It depends on the updates. If we're talking about security fixes, sure, those should be free.
If we're talking about a new version of media player (presuming the new version isn't a security patch... ahem), them there's no reason that it need be free.
What'll be fun (not) is when they start charging for MSIE updates.... and you thought browser variations were a pain now... you'd have to detect the educational, pro and enterprise version of IE...
Once upon a time (in the late 90's) some browsers didn't do cookies correctly, and it was in fact possible to see all cookies. This was of course a potential huge security hole, and cookies haven't been trusted since.
Also, ASP session cookies didn't work really well across load balancers. This problem has largely been relieved by LBs that are smart enough to do persistence (send the same machine the cookie over and over). Of course, if the actual web server dies, the session is lost.
If the web developer is stupid and puts usernames/passwords in cookies, he should be struck with a large O'Reilly book as punishment...
Unfortunately, trespass only applies if you have previously told someone to get out. i.e. I can walk onto your lawn and have lunch, until you tell me to leave (or post a sign to that effect), it is not trespass.
Also, it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence, in a legal sense
The system doesn't always work the way it is supposed to, but I was addressing the previous post. The cynicism is appreciated, but sometimes wisdom lies on the far side of attitude...
As I recall, the requirements to be found negligent are that you:
1) have a reasonable responsibility to prevent the act 2) have a reasonable ability to do the same
This is why, when a kid drowns in the pool at a BBQ, the owner (who knew people were in the pool) is _much_ more likely to be charged than if someone climbed the fence at night and drowned.
Alternately, if I (6'5" 270) failed to rescue a 5'1" woman from the same pool, I could be liable, in that I had ability to help her. But there's no way she could rescue me in the same fashion, and thus would be fairly safe from prosecution.
That's the point though, that guilt has to be proven.
This is not to say that innocent people don't get convicted, or that not defending yourself is a good idea. These are implications of a system populated by imprecise people (read: everyone). But innocence is supposed to be assumed.
That is correct. Now, if a mechanical failure occured and he accidently ran someone over, you would probably be held negligent; Your failure to act directly caused the problem, y'know?
You cannot be an unknowing accomplice. At worst, you could be negligent, but that would require that you knew the roommate was likely to do it, and you had the ability to stop him/her.
If you foolishly leave a gun out in the open, and someone uses it, you are NOT guilty of murder/homicide. If a kid did it, you'd probably go to jail for negligence (you are responsible for the kid). If someone broke into a place where you had a reasonable expectation of security (i.e. your house), it's doubtful you'd go to jail.
No, they have evidence that the gun killed the cashier, that's it. While it is more likely that you did it than the other 6 billion people on the planet, this isn't enough evidence to arrest, much less convict.
Also, it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence, in a legal sense (in the U.S., excluding military trials)
Re:The Superiority of PHP over Perl
on
Perl 6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
Indeed. I think we need a corrolary to the 'he who invokes Nazis loses' rule...
An attempted play on words, with an inappropriate metaphor, doesn't prove anything.
I assure you I've been called worse than stupid, or moron. However, being older than 8 years old, it doesn't bother me. I was trying to consider the issue in a realistic environment, not a 'ideal' one. Unless you have something worthwile to contribute, perhaps you should STFU, hmm?
Ah, I see. OK, I'd agree that uber-vague/general patents are bad. I just see so many folks here demonizing anything that makes money, that it's getting pretty old.
I can appreciate the ideal-world spirit of the desire to have no patents, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't jibe with a capitalistic economic model, and capitalism seems to be the most effective model out there right now.
Currently cheaper, yes. Given economies of scale, and adding in the cost of cleaning up dumping grounds full of poisonous metals, the answer might be different.
It is a little different burying paper/food waste vs. electronics. The paper/food will break down fairly harmlessly, but electronics have all kinds of nasties (arsenic, lead, a bunch of stuff I can't spell) that can easily leach into the water supply.
Besides, it's expensive getting metals out of the earth (as in mining them). Doesn't it make more sense to save money and recycle them?
I find myself alternating between psycho busy and doing nothing for weeks because mgmt. is busy in 'tech-o-the-month' decisions, and we keep getting all our projects put on hold until the 'next big thing' is deployed...
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the updates. If we're talking about security fixes, sure, those should be free.
If we're talking about a new version of media player (presuming the new version isn't a security patch... ahem), them there's no reason that it need be free.
What'll be fun (not) is when they start charging for MSIE updates.... and you thought browser variations were a pain now... you'd have to detect the educational, pro and enterprise version of IE...
Well, if your company employes many people, and a serious fubar will put them (and yourself) out of work, a conservative attitude makes sense.
Once upon a time (in the late 90's) some browsers didn't do cookies correctly, and it was in fact possible to see all cookies. This was of course a potential huge security hole, and cookies haven't been trusted since.
Also, ASP session cookies didn't work really well across load balancers. This problem has largely been relieved by LBs that are smart enough to do persistence (send the same machine the cookie over and over). Of course, if the actual web server dies, the session is lost.
If the web developer is stupid and puts usernames/passwords in cookies, he should be struck with a large O'Reilly book as punishment...
Well, physics kill them, but I'm not gonna drag Sire Newton into this too :)
Unfortunately, trespass only applies if you have previously told someone to get out. i.e. I can walk onto your lawn and have lunch, until you tell me to leave (or post a sign to that effect), it is not trespass.
my bad, you are correct sir/ma'am!
I speak precisely, read precisely OK?
Also, it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence, in a legal sense
The system doesn't always work the way it is supposed to, but I was addressing the previous post. The cynicism is appreciated, but sometimes wisdom lies on the far side of attitude...
As I recall, the requirements to be found negligent are that you:
1) have a reasonable responsibility to prevent the act
2) have a reasonable ability to do the same
This is why, when a kid drowns in the pool at a BBQ, the owner (who knew people were in the pool) is _much_ more likely to be charged than if someone climbed the fence at night and drowned.
Alternately, if I (6'5" 270) failed to rescue a 5'1" woman from the same pool, I could be liable, in that I had ability to help her. But there's no way she could rescue me in the same fashion, and thus would be fairly safe from prosecution.
That's the point though, that guilt has to be proven.
This is not to say that innocent people don't get convicted, or that not defending yourself is a good idea. These are implications of a system populated by imprecise people (read: everyone). But innocence is supposed to be assumed.
That is correct. Now, if a mechanical failure occured and he accidently ran someone over, you would probably be held negligent; Your failure to act directly caused the problem, y'know?
You cannot be an unknowing accomplice. At worst, you could be negligent, but that would require that you knew the roommate was likely to do it, and you had the ability to stop him/her.
If you foolishly leave a gun out in the open, and someone uses it, you are NOT guilty of murder/homicide. If a kid did it, you'd probably go to jail for negligence (you are responsible for the kid). If someone broke into a place where you had a reasonable expectation of security (i.e. your house), it's doubtful you'd go to jail.
No, they have evidence that the gun killed the cashier, that's it. While it is more likely that you did it than the other 6 billion people on the planet, this isn't enough evidence to arrest, much less convict.
Also, it is NEVER up to the accused to prove innocence, in a legal sense (in the U.S., excluding military trials)
No, only the really clever stuff does...
Question: is it dark under your bridge, troll?
Absolutely maximizing it is not possible, given a (relatively) free society. I think going for 70% or so is reasonable, though.
Ah, see... not everyone agrees. It's the heart of this 'discussion' concept.
You might do better in understanding contrary viewpoints if you do not just dismiss them as stupid, you know.
Indeed. I think we need a corrolary to the 'he who invokes Nazis loses' rule...
An attempted play on words, with an inappropriate metaphor, doesn't prove anything.
I assure you I've been called worse than stupid, or moron. However, being older than 8 years old, it doesn't bother me. I was trying to consider the issue in a realistic environment, not a 'ideal' one. Unless you have something worthwile to contribute, perhaps you should STFU, hmm?
Ah, I see. OK, I'd agree that uber-vague/general patents are bad. I just see so many folks here demonizing anything that makes money, that it's getting pretty old.
Thanks for the intelligent response!
Quoth the article:
Though InterTrust declines to place a pricetag on the suit, it's hard to imagine the company settling now for any sum that does not have a "B" in it.
So? 5 Bucks isn't that impressive...
I can appreciate the ideal-world spirit of the desire to have no patents, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't jibe with a capitalistic economic model, and capitalism seems to be the most effective model out there right now.
This seems to be a common opinion 'round here. Why exactly are patents so evil?
Currently cheaper, yes. Given economies of scale, and adding in the cost of cleaning up dumping grounds full of poisonous metals, the answer might be different.
It is a little different burying paper/food waste vs. electronics. The paper/food will break down fairly harmlessly, but electronics have all kinds of nasties (arsenic, lead, a bunch of stuff I can't spell) that can easily leach into the water supply.
Besides, it's expensive getting metals out of the earth (as in mining them). Doesn't it make more sense to save money and recycle them?
I'm not entirely sure I agree. There doesn't seem to be a dearth of folks who know the 'manage by information-week' technique....
I find myself alternating between psycho busy and doing nothing for weeks because mgmt. is busy in 'tech-o-the-month' decisions, and we keep getting all our projects put on hold until the 'next big thing' is deployed...
I'd MUCH rather be busy, personally.