humans and the conclusion is that a decade from now everyone with either be digital natives who have no problems or digital immigrants who are learning. Kind'a contradictory.
By #1 I presume you mean because we don't have telepathic reader devices yet? Voice recognition, typing, mouse, pad, text recognition, visual plotting; what's missing?
"There is no such thing as IP OWNERSHIP."
Ah, the lament of the "I want it free" crowd.
"Fair use allows for clips, etc. Viacom could bitch if the entire show was uploaded, but copyright is not ownership, it is just exclusive right to publish for a limited time ( well, sorry Mickey ) with the ability of others to use excerpts, and make parodies."
Well, lookie look, you just shot YouTube in the ass. YouTube ignores the content creater's exclusive right to publish. Those excerpts are entire segments, not snippets and YouTube is not hosting parodies or referential content, just the raw content.
http://www.toonopedia.com/renstimp.htm
The creators sold it, it wasn't stolen.
Funny, but inaccurate. The tattoo belongs to the person who paid the tatter. The tattoo is a piece of art created for the express purpose of allowing the owner to show it. My son's a tatter.
As you're not familiar with copyright, fair use does not mean 'anything short of the full product'. It means providing a snippet which indicates what you're referring to. YouTube is not fair use at all, as there is no surrounding content which needs the snippet in the first place. The length of the copy is not relevant here.
So then, you would favor a return to a non-electronic medium? No? Then provide legal coverage for the content producers and quit the lame cannard that the media dictates whether the owner has rights or not.
It is unbecoming to whine because an access to 'free' illegal material is made to dry up.
Funny how it always seems to be the copyright holder that's considered the dick and not those illegally hosting/posting illegal content some people want for free.
True, they cannot prevent uploading, but they could provide copyright owners with the names of the uploaders. This would allow them to direct their attentions to the actual culprits.
Do you also think the little guy should just "shut up for the good" when his content is illegally uploaded?
No, it's not just advertising, it's infringement. Your opinion is totally irrelevant in this, as is mine. The opinion of the copyright owner is the only one that matters when it comes to distribution.
So, a publisher is not responsible for publishing another author's work under a new 'author' name? Bullshit. The whole point of 'Tube was to allow people to upload ANY content ANONYMOUSLY. How does one not foresee the inclusion of copyrighted material? They initially didn't give a crap, so now they reap. Tuff tit.
Maybe you didn't mean it, but it read that way to me too. Ad hominum don't gotta be direct, it can be oblique.
Really? I do believe that 10K was the amount the now-jailed scientist got for selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese back in Clinton days.
Uh, no. You need to check out the state you work in. In Missouri, you can quit, work for a competitor or start a competing business. They, however, can terminate at their heart's content. YANAL.
Expect, no. But, that can happen. I'm still fast friends with two managers I worked with in 1990. Now, if I'd kept a shit list and squirreled it away, that might have tainted the friendship. Then again, if they'd kept a shit-list about me, it might have as well.
People who keep a job that requires them to keep shit-lists are asses.
Damn right you're not a lawyer. That's stupid, stupid advice no one should listen to. Check out the laws in your state to figure out what to do.
3a - NYC is not similar to the bulk of US cities. Kansas City, for instance is about fifty miles north and south. If NYC would relinqish their strangle hold on mass transit dollars, maybe others could catch up. As it is, the rest of the US supports AMTrack, which is a failure.
3b - No they do not have less parts and are less complex. It's just a different tech. Your argument ignores the currency of the situation and it's enormous energy cost.
3c - You ignore the distances again (see K.C.). And, I guess your attitude is screw the folks who cannot physically do that, eh?
3d - Ibid. Until that breakthrough, solar, wind and tide don't cut the mustard in either cost or product.
3e - Then the uberGreens ought to shut their mouths about them instead of organizing resistance?
We don't. And, in fact, that's already being done. People in their early twenties or younger have no personal basis, but as an older person, I see great improvements all the time. Cars get more mpg, solar, wind, tide, more efficient tech; all not available when most here were but a gleam or mistake.
When was the last time you saw a river on fire?
One way would be to check if the models are backwards compatible. In other words, do the models that people use to project the climate accurately map what we know to have occurred in the past? The answer so far is no.
Thank you Sir, very well writ. One thing is, you fail to make the distinction between someone failing to make a distinction and someone knowing full well his argument boils down to "I want it free, screw everyone else".
The "information wants to be free" crowd knows that people will quit producing the moment everyone can legally rip them off at the post. They just don't care beyond their immediate wants.
If you don't condone bad rhetoric, then don't use it.
"CAse in point, if everybody on earth was copying FFIX and sony would still have done the same sale in the past, then they would STILL BE WRITING THE SAME NUMBER AT THE END OF THEIR FISCAL Q."
See? Twisted logic.
If everybody was copying FFIX, then Sony would be entering a zero on their fiscal qtr from that point on for that product. And, to further your own example, if everybody copied, Sony would have sold one, count 'em, one copy, which would have then been broadcast to everyone else.
FUD. The prize is $15 in payments over 20 or some years. The $7M is a cash payout option, besides which it's usually more like 60% which would be $9M. You've conflated the two, I think on purpose.