I don't hate the idea... so long it isn't the only way to obtain music. Sometimes I get a song stuck in my head and I only want to hear it once or twice, then forget about it for another few years. That's worth the $0.20 so that I don't have to hunt for a torrent or other file sharing media... and wait. But make no mistake; This is no alternative for being able to purchase a whole, unencumbered album that I can listen to indefinitely.
I don't necessarily disagree about it not being perfect as how I described it/how it exists. I have no done such myself, but I do want to. I have rarely released any of my work to the public, and even when I have, the source never followed. But when it comes down to it, some of the code I have been working on and refining over and over for... well some projects, a span of 10 or so years. Now, that doesn't mean that it is 10 years worth of work that I would put a ransom on that would equate to 10 years of labored pay, but I will certainly insist that if it becomes free to the world to stand on my shoulders, then I get to set the price. And if it is never met, then I don't have to let something go that could likely be one of my masterpieces.
The details of keeping track of who donated what to where is inconsequential to me. I'd be happy to pick up the most fair system that I can find when I need it. Personally, I want to be open as possible about it. I want people to see how many people have donated, and how much. I want someone to be able to publicly burn me at the stake if I am ripping the whole system off. Ultimately, that has nothing to do with me wishing only to get what I feel my my work is worth.
Personally, I like the Ransomware model. You give away the end result of your work (application, dynamic library, whatever) away for free, and you put a price on your actual work (source code). You let donations come in per project, and when it hits your goal, it gets released with whatever open source license (you probably want to specify which before you start accepting). If you application is good, and your code behind it is potentially useful, I've seen a couple of instances where a larger corp would pay the whole ransom in one throw, just so they could have the code.
You know what? I am sick and tired of hearing this kind of bullshit. Just because something is free doesn't mean they have the right to misrepresent themselves. Would it be ok if the soup line at the homeless shelter served dog shit? Would it be ok if the welfare system only gave you coupons for fried chicken because you are a "stupid nigger"? WOULD IT BE OK if the lifeguards didn't use the toilet, but pissed in your community swimming pool? No. Just because something is free doesn't give anyone the right to renig on their policies, to offer flat out bad products. And honestly, even if that WERE the case, piss on you. I have just as much right to bitch about it.
I would like to incorporate into my backup routine, a way of verifying the integrity of each file, so that I can immediately identify and replace with a backed-up version, any that might become corrupted.
There is no article to NOT read here, buddy. And PAR(2) could be the worst suggestion for such a situation as I have ever heard. Parity is meant to work over a finite set of data. This guy has variable amounts of PDF's. You just added a layer of complexity (you'd need to somehow define "sets" of PDF's), just to shoehorn in a solution that doesn't even do what he originally wanted.
Their concern isn't actually piracy in this regard. They don't want some CAD operator to sell a two-version-old-Autocad for $5 to someone who needs a CAD package. Instead they want that person who needs it to spend multitudes of money on a brand-spanking-new copy.
I can surely attest to this. While in school for CS, I was a junior administrator in the MIS department, doing things like... well, everything that went wrong on the computer network. We dreaded when anything went wrong with Autocad. It was a bloody nightmare. Dongles would just stop working and their customer support would pretty much tell us that we were lying and trying to pirate the software. And it was like talking to a brick wall. No amount of sales receipts or serial numbers mattered. They didn't even care. Their solution every single time was to "Buy a new copy".
On top of that, upgrading almost never worked. It got to the point where an upgrade to Autocad meant loading up a new system image, then installing it first before anything else.
And how bloody terrible is the system then? I mean, this guy, out in the open said, "Steal my identity. Here is my social security number...". THEN it got stolen. Not only did it get stolen, but the publicity of it being stolen is pretty encompassing. AND THEY STILL can't stop people from using it. Seriously... it is free money. And apparently there is NOTHING you can do to stop people from taking it. You can slow them down, possibly... but if they want it, you can't stop them. It is almost like the system is set up this way deliberately.
Seriously. Think about it. It was a game meant to teach the youngins. I doubt much time, if any at all, was put into security considerations for the code. It may work great as a game, but be a horrible vector for anyone who wants to exploit a schools computer systems. And if distribution met its goal, practically every school would have this somewhere. This is one case where keeping the source closed makes sense. And you can't tell me "the issues would be fixed if it was just open source". It is taking too long as it is to get to the schools. Imagine someone finding a bug, and somehow through magic there is a whole trusted system of which this patch will get reviewed and distributed back to the schools, and have them actually update all copies. It just won't happen that way. Obscurity may be bad security, but it is better than potentially giving the assailant the club to beat you to death.
It is definitely the stereotypical mislead, but I don't think it is of the context which you infer (meaning, I don't think the submitter is the friend). Let's take a closer look:
A friend asked me about the best programs to detect and remove spyware/logging/monitoring software that might have been placed on her computer by a spouse.
When trying to be vague, as this person is, the whole "on her computer by a spouse" is really too much information. Should we really care that it was the spouse? Isn't it equally relevant to replace "spouse" with "mail man", "nurse", "escaped gorilla"? So that can imply that since the submitter felt that the "spouse" part was important, when actually it isn't, that the relationship between the submitter and alleged friend/offender is probably more personal... like, the friend is cheating on the "spouse" with the submitter, and they have a feeling that the "spouse" knows.
I will agree with this, but add one more note. You are selling them INFORMATION that you compile from YOUR data... you are not selling the data itself. I have had this conversations with clients many times.
That isn't how the whole music industry works. When any random band signs a typical contract with the "Big Nasty", they essentially own your soul. They own the music, possibly the band name, and likely the logo and art that go along with it... and they have the right to do pretty much anything they want with it. They are a predatory bunch. Imagine all of this, and THEN finding out that YOUR on the hook for production costs of your albums too. It should be a crime. Unfortunately, they have more money than God.
Not to side with the RIAA and similar, but wouldn't you figure, if they have the power to use a copyright of a given item to sue you, that they also have the legal right to "distribute" said copyrighted material?
Yeah... not to mention the poor folks running OpenSSH on a 70mhz microsparc II (looking at you sparcstation 5). It literally takes HOURS to (re)generate SSH keys.
See, I think that this has been going on all along... since the days when you were connecting to the interwebs on your 9600 baud modem, using Netscape 1.1, your ISP has been looking at what you were doing. But the difference is, back then they didn't know what to do with it. No one ever even thought about it, let alone giving it a second thought, because they weren't doing anything with it.
Now they want to put ads in your data streams. Now they want to sell your surfing information to anyone who will buy it. People are starting to realize the situation, and even starting to encrypt their traffic. So now the big boys are countering with an even bigger gun.
In the beginning, we all had wooden spears and rocks. Now there is an arms race to see who can come up with the BFG first.
Wait a second... you are telling me that the tag indicating that a story is from Roland, was removed, completely killing any sort of filtering feature that made tagging good in the first place, because you DON'T want someone bitching that the story is posted by Roland?
Jesus fucking christ. I must have slid into a really messed up universe this time. Maybe it is to my advantage though. Perhaps they also make cars here really cheap so I won't buy them!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't hate the idea... so long it isn't the only way to obtain music. Sometimes I get a song stuck in my head and I only want to hear it once or twice, then forget about it for another few years. That's worth the $0.20 so that I don't have to hunt for a torrent or other file sharing media... and wait. But make no mistake; This is no alternative for being able to purchase a whole, unencumbered album that I can listen to indefinitely.
I don't necessarily disagree about it not being perfect as how I described it/how it exists. I have no done such myself, but I do want to. I have rarely released any of my work to the public, and even when I have, the source never followed. But when it comes down to it, some of the code I have been working on and refining over and over for... well some projects, a span of 10 or so years. Now, that doesn't mean that it is 10 years worth of work that I would put a ransom on that would equate to 10 years of labored pay, but I will certainly insist that if it becomes free to the world to stand on my shoulders, then I get to set the price. And if it is never met, then I don't have to let something go that could likely be one of my masterpieces.
The details of keeping track of who donated what to where is inconsequential to me. I'd be happy to pick up the most fair system that I can find when I need it. Personally, I want to be open as possible about it. I want people to see how many people have donated, and how much. I want someone to be able to publicly burn me at the stake if I am ripping the whole system off. Ultimately, that has nothing to do with me wishing only to get what I feel my my work is worth.
Personally, I like the Ransomware model. You give away the end result of your work (application, dynamic library, whatever) away for free, and you put a price on your actual work (source code). You let donations come in per project, and when it hits your goal, it gets released with whatever open source license (you probably want to specify which before you start accepting). If you application is good, and your code behind it is potentially useful, I've seen a couple of instances where a larger corp would pay the whole ransom in one throw, just so they could have the code.
Not only is this TERRIBLY stupid, but it is a complete ripoff of this other guy's video who I guarantee came up with this first.
You know what? I am sick and tired of hearing this kind of bullshit. Just because something is free doesn't mean they have the right to misrepresent themselves. Would it be ok if the soup line at the homeless shelter served dog shit? Would it be ok if the welfare system only gave you coupons for fried chicken because you are a "stupid nigger"? WOULD IT BE OK if the lifeguards didn't use the toilet, but pissed in your community swimming pool? No. Just because something is free doesn't give anyone the right to renig on their policies, to offer flat out bad products. And honestly, even if that WERE the case, piss on you. I have just as much right to bitch about it.
I would like to incorporate into my backup routine, a way of verifying the integrity of each file, so that I can immediately identify and replace with a backed-up version, any that might become corrupted.
There is no article to NOT read here, buddy. And PAR(2) could be the worst suggestion for such a situation as I have ever heard. Parity is meant to work over a finite set of data. This guy has variable amounts of PDF's. You just added a layer of complexity (you'd need to somehow define "sets" of PDF's), just to shoehorn in a solution that doesn't even do what he originally wanted.
You sir, fail the class.
Their concern isn't actually piracy in this regard. They don't want some CAD operator to sell a two-version-old-Autocad for $5 to someone who needs a CAD package. Instead they want that person who needs it to spend multitudes of money on a brand-spanking-new copy.
I can surely attest to this. While in school for CS, I was a junior administrator in the MIS department, doing things like... well, everything that went wrong on the computer network. We dreaded when anything went wrong with Autocad. It was a bloody nightmare. Dongles would just stop working and their customer support would pretty much tell us that we were lying and trying to pirate the software. And it was like talking to a brick wall. No amount of sales receipts or serial numbers mattered. They didn't even care. Their solution every single time was to "Buy a new copy".
On top of that, upgrading almost never worked. It got to the point where an upgrade to Autocad meant loading up a new system image, then installing it first before anything else.
And how bloody terrible is the system then? I mean, this guy, out in the open said, "Steal my identity. Here is my social security number ...". THEN it got stolen. Not only did it get stolen, but the publicity of it being stolen is pretty encompassing. AND THEY STILL can't stop people from using it. Seriously... it is free money. And apparently there is NOTHING you can do to stop people from taking it. You can slow them down, possibly... but if they want it, you can't stop them. It is almost like the system is set up this way deliberately.
We require more vespene gas
Actually, I have found that just smoking more crack on the days that I eat McDonalds solves the problem~
Seriously. Think about it. It was a game meant to teach the youngins. I doubt much time, if any at all, was put into security considerations for the code. It may work great as a game, but be a horrible vector for anyone who wants to exploit a schools computer systems. And if distribution met its goal, practically every school would have this somewhere. This is one case where keeping the source closed makes sense. And you can't tell me "the issues would be fixed if it was just open source". It is taking too long as it is to get to the schools. Imagine someone finding a bug, and somehow through magic there is a whole trusted system of which this patch will get reviewed and distributed back to the schools, and have them actually update all copies. It just won't happen that way. Obscurity may be bad security, but it is better than potentially giving the assailant the club to beat you to death.
It isn't really science if you keep the secrets of your techniques locked up, and don't allow others to see/understand what you're doing
I'm sure the casualties of Hiroshima would likely disagree
they are vector machines
Yeah, I like vectors. Takes all of the hard work of having a dynamic-sized array of thingies.
It is definitely the stereotypical mislead, but I don't think it is of the context which you infer (meaning, I don't think the submitter is the friend). Let's take a closer look:
A friend asked me about the best programs to detect and remove spyware/logging/monitoring software that might have been placed on her computer by a spouse.
When trying to be vague, as this person is, the whole "on her computer by a spouse" is really too much information. Should we really care that it was the spouse? Isn't it equally relevant to replace "spouse" with "mail man", "nurse", "escaped gorilla"? So that can imply that since the submitter felt that the "spouse" part was important, when actually it isn't, that the relationship between the submitter and alleged friend/offender is probably more personal... like, the friend is cheating on the "spouse" with the submitter, and they have a feeling that the "spouse" knows.
Except, I'll pay my car mechanic. Hey if you want, you can PAY ME, and I'll work on E17.
Then get to it, damnit.
Video Games.
Battery life.
I will agree with this, but add one more note. You are selling them INFORMATION that you compile from YOUR data... you are not selling the data itself. I have had this conversations with clients many times.
That isn't how the whole music industry works. When any random band signs a typical contract with the "Big Nasty", they essentially own your soul. They own the music, possibly the band name, and likely the logo and art that go along with it... and they have the right to do pretty much anything they want with it. They are a predatory bunch. Imagine all of this, and THEN finding out that YOUR on the hook for production costs of your albums too. It should be a crime. Unfortunately, they have more money than God.
Not to side with the RIAA and similar, but wouldn't you figure, if they have the power to use a copyright of a given item to sue you, that they also have the legal right to "distribute" said copyrighted material?
Yeah... not to mention the poor folks running OpenSSH on a 70mhz microsparc II (looking at you sparcstation 5). It literally takes HOURS to (re)generate SSH keys.
See, I think that this has been going on all along... since the days when you were connecting to the interwebs on your 9600 baud modem, using Netscape 1.1, your ISP has been looking at what you were doing. But the difference is, back then they didn't know what to do with it. No one ever even thought about it, let alone giving it a second thought, because they weren't doing anything with it.
Now they want to put ads in your data streams. Now they want to sell your surfing information to anyone who will buy it. People are starting to realize the situation, and even starting to encrypt their traffic. So now the big boys are countering with an even bigger gun.
In the beginning, we all had wooden spears and rocks. Now there is an arms race to see who can come up with the BFG first.
Wait a second... you are telling me that the tag indicating that a story is from Roland, was removed, completely killing any sort of filtering feature that made tagging good in the first place, because you DON'T want someone bitching that the story is posted by Roland?
Jesus fucking christ. I must have slid into a really messed up universe this time. Maybe it is to my advantage though. Perhaps they also make cars here really cheap so I won't buy them!