The U.S. has a history of fighting _wars_ at the behest of large corporations (see the first part of the 20th century, minus WWI). So, to all of you decrying our now Nazified state, this Is Actually An Improvement.
However, we do need to do something rather than getting all worked up about it on/. and calling GWB names. Call/email/write your congressman. Not that it would work that much. But if everyone on/. did that instead of whining, it could probably make a dent.
I don't think anybody who supports normal trade relations with china thinks that it is any sort of support for their human rights abuses. In fact, it gives us a lot more say in said human rights issues. A fat lot of good sanctions against Iraq have done us.
Furthermore, if you have any delusions that China would roll over for the U.S. if we severed trade relations, you are greatly underestimating their will. I kind of see the trade relations as a way to avoid war. It provides a lot of power to those in the chinese government that are more friendly to the U.S..
I guess I shouldn't say "OO is hard" so much as "figuring out the best way to design your system with OO is hard." Understanding your domain is usually pretty hard. Figuring out the best formulation for an OO system to represent that domain is nigh impossible. That's why we have design patterns, and why this engineer might be better off going procedurally.
I've been doing java and C++ programming. Your experience with simula holds true for them too : very rarely do language issues make much of a difference in terms of difficulty of an OO design. (although they surface occasionally) You usually face language limitations in the coding phase (because, if you're like me, you aren't smart enough to recognize them in the design phase). Or in the maintenance phase, when you realize a section of code could be much more elegant with the help of some language feature not present in the current language.
I'm a software engineer. However, I lost you at the "I'm having trouble doing...". I'm assuming this means you are some sort of real engineer:):) OO is great. It does what it promises. It makes everything a whole lot easier to manage, makes your code more reusable, blah blah blah.
However, I have lots of bad experience trying to get engineers to write good OO code. Nothing against y'all, but, conversely if you forced most software engineers (aside from a few savant freaks that I'm sure will chide me) to deal with the engineering problems you mentioned (that I have never heard of or forgot) we would probably die.
What I'm getting at, I guess, is that OO rules. However, it's like linux, or repairing cars, or (ad infinitum). Being an expert rules, but it's not always worth the time to become an expert. You can't just jump in. Reading a few books helps, but I've read a few books, been doing this full-time for two or three years, had a very OO college experience, and most of the stuff I design and code is still crap.
In addition, the code you are writing seems really unlikely to change. Write it procedurally, and write it well, and your grandkids will still be using that code because it would be too much of a pain to rewrite it to OO.
I think you might be looking for an exemption. Here it is : use procedural programming for things that are tough for you to imagine in OO terms. Don't feel guilty. You will still never have as much crap code lying (laying?) around with your name on it as I do, and I do this for a living;)
If you've read 100's of CS books, you should be ok, but note to others... Programming != CS. You will take three or four courses out of maybe 12-18 (probably more for BS, I was BA) that will deal directly with programming. Even those can be somewhat theory-heavy. A few CS courses involve no programming. It's like knowing how to use a brush if you're an art student. It's important, and it'll help you if you're good. But it's just a piece of the puzzle.
Get your job to pay for it. I assume you have fathomable reasons for wanting it to get done in one year, but I would take my time and do it on the company dime;). You seem to be doing well, so you could probably convince your employer to pay for school or find another employer that will.
I feel it's worth it. I am perhaps a little biased, but I've worked with many, many, many unqualified people that never got their CS degree. (and a few that have, but the ratio is far better) If I had to hire, I would very very rarely consider somebody without one. Why? For many reasons. You learn many obscure but useful things in school. Also, I've found that most late-trained or self-trained computer people are missing a sort of geekiness that they need. They are good workers, they're smart, but they lack passion for the craft.
It would be cool to have him around more often. But can you imagine what he is worth? A professor at a prestigious (sp?) school, a lawyer, a revered author and a political figure? I think any of those, by themself, would make him out of/.'s price range:) But he might just do it because he's cool (as is the case with this interview, I assume)
Not that he actually makes any fraction of what he's worth (as is true with many great scholars). It's just easier sometimes to get them to volunteer than to try to afford them.:)
As noted time and time again by those opposed to game violence, just a casual glance reveals that the Most Popular games are also the Most Violent.
For example, just take a look at number 21 : HOYLE SOLITAIRE. HOYT SOLITAIRE has been comdemned by numerous game anti-violence activism groups, including The Lion and Lamb Project.
How many more children need to die before HOYT and other violent-game makers stand up and becomes accountable? How many more people will buy (and I'm getting ill at the thought of it)... _Guns_, for 'self-protection' and 'hunting', before congress will take action against these code-writing purveyors of death?
As a bible-thumping christian, I am reviled by the thought of these violent games and guns, especially remembering the death of our savior, Jesus Christ, at the hands of Doom-playing gun-wielding members of the pharisees. Evil is no older than videogames and guns. Write to your congressman now! Stop the corruption of our children!
(and since I typically get mod'd down at least once before someone realizes my sarcasm, yes, this is sarcastic.)
My favorite article was when slashdot went crazy because the DoJ was spending a few hundred thousand on an anti-hacking education program for kids.
It seemed like the amount of money (measured by person-hours) spent reading the article and posting nasty rants about the DoJ involved far more money than the measly few hundred k allocated by the DoJ:)
I don't know if still holds true... but I know the X-Box is sold at a loss. The PS2 used to be sold at a loss. But I've heard (again, no hard figures, sorry) that Nintendo insists on making money on everything they sell, even consoles. So, even if nintendo perpetually has the third best sales, they can still flourish, as long as their sales are decent.
But, the games really make the difference, and I'm sure that the PS2 is killing on them this christmas:)
I know a bunch of people are going to talk about how PS2's are in stores, so I have my one-up story.
At a best buy in my area, there is about an 8x8 at the base, 6 foot high display of stacked PS2s. I was thinking they might be empty boxes, but who would want to post on/. about that?;) That's a lot of PS2s.
That's what I was thinking. One of my racing geek friends told me that F1 cars lose about 80 mph just by *letting off the accelerator*, such is the trememdous downforce.
Almost every vegetarian I have ever met has answered the question "How can you get by without meat?" with "I never really liked it." This, even though they talk about how healthy it is, and how much better they feel.
Software engineers are probably the most "disposable" of thebunch:
In a way, yes... software engineering is still very, very young. There are still lots of changes being made, and it isn't even a prevalent major in college yet. On the other hand, since a good software engineer will always be learning, they aren't really that disposable.
Also, I worked at a project up until a few months ago that was about ten years out of date. They pretty much only used C, (and a little java) did not use any sophisticated development tools, and made all sorts of mistakes because they refused to innovate. However, they were awesome at getting the job done. Projects using better technologies always seemed to falter.
Not that I'm saying that new technologies are flawed. Just that getting the job done in the required amount of time (and telling your customer how much time it's going to take) is timeless.
I kind of said this the last time the story came around : (sorry:) )
Now, it should be obvious to any reasonable person that 99% of the people who warez down software either can't afford to buy it...
That it is illegal keeps many people from doing it. Also, should part of a law read "You cannot use software illegally unless you do not profit from it."? That is not a factor in traditional property crimes... why should it be so in intellectual property crimes?
or are just trying it
out and will probably either buy it or decide it's crap and never run it again
I've never understood this argument... most software packages have demo versions. If they don't, you can usually contact the company and arrange a demo with them. Granted, not every company probably does this, but I'm troubled that this major excuse probably only really applies 5% of the time.
like, having the FBI spend its time on actual threats to public safety rather than warez mavens, most of whom would probably never hurt a fly.
This is an oft-cited argument whenever somebody is pinched for a minor crime. The simple fact of the matter is that much more time is spent on major crimes. However, if law enforcement spent all of their time on major crimes, we still wouldn't solve all of them, and every minor crime would go unpunished. Also, if you consider that this is the first bust in umpteen years, and the feds sound like they're not going to do it again in the near future, they really aren't spending much time on it (relatively speaking).
Also, threats to businesses might not seem like public safety issues. But go to Pittsburgh and tell them that intellectual property and protecting the rights of businesses isn't important. They might disagree. Everybody craps on the rights of businesses, but occasionally they need to be protected from unfair competition for the public good.
Mod'd to troll? As a frequent recipient of the mod-down-after-I've-been-mod'd-up I sympathize. (including a time where four people 'overrated' me from 3 to -1. And not too many people check -1 to see if things have been accidentally underrated. Ouch.)
I also agree. Especially since the business should pay for it (if you are really telecommuting, per the description). And especially especially because paying two or three times my current subscription rate BUT being able to have more free reign (not blocking port 25, for example) Would Be Wonderful.
Gosh, I never read conversations that go on this long:)
Cash was used as an example in response to the original post's supposition that Microsoft didn't really take a hit from losing the software. I was trying to paint the example of a similar event, that is nearly as vicitimless, but seems much more like a real crime.
It isn't a perfect analogy, because I could only use it to illustrate part of what I was trying to say.
That said, here's another one. Say I steal the Mona Lisa but murder ten people getting it. I can't fence it because nobody will take it. It is totally worthless to me because I hate art. The theft is now irrelevant, of course, but I'm trying to illustrate that the value of something after it is stolen vice before is probably only relevant if the value has increased. It is worth that much money to somebody.
If microsoft sells Visual Logo Pro for 10k and you pirate it, you are stealing 10k that microsoft never sees. It doesn't matter whether or not you would have purchased it anyway. It doesn't matter if you never use it. It doesn't matter if microsoft suffers no financial hardship. It doesn't matter if it vaults microsoft to stardom. It's still theft.
Anyway, commercials are good. If there are no commercials, that means that all the stations need to be sponsored by XM. That seems nice, but really leads to homogeneity, and, of course, gives XM control over both content and delivery. What happens when we go through another 1990's and the company realizes that bluegrass accounts for.5% of cost but only.1% of subscribers would quit if it were taken away? Companies kill profitable ventures because they Aren't Profitable Enough.
I'd rather have it transmit at least a few independent stations with commercials and be more assured of programming I enjoy.
I see your point. The 20 million dollars in cash has a real, tangible value to the thief. The 20 million dollars in software is not worth nearly that much to the thief.
I see this as one of the things that really leads to illegal copying. People have no concept of the value of the software they are copying.
However, I don't think that we get to really make that distinction. I don't think the value to the thief is relevant. Somebody could steal my laptop and use it as a paperweight. That doesn't mean they should only be charged with stealing a paperweight.
Plus, stolen goods are, in general, worth far less to the illegal possessor than they were originally.
Although I make the argument that illegally copied software is stolen goods, I don't think that the alleged perpetrators will be charged as such, anyway. The article mentioned maximum sentences of three years and charges of conspiracy and theft of intellectual property. Three years in prison and four years probation is typical for federal convictions of GTA. (here) So they are _not_ being treated as though they really stole millions of dollars in software.
How about if I stole a whole cart of paper from the government, which has a value of only a few thousand dollars?
What if the cart of paper happens to be uncut hundred dollar bills worth 20 million dollars?
It isn't so much that the treasury department misses the few thousand dollars it cost to buy the paper and print the bills. The economy wouldn't suffer because there's an extra 20 million in cash floating around. But the thieves still made off with 20 million dollars in cash. You can sit around talking about how the economy doesn't suffer, and how the treasury department didn't suffer, but there's no doubt that the culprits have 20 million extra dollars.
It's kind of the same thing. There is a way of saying "look, microsoft didn't lose any money." But, there's also a way of saying "look, these people have in their posession 20 million dollars worth of software they shouldn't." It doesn't really matter to me whether or not microsoft actually suffered. It is enough that they could potentially suffer. Laws were broken, the pirates have software they did not obtain legally, and they were so proficient and brazen that the FBI actually paid attention to them.
You are right about the microsoft thing being crap, however.:)
The market traditionally supports two consoles. The PS2 will almost certainly survive. It is probably not a battle of GameCube vs. PS2. It is a battle of GameCube vs. XBox.
Console density is not necessarily the correct battle to observe. Sony loses money on their consoles. Nintendo makes money on everything they do. Nintendo can have a fraction of the popularity of Sony and still make about the same amount of money.
This is a repeat (and all of these are repeats of bits I've gleaned from various articles, anyway:) ), but the GameCube owns the child demographic. It doesn't matter how many copies of FIFA soccer have been sold in japan. Your kid wants to play pokemon. You will buy said child a GameCube for christmas because you want to see the gleem in his or her eye when they open it. Saturday morning cartoons will never generate more advertising revenue than 'Friends'. But they will always be around.
heh... I couldn't think of any other examples since WWII. And I couldn't remember of any factual accounts of the germans trying to get us, even though I know there was great secrecy involving meetings of leaders to protect them.
I think one of the points of lifting the prohibitions was that these people have declared war on the united states, said they are willing to die to hurt the us, why not just cut out the middleman and off them?
We're not talking about foreign officials here - we're talking about tourists
We have our wires crossed here. I'm referring to the comment on assassinating bin laden. You're referring to the military tribunals. Let me be clear on this : I do not support the assassinations of tourists, exchange students, or immigrant workers (hee hee).
I was not aware that the tribunals were going to be used against those already in the U.S. I think my response would be that those would probably be found unconstitutional. If they were found to be constitutional, then more power to 'em. People that know far more about the law will decide this, rather than me or the bush administration, so I tend not to get too flustered when the government suggests something stupid.
hold it proven: you're mad.
There was an old figher jock saying, something to the effect of "It doesn't matter if you shoot down every MiG in the sky if you come back and find the lead Soviet tank commander having a beer in the officer's mess." There are multiple fronts. The enemy will find the weakest one. If terrorists never hijack another airplane, ever, we will still be in danger from ballistic missiles. The converse (opposite?) is also true. I hate to give you all that "eternal vigilance" crap, but it's very true. For every terrorist attack that happens, we thwart many more. We can't prevent any attack, but to be safe we have to raise the bar as much as we can on all fronts.
That being said, if a foreign country has the capability to launch a missile, it is heck of a lot easier for them to launch it than it is for them to try to smuggle it in. In 10 or 20 years some will probably have that capability. NK shot one over japan a few years ago, remember?:)
No, I'm not a troll, I'm just different from most people on/. I'm even an outcast from geeks.
Slashdot Mirror
However, we do need to do something rather than getting all worked up about it on /. and calling GWB names. Call/email/write your congressman. Not that it would work that much. But if everyone on /. did that instead of whining, it could probably make a dent.
Furthermore, if you have any delusions that China would roll over for the U.S. if we severed trade relations, you are greatly underestimating their will. I kind of see the trade relations as a way to avoid war. It provides a lot of power to those in the chinese government that are more friendly to the U.S..
I've been doing java and C++ programming. Your experience with simula holds true for them too : very rarely do language issues make much of a difference in terms of difficulty of an OO design. (although they surface occasionally) You usually face language limitations in the coding phase (because, if you're like me, you aren't smart enough to recognize them in the design phase). Or in the maintenance phase, when you realize a section of code could be much more elegant with the help of some language feature not present in the current language.
However, I have lots of bad experience trying to get engineers to write good OO code. Nothing against y'all, but, conversely if you forced most software engineers (aside from a few savant freaks that I'm sure will chide me) to deal with the engineering problems you mentioned (that I have never heard of or forgot) we would probably die.
What I'm getting at, I guess, is that OO rules. However, it's like linux, or repairing cars, or (ad infinitum). Being an expert rules, but it's not always worth the time to become an expert. You can't just jump in. Reading a few books helps, but I've read a few books, been doing this full-time for two or three years, had a very OO college experience, and most of the stuff I design and code is still crap.
In addition, the code you are writing seems really unlikely to change. Write it procedurally, and write it well, and your grandkids will still be using that code because it would be too much of a pain to rewrite it to OO.
I think you might be looking for an exemption. Here it is : use procedural programming for things that are tough for you to imagine in OO terms. Don't feel guilty. You will still never have as much crap code lying (laying?) around with your name on it as I do, and I do this for a living ;)
Hurrying to post before I become redundant ... :)
Not that he actually makes any fraction of what he's worth (as is true with many great scholars). It's just easier sometimes to get them to volunteer than to try to afford them. :)
As noted time and time again by those opposed to game violence, just a casual glance reveals that the Most Popular games are also the Most Violent.
For example, just take a look at number 21 : HOYLE SOLITAIRE. HOYT SOLITAIRE has been comdemned by numerous game anti-violence activism groups, including The Lion and Lamb Project.
How many more children need to die before HOYT and other violent-game makers stand up and becomes accountable? How many more people will buy (and I'm getting ill at the thought of it) ... _Guns_, for 'self-protection' and 'hunting', before congress will take action against these code-writing purveyors of death?
As a bible-thumping christian, I am reviled by the thought of these violent games and guns, especially remembering the death of our savior, Jesus Christ, at the hands of Doom-playing gun-wielding members of the pharisees. Evil is no older than videogames and guns. Write to your congressman now! Stop the corruption of our children!
(and since I typically get mod'd down at least once before someone realizes my sarcasm, yes, this is sarcastic.)
It seemed like the amount of money (measured by person-hours) spent reading the article and posting nasty rants about the DoJ involved far more money than the measly few hundred k allocated by the DoJ :)
But, the games really make the difference, and I'm sure that the PS2 is killing on them this christmas :)
At a best buy in my area, there is about an 8x8 at the base, 6 foot high display of stacked PS2s. I was thinking they might be empty boxes, but who would want to post on /. about that? ;) That's a lot of PS2s.
That's what I was thinking. One of my racing geek friends told me that F1 cars lose about 80 mph just by *letting off the accelerator*, such is the trememdous downforce.
Almost every vegetarian I have ever met has answered the question "How can you get by without meat?" with "I never really liked it." This, even though they talk about how healthy it is, and how much better they feel.
This is really not offtopic :)
That's also the saddest thing I've ever, ever said.
In a way, yes ... software engineering is still very, very young. There are still lots of changes being made, and it isn't even a prevalent major in college yet. On the other hand, since a good software engineer will always be learning, they aren't really that disposable.
Also, I worked at a project up until a few months ago that was about ten years out of date. They pretty much only used C, (and a little java) did not use any sophisticated development tools, and made all sorts of mistakes because they refused to innovate. However, they were awesome at getting the job done. Projects using better technologies always seemed to falter.
Not that I'm saying that new technologies are flawed. Just that getting the job done in the required amount of time (and telling your customer how much time it's going to take) is timeless.
Now, it should be obvious to any reasonable person that 99% of the people who warez down software either can't afford to buy it ...
That it is illegal keeps many people from doing it. Also, should part of a law read "You cannot use software illegally unless you do not profit from it."? That is not a factor in traditional property crimes ... why should it be so in intellectual property crimes?
or are just trying it out and will probably either buy it or decide it's crap and never run it again
I've never understood this argument ... most software packages have demo versions. If they don't, you can usually contact the company and arrange a demo with them. Granted, not every company probably does this, but I'm troubled that this major excuse probably only really applies 5% of the time.
like, having the FBI spend its time on actual threats to public safety rather than warez mavens, most of whom would probably never hurt a fly.
This is an oft-cited argument whenever somebody is pinched for a minor crime. The simple fact of the matter is that much more time is spent on major crimes. However, if law enforcement spent all of their time on major crimes, we still wouldn't solve all of them, and every minor crime would go unpunished. Also, if you consider that this is the first bust in umpteen years, and the feds sound like they're not going to do it again in the near future, they really aren't spending much time on it (relatively speaking).
Also, threats to businesses might not seem like public safety issues. But go to Pittsburgh and tell them that intellectual property and protecting the rights of businesses isn't important. They might disagree. Everybody craps on the rights of businesses, but occasionally they need to be protected from unfair competition for the public good.
I also agree. Especially since the business should pay for it (if you are really telecommuting, per the description). And especially especially because paying two or three times my current subscription rate BUT being able to have more free reign (not blocking port 25, for example) Would Be Wonderful.
Cash was used as an example in response to the original post's supposition that Microsoft didn't really take a hit from losing the software. I was trying to paint the example of a similar event, that is nearly as vicitimless, but seems much more like a real crime.
It isn't a perfect analogy, because I could only use it to illustrate part of what I was trying to say.
That said, here's another one. Say I steal the Mona Lisa but murder ten people getting it. I can't fence it because nobody will take it. It is totally worthless to me because I hate art. The theft is now irrelevant, of course, but I'm trying to illustrate that the value of something after it is stolen vice before is probably only relevant if the value has increased. It is worth that much money to somebody.
If microsoft sells Visual Logo Pro for 10k and you pirate it, you are stealing 10k that microsoft never sees. It doesn't matter whether or not you would have purchased it anyway. It doesn't matter if you never use it. It doesn't matter if microsoft suffers no financial hardship. It doesn't matter if it vaults microsoft to stardom. It's still theft.
Anyway, commercials are good. If there are no commercials, that means that all the stations need to be sponsored by XM. That seems nice, but really leads to homogeneity, and, of course, gives XM control over both content and delivery. What happens when we go through another 1990's and the company realizes that bluegrass accounts for .5% of cost but only .1% of subscribers would quit if it were taken away? Companies kill profitable ventures because they Aren't Profitable Enough.
I'd rather have it transmit at least a few independent stations with commercials and be more assured of programming I enjoy.
I see this as one of the things that really leads to illegal copying. People have no concept of the value of the software they are copying.
However, I don't think that we get to really make that distinction. I don't think the value to the thief is relevant. Somebody could steal my laptop and use it as a paperweight. That doesn't mean they should only be charged with stealing a paperweight.
Plus, stolen goods are, in general, worth far less to the illegal possessor than they were originally.
Although I make the argument that illegally copied software is stolen goods, I don't think that the alleged perpetrators will be charged as such, anyway. The article mentioned maximum sentences of three years and charges of conspiracy and theft of intellectual property. Three years in prison and four years probation is typical for federal convictions of GTA. (here) So they are _not_ being treated as though they really stole millions of dollars in software.
What if the cart of paper happens to be uncut hundred dollar bills worth 20 million dollars?
It isn't so much that the treasury department misses the few thousand dollars it cost to buy the paper and print the bills. The economy wouldn't suffer because there's an extra 20 million in cash floating around. But the thieves still made off with 20 million dollars in cash. You can sit around talking about how the economy doesn't suffer, and how the treasury department didn't suffer, but there's no doubt that the culprits have 20 million extra dollars.
It's kind of the same thing. There is a way of saying "look, microsoft didn't lose any money." But, there's also a way of saying "look, these people have in their posession 20 million dollars worth of software they shouldn't." It doesn't really matter to me whether or not microsoft actually suffered. It is enough that they could potentially suffer. Laws were broken, the pirates have software they did not obtain legally, and they were so proficient and brazen that the FBI actually paid attention to them.
You are right about the microsoft thing being crap, however. :)
"Say Goodbye to 20 years of Network Oppression! "
(crowd cheers)
"And Say Hello to 20 years of SONICBlue Oppression!"
(crowd continues to cheer)
I think one of the points of lifting the prohibitions was that these people have declared war on the united states, said they are willing to die to hurt the us, why not just cut out the middleman and off them?
We have our wires crossed here. I'm referring to the comment on assassinating bin laden. You're referring to the military tribunals. Let me be clear on this : I do not support the assassinations of tourists, exchange students, or immigrant workers (hee hee).
I was not aware that the tribunals were going to be used against those already in the U.S. I think my response would be that those would probably be found unconstitutional. If they were found to be constitutional, then more power to 'em. People that know far more about the law will decide this, rather than me or the bush administration, so I tend not to get too flustered when the government suggests something stupid.
hold it proven: you're mad.
There was an old figher jock saying, something to the effect of "It doesn't matter if you shoot down every MiG in the sky if you come back and find the lead Soviet tank commander having a beer in the officer's mess." There are multiple fronts. The enemy will find the weakest one. If terrorists never hijack another airplane, ever, we will still be in danger from ballistic missiles. The converse (opposite?) is also true. I hate to give you all that "eternal vigilance" crap, but it's very true. For every terrorist attack that happens, we thwart many more. We can't prevent any attack, but to be safe we have to raise the bar as much as we can on all fronts.
That being said, if a foreign country has the capability to launch a missile, it is heck of a lot easier for them to launch it than it is for them to try to smuggle it in. In 10 or 20 years some will probably have that capability. NK shot one over japan a few years ago, remember? :)
No, I'm not a troll, I'm just different from most people on /. I'm even an outcast from geeks.