I just wanted to say that this interview is one of the most interesting I've read in a while.
I'm going to make a donation right now of whatever I can... I hope others will too - even a small amount.
SCO Survivor -- beware the quiet one
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1
Has anyone been watching (or ever watched) Survivor? It's always the quiet one who becomes so dangerous. Keeping an eye on SCO is like driving by an accident where you just can't be bothered to watch, but you can't turn away. So what is Microsoft up to during all of this? They are quietly trying to licence their new "open" (closed) office formats etc.
I've never hated Microsoft, or gone out of my way to avoid them for some 'moral' reason, but being locked into their products is another thing altogether. How about a Groklaw-like site that acts as a watchdog over Uncle Bill. There is nothing like the first time your using Linux someone sends you a link to a Windows Media file... now what are you supposed to do with that?
If someone could explain how the DMCA makes sense... actually I totally agree that it's strange and bizzare, so I've taken a bit of time to find an article which explains things better. Which is a good thing, because as you'll see, I was incorrect about the right for Canadians to share files - we are in fact allowed.
I also browsed the website of the CRIA to see how they approach the filesharing networks. As far as I can tell the CRIA uses the term "illegal" because they officially feel wronged by those who use P2P networks - not because it is actually illegal under the law. If you find any info to the contrary, I'm all ears. Most people are just waking up to the reality that companies are cracking down on piracy using very drastic measures, but most of the news we hear (at least in mainstream media) is from the USA. The average Canadian is not very well aware that the crackdown of p2p networks for 'illegal' music is only across the border. There are crackdowns on other things, and groups will still flood the network with dummy files, but we're only talking music here. Sure the CRIA will protect it's rights too, but their language would lead a person to believe that downloading or sharing music in Canada is "illegal" as in "you are breaking a law." When they use the term "illegal" they really are trying to say they're against it, and it's "wrong" as in "William Shatner singing Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."
This article, "They can blame Canada", clearly describes how Canadian copyright law is applied to Canadians. I wish I could find such an easy to read doc from a more credible source, like gov't, etc, but I think it does suffice.
Key quotes from the article:
On RIAA litigation: "As the RIAA wages its increasingly desperate campaign of litigation in terrorum to try to take down the largest American file sharers on the various P2P networks, it seems to be utterly unaware of the radically different status of private copying in Canada."
On Private Copying: "While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may make it illegal to share copyright material in America, the Canadian Copyright Act expressly allows exactly the sort of copying which is at the base of the P2P revolution.
...""Private copying" is a term of art in the Act. In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.
"Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself."
The Levy on recordable media allows for downloading through any service, Kazza, etc, but you are still not allowed to share your music collection.
To compare to 'old-school' recording: If a friend asks you for a copy of a CD and you make the dupe for them, you've broken the law (although it would be impossible to inforce). If you lend the CD to your friend and they make their own copy, it is perfectly legal and above-board.
This extends to filesharing in that, when someone downloads from your computer a duplicate is created. You have then made the copy for the other person and broken the law.
If you download music from someone who shouldn't be sharing it, it's not your fault they've shared it when The Man said they are not supposed to. And of course, none of this applies to software... just tunes.
So, would it be possible for an American living near the border to get Wi-Fi access from a Canadian provider? Wi-fi providers better be careful the RIAA doesn't sue them for allowing their signal to cross the border and encouraging infringement!
---
That boy's got less sense than God gave a doughnut
I would say that the zeal and disgust is partially a marketing tactic. It's partially a way to differentiate between someone who has dabbled with and actually lives the zen of the job.
You might see a similar zeal within print-graphic designers against kids and small-business with immature corporate identity. We all know traditional printers have been hurt by the availability of cheap grapic ap's and ink-jets. We all poo-poo a bad web design when it has the hallmarks of someone who doesn't know what they are doing. When anyone and their dog can build an HTML page, you can't be indifferent about bad design when you are an experienced developer. Clients will learn there is no benefit to paying you, and they will realize that useless websites have to be the norm
We have to make those comments though, because otherwise most clients wouldn't know the difference between good work and bad work unless you point it out. And not every manager will immediately connect the dots (even with a presentation) of concepts like lowering cost by reducing bandwidth.
So you have to train yourself to stand up for what you've committed yourself to. More importantly you have to SELL what you believe. If you treat your own skills with indifference, then others will consider your skills as such. They will also put more trust in the programmer who is not just convinced, but *knows beyond a shadow of a doubt* that rolling with a particular language is the right thing to do. What else does a non-programmer have to go on? (Besides, do you expect a programmer so say... "I only work with slow, awkward languages")
A few folks have said already "Hurrah for the end of Verisign's hands in Netsol" but I don't know if I agree.
I would expect for the new owner to act even more aggressively to make their new investment profitable. This seems like one (likely) strategy from a company who turns-around less profitable companies. So it could result in similar junk, under a new name. When someone becomes concerned with track record, they can say "that wasn't us!" and pull similar stuff again.
It doesn't seem that promising, with the exception that the new owner could *potentially* turn the company into one that is worth doing business with. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
I'm a Canadian, and I don't mean to be racist or rude in any way (typical intro for a Canadian -eh?) but I just don't understand the US. No really - I really don't understand the country. All this shit of lawsuits, and judicial bypassing worries me that this could quietly seep into my country too.
What I don't understand is how a company *should* responsibly handle a situation where they certainly have a right to protect their image (even if it is shite) and their stock price? Even *if* the CEO personally felt shameful about the methods used to protect it's image! Isn't that a capitalistic trait? Doesn't the management of a company have a legal obligation to do *everything* in it's power to produce the best ROI - even if it means stretching the limits of the law, suing your customers, mishandling the facts to skew public opinion?
If a company does not do it's best to get the best ROI for their shareholders, can they not be held liable to their sharesholders for negligence?
I think it's shameful that there is still support for these laws and that lawmakers sit by while regular folk get dragged through legal mud. I'll be the first to agree with the big industries that they have a right to protect their property, but the lawmakers should be investigating ways to do something that could benefit both the people and business. Business wouldn't like that, but isn't that what lawmakers are supposed to do - represent the people and make decisions that are fair?! Ya right.
I think I want to cry... a tear in my beer in cheer! Hurrah!
Do you think anyone is upset that the letter doesn't validate?;-) I guess it's difficult to follow every every standard when your in a rush to publish.
Whichever way you choose, you've made one thing clear: you only have a limited amount of time to do the work.
Besides pay, you should also consider what happens when:
you need time off for yourself
they get pushy about deadlines
either party decides to back out of the deal
the scope changes
they have 'another person' who they want working with you
time spent for meetings, or reports (is this billable?)
any unfoseen circumstances
Contracts are there to define what your responsibility is, and the responsibility of another party. It's important to know what would happen if you were getting close to meeting a target, and the other group backs out - would they still have to pay you? If you were paid hourly, would half-written code be worth anything?
It's okay for two groups to be unhappy about a situation, but if you have forgotten to specify the responsibility of each party, then things get nasy. The worst thing that could happen is the project dies... okay not the worst, but it's up there
Slashdot Mirror
I just went to the Dremel kit page and it looks as though someone hacked their site and uploaded that picture.
a te 2.asp?SKU=764-01
http://www.dremel.com/productdisplay/tool_templ
I just wanted to say that this interview is one of the most interesting I've read in a while.
I'm going to make a donation right now of whatever I can... I hope others will too - even a small amount.
Has anyone been watching (or ever watched) Survivor? It's always the quiet one who becomes so dangerous. Keeping an eye on SCO is like driving by an accident where you just can't be bothered to watch, but you can't turn away. So what is Microsoft up to during all of this? They are quietly trying to licence their new "open" (closed) office formats etc.
I've never hated Microsoft, or gone out of my way to avoid them for some 'moral' reason, but being locked into their products is another thing altogether. How about a Groklaw-like site that acts as a watchdog over Uncle Bill. There is nothing like the first time your using Linux someone sends you a link to a Windows Media file... now what are you supposed to do with that?
If someone could explain how the DMCA makes sense... actually I totally agree that it's strange and bizzare, so I've taken a bit of time to find an article which explains things better. Which is a good thing, because as you'll see, I was incorrect about the right for Canadians to share files - we are in fact allowed.
I also browsed the website of the CRIA to see how they approach the filesharing networks. As far as I can tell the CRIA uses the term "illegal" because they officially feel wronged by those who use P2P networks - not because it is actually illegal under the law. If you find any info to the contrary, I'm all ears. Most people are just waking up to the reality that companies are cracking down on piracy using very drastic measures, but most of the news we hear (at least in mainstream media) is from the USA. The average Canadian is not very well aware that the crackdown of p2p networks for 'illegal' music is only across the border. There are crackdowns on other things, and groups will still flood the network with dummy files, but we're only talking music here. Sure the CRIA will protect it's rights too, but their language would lead a person to believe that downloading or sharing music in Canada is "illegal" as in "you are breaking a law." When they use the term "illegal" they really are trying to say they're against it, and it's "wrong" as in "William Shatner singing Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."
This article, "They can blame Canada", clearly describes how Canadian copyright law is applied to Canadians. I wish I could find such an easy to read doc from a more credible source, like gov't, etc, but I think it does suffice.
Key quotes from the article:
On RIAA litigation: "As the RIAA wages its increasingly desperate campaign of litigation in terrorum to try to take down the largest American file sharers on the various P2P networks, it seems to be utterly unaware of the radically different status of private copying in Canada."
On Private Copying: "While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may make it illegal to share copyright material in America, the Canadian Copyright Act expressly allows exactly the sort of copying which is at the base of the P2P revolution.
...""Private copying" is a term of art in the Act. In Canada, if I own a CD and you borrow it and make a copy of it that is legal private copying; however, if I make you a copy of that same CD and give it to you that would be infringement. Odd, but ideal for protecting file sharers.
"Every song on my hard drive comes from a CD in my collection or from a CD in someone else's collection which I have found on a P2P network. In either case I will have made the copy and will claim safe harbor under the "private copying" provision. If you find that song in my shared folder and make a copy this will also be "private copying." I have not made you a copy, rather you have downloaded the song yourself."
It's true! It's good to be a Canadian!
The Levy on recordable media allows for downloading through any service, Kazza, etc, but you are still not allowed to share your music collection.
To compare to 'old-school' recording: If a friend asks you for a copy of a CD and you make the dupe for them, you've broken the law (although it would be impossible to inforce). If you lend the CD to your friend and they make their own copy, it is perfectly legal and above-board.
This extends to filesharing in that, when someone downloads from your computer a duplicate is created. You have then made the copy for the other person and broken the law.
If you download music from someone who shouldn't be sharing it, it's not your fault they've shared it when The Man said they are not supposed to. And of course, none of this applies to software... just tunes.
So, would it be possible for an American living near the border to get Wi-Fi access from a Canadian provider? Wi-fi providers better be careful the RIAA doesn't sue them for allowing their signal to cross the border and encouraging infringement!
--- That boy's got less sense than God gave a doughnut
I would say that the zeal and disgust is partially a marketing tactic. It's partially a way to differentiate between someone who has dabbled with and actually lives the zen of the job.
You might see a similar zeal within print-graphic designers against kids and small-business with immature corporate identity. We all know traditional printers have been hurt by the availability of cheap grapic ap's and ink-jets. We all poo-poo a bad web design when it has the hallmarks of someone who doesn't know what they are doing. When anyone and their dog can build an HTML page, you can't be indifferent about bad design when you are an experienced developer. Clients will learn there is no benefit to paying you, and they will realize that useless websites have to be the norm
We have to make those comments though, because otherwise most clients wouldn't know the difference between good work and bad work unless you point it out. And not every manager will immediately connect the dots (even with a presentation) of concepts like lowering cost by reducing bandwidth.
So you have to train yourself to stand up for what you've committed yourself to. More importantly you have to SELL what you believe. If you treat your own skills with indifference, then others will consider your skills as such. They will also put more trust in the programmer who is not just convinced, but *knows beyond a shadow of a doubt* that rolling with a particular language is the right thing to do. What else does a non-programmer have to go on? (Besides, do you expect a programmer so say... "I only work with slow, awkward languages")
Not bad. Could use some improvement in the UI, but I'm gonna go with it for a while.
Thanks!
A few folks have said already "Hurrah for the end of Verisign's hands in Netsol" but I don't know if I agree.
I would expect for the new owner to act even more aggressively to make their new investment profitable. This seems like one (likely) strategy from a company who turns-around less profitable companies. So it could result in similar junk, under a new name. When someone becomes concerned with track record, they can say "that wasn't us!" and pull similar stuff again.
It doesn't seem that promising, with the exception that the new owner could *potentially* turn the company into one that is worth doing business with. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
I'm a Canadian, and I don't mean to be racist or rude in any way (typical intro for a Canadian -eh?) but I just don't understand the US. No really - I really don't understand the country. All this shit of lawsuits, and judicial bypassing worries me that this could quietly seep into my country too. What I don't understand is how a company *should* responsibly handle a situation where they certainly have a right to protect their image (even if it is shite) and their stock price? Even *if* the CEO personally felt shameful about the methods used to protect it's image! Isn't that a capitalistic trait? Doesn't the management of a company have a legal obligation to do *everything* in it's power to produce the best ROI - even if it means stretching the limits of the law, suing your customers, mishandling the facts to skew public opinion? If a company does not do it's best to get the best ROI for their shareholders, can they not be held liable to their sharesholders for negligence? I think it's shameful that there is still support for these laws and that lawmakers sit by while regular folk get dragged through legal mud. I'll be the first to agree with the big industries that they have a right to protect their property, but the lawmakers should be investigating ways to do something that could benefit both the people and business. Business wouldn't like that, but isn't that what lawmakers are supposed to do - represent the people and make decisions that are fair?! Ya right.
What would people suggest for CD burning? Need to burn files and convert/burn mp3's to CD Audio
I think I want to cry... a tear in my beer in cheer! Hurrah! Do you think anyone is upset that the letter doesn't validate? ;-) I guess it's difficult to follow every every standard when your in a rush to publish.
Whichever way you choose, you've made one thing clear: you only have a limited amount of time to do the work.
Besides pay, you should also consider what happens when:
Contracts are there to define what your responsibility is, and the responsibility of another party. It's important to know what would happen if you were getting close to meeting a target, and the other group backs out - would they still have to pay you? If you were paid hourly, would half-written code be worth anything?
It's okay for two groups to be unhappy about a situation, but if you have forgotten to specify the responsibility of each party, then things get nasy. The worst thing that could happen is the project dies... okay not the worst, but it's up there