Software engineers aren't interested in "a nasty grubby unmaintainable hack" because they know that in the long run it will do more harm than good.
Then Software Engineers aren't interested in having a job sometimes. Seriously, every project I was on when I worked in the industry that came in under budget was because we gave the client what they wanted for what they could afford.
Every project that came in over budget was because we gave the client what we wanted for a price they couldn't afford.
We spent a lot of time doing it the "right way" instead of the smart, just get it to work" way. Of course, I worked in an industry (web development) where everything is going to get torn down and rebuilt in two years anyway, so hacks that work and are cheap are a much better solution than a late delivery of something "done right" that will only be alive for another year. This does not apply of course to CS fields where lives are on the line or programs expect to live for 20 years.
Because I really don't understand finite state automata then
After reviewing FSAs via google (it's been about 7 years since Theory of Comp) it is apparently true: I do not understand FSAs (or at least I had forgotten). Double crud.
So how does this work? I mean I have a CS degree but I'm obviously a dope. Do I still get counted in the population?
I've only called them once, so I can only speak to the helpfulness of this employee. How much credit your give for "We support OS X" is up to you.
Despite my current loathing of RCN, of the dozen or so times I have called their tech support, roughly half the calls have been with an experienced, knowledgeable techie. Too bad their finance department doesn't know the definition of "cusomer service."
I had a bitch of a time getting Comcast modem set up under WinXP. After calling comcast and having them troubleshoot it for 20 minutes, during a reboot I said "it's too bad you guys don't support set up under Macs." The tech replied, "what do you mean? Sure we do." "Yeah, but not OS X, right?" "No, we support 9 and X." Popped the disc in my iBook, 1, 2, 3 done. Much easier than my Win machine.
I searched for firmware upgrade info and I couldn't find much. Mostly it was people saying that they had to take it into a store to do and it didn't fix anything. I'd love to do this, so do you know the easiest way to upgrade? Thanks for the info.
Seriously, I'm still using my t68i as a BT modem with T-Mobile's unlimited GPRS and I won't switch till there is a decent BT phone/PDA combo (treo 610 pleaseohpleaseohplease, maybe the new iPaq 6315).
Name calling. Cute. Good way to have a discussion. And as an AC. Very brave of you.
You may think so, but the dictionary would disagree.
The definitions I find for "theft" are:
the act of taking something from someone unlawfully
Any act of stealing. Theft includes larceny, burglary and robbery.
his is the common word for "acts of stealing." There is no precise meaning in law.
The willful taking of one person's property by another, wrongfully. To recover indemnity, an intent permanently to deprive the owner of his/her property need not be established for there to be a theft
Happy? I can find whatever definition I want to suit my needs too, from a dozen different sources, including one that directly contradicts yours. Your dictionary against mine.
people don't have a problem with copyright infringement as they do with theft (see napster again)
Not all people used Napster because it was "ok" to download. My friend even said "Yeah it's wrong, but it's free." Them getting something for nothing outweighed having to pay for it, despite possible legal repercussions. That doesn't make it ok in the moral or the legal sense.
Not all crimes are equal in people's eyes. Should we equate child molesters with jaywalkers? After all, they are all actionable.
I never said all crimes were equal. But theft as a general term, in everyday discussion, is sufficient to cover copyright infringement. Instead of the assinine examples you provided, the queston should be "would I say all murders commited homicide?" to which the answer is "yes." You can consult the dictionary on that one.
Obviously these people have a lack of the true and absolute morals that you hold, and you must teach them.
No, Congress has taught them. By passing laws against it. It has nothing to do with my morals.
So you have to wonder, if the majority of the citizens do not feel that something is wrong, why is it illegal?
I'm sure many southerners felt the same way after the Civil Rights legislature was passed. I mean, they all hated the blacks, right? Why should it be illegal now to hang them? A point from my last post you neglected to dispute.
You're obvisiously incapable of agreeing to disagree. Instead you throw insults and use ridiculous analogies. gg. I'm done. Wasting further time on you is pointless. You have your opinion, I have mine.
Actually, I claimed theft was not something a person is generally charged with, they are charged with larceny. Like they are not charged with homicide, they are charged with muder in the first degree or manslaughter. What it is called is determined by the state.
then lets see what the dictionary has to say about theft:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
First, I am not claiming theft and copyright infringement are the same. I am asking why people get bent out of shape about confusing the two. Secondly, I think "theft" is an appropriate term for what infringers do. Legalese aside, they are taking something they do not have the right to take. That is theft. Is jumping on your neighbor's wireless connection not theft? The electrons that make up the signal are not "personal property." You're not removing the connection? Legally speaking it is probably trespass to chattels, but are you not taking something that does not belong to you and not paying for it?
But back to the point, are you not depriving the copyright owner of the right to the income from the sale of the game? Piracy is not acceptable to the general public, for the very reason you making a point of: people do not know that copyright infringment is wrong. Real property vs. Intellectual Property aruments aside, you are using a creative work not in the manner allowed by the creator. You are shafting them out of their cut from their work. The public is dumb and saying that because they "think" it is ok does not make it so. Christ, stringing up black people in the back yard was acceptable to people for a while, but does that mean it was ok to do so??
Copyright infringers should have the negative stigma attached to thieves because the Congress has enacted statutes making it actionable. Do slanderists, negligent ski lift operators, and companies that sell defective products not deserve the same stigmas as criminals?? All of those actions are torts, not crimes. Yet we the people hold them accountable. Christ, that's what half the people here bitching about corporations are complaining about! That the torts these corporations commit are not treated as severly as crimes!
We get pissed because we don't like being called criminals, when, legally, we are not, we are people who have commited a civil offense.You're entirely correct. There is a legal difference. But I just don't see what the big deal is. People that commit copyright infringement are acting in a way that Congress has deemed actionable by violation of statute. Where's the real difference, the one applicable to everyday joes, not the academic difference, other than one will send you to jail and the other will not?
Your basing your argument on the title of a game. C'mon. I'll entertain it though.
Grand Theft Auto is not found in Black's Law Dictionary. Grand Larceny is though. My guess is that people are charged with Grand Larceny, but the "street" term used by police and criminals is GTA. But that's just my guess.
Because they are not the same thing. You can only steal a noun. Since information is neither person nor place nor thing it cannot be stealing or thievery.
Oi ve. First you describe Doom 3 as an "it," then go on to say you can only steal a noun. Well if "it" isn't a pronoun used for nouns, I don't know what is.
Look, yes, if someone was caught downloading it, they would be charged with copyright infringement. But on the flip side, no one is charged with "theft." They are charged with larceny or embezzelment or one of the various other versions of "theft." It's like homicide and murder. Just because no one is charged with "homicide" when they commit a murder does not mean they did not commit a homicide.
I honestly don't understand why people like you get bent out of shape when people call infringers thieves. I mean really, what do you gain out of correcting them?
I mean would it make you really happier if they used "copyright infringer" to describe people that download games/music? Would you appreciate the moniker "tortfeasor" since that's what they are? Does it make what they do any more acceptable?
It doesn't speak highly of a persons intelligence if...
...they argue anything on slashdot because half the people here don't know what they are talking about. At all. Including me.
We have to unravel the legal framework that has come to define what corporations are. Exactly how to do this???? Well, you tell me =)
Sarbanes-Oxley. Here's a blog about it at Gartner. Basically Sarbanes-Oxley makes CEOs liable for the actions of the company. Though this does not redefine the corporation as a citizen, it does hold someone criminally accountable for the actions of the corp. It was in response to Enron at all and severly weaked the coporation as an entity that can act wantonly.
Wow. I never thought of it that way. Very interesting point about compelling others to help out the needy.
See, my big beef with pro-lifers is that they are telling women what they can do (all christian "when does life begin" stuff aside). Being pro-choice for me has ALWAYS been about "Do what you want to do, but do NOT tell me (well my wife/gf/so) what to do."
However, I've always felt that everyone (the rich) should help out the everyone (the poor). It just seemed like it should be done and thus I've always leaned to the Democratic side (though I am loathe to affiliate myself with a party, because I don't think along party lines). But what you've said is exactly what I've been doing: The rich should be compelled to help out the poor. And when you put it that way, it doesn't really seem right. Just because I think the super rich should help out the poor doesn't give me the right to tell them what to do with their money.
Can you really keep a patent if someone else provably got the idea before you filled for a patent?
Yes and no. The idea is that the claim you make that you invented something someone else filed a patent on has to be based on fact. You must be able to provide documents like dated lab manuals or whatnot that "prove" you really did invent the
invention first.
What is to prevent people from patenting other peoples ideas?
If they can prove that the filing you have is, and I forget the term actually used, in bad faith, then your patent is unenforceable (which is worse than being invalid). But the kicker is proving it and bascially is a lawsuit to get at that information.
How would they proved that they had the idea first, beyond saying "yes we did", if they did not publish it?
See above about lab manuals. Publishing will _never_ help you acquire patent rights. The best you can do is publish a technology someone else is trying to patent and hope that they don't have something on file yet (and that they cannot swear behind your publication).
Too bad a couple months doesn't cut the mustard. To have truly solid prior art, it has to be over a year before the patent was filed in the U.S. Otherwise, the inventor can swear behind the disclosure, saying that they invented it before the disclosure occurred. This is not the case in the EU. There, disclosure destroys patent rights.
Though ProCD is for the sale of a commercial product, it deals with the license accompanying the product and we all know, "you can make money off of GPL'ed code."
No. A licence is a unilateral grant of permission from one party to another. A contract is bilateral: both parties agree to provide something to the other.
Not necessarily true. Typically, a licensor gets money in return for use of their IP, phone lines, whatever. The GPL is a little different because it is two pronged: there is use and distribution (and it does not ask for monetary compensation). When you use the code in your development, you must make the source code available (to those that purchase, whatever) if you in turn distribute your code. You are not free to not make it available (as is the case with the BSD license). Licensing holy wars aside, you are giving up your rights, which is legal "consideration" (your part of the bilateral agreement), to NOT distribute the code. This is the very point behind the enforceability of the GPL. One side is making good on their promise and the other is not.
However, you raise a good point if the BSD license is considered since something does not readily jump to mind as the return promise (contracts require a promise and consideration, the consideration being a return promise or performance).
IIRC, the basic difference between the two is in the penalties for failing to comply with the license or contract. If you fail to comply with a license the only real penalty is loss of the privleges granted by the license. If you fail to comply with a contract, there are various penalties (usually defined within the contract itself.)
ProCD, taught in every first year Contracts course in law school. From the decision (first sentence under II):
"Following the district court, we treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code"
The next sentence, "Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day," has yet to be tried, and therefor this case is still authority.
Maybe once America (the majority that is) can no longer record/TiVo COPS or Jerry Springer reruns without personally asking a Fox customer service rep each time they want to do so, they'll wake the hell up to all the bullshit big media companies are pulling in DC. I hope this passes and people realize that they've been asleep at the democratic wheel and vote every Senator (D) for Disney, (R) for RIAA out of office.
Or better yet, we'll realize that we watch too much TV anyway and start reading some damn books again.
That's rich. What do you think a license is? It's a contract between parties about the permissions granted by one party (licensor) to the other (licensee).
Slashdot Mirror
Then Software Engineers aren't interested in having a job sometimes. Seriously, every project I was on when I worked in the industry that came in under budget was because we gave the client what they wanted for what they could afford.
Every project that came in over budget was because we gave the client what we wanted for a price they couldn't afford.
We spent a lot of time doing it the "right way" instead of the smart, just get it to work" way. Of course, I worked in an industry (web development) where everything is going to get torn down and rebuilt in two years anyway, so hacks that work and are cheap are a much better solution than a late delivery of something "done right" that will only be alive for another year. This does not apply of course to CS fields where lives are on the line or programs expect to live for 20 years.
-truth
After reviewing FSAs via google (it's been about 7 years since Theory of Comp) it is apparently true: I do not understand FSAs (or at least I had forgotten). Double crud.
So how does this work? I mean I have a CS degree but I'm obviously a dope. Do I still get counted in the population?
-truth
Despite my current loathing of RCN, of the dozen or so times I have called their tech support, roughly half the calls have been with an experienced, knowledgeable techie. Too bad their finance department doesn't know the definition of "cusomer service."
-truth
Really? Because I really don't understand finite state automata then. Crud. :-)
-truth
-truth
-truth
-truth
Seriously, I'm still using my t68i as a BT modem with T-Mobile's unlimited GPRS and I won't switch till there is a decent BT phone/PDA combo (treo 610 pleaseohpleaseohplease, maybe the new iPaq 6315).
The t68i's interface is dog slow though.
-truth
Name calling. Cute. Good way to have a discussion. And as an AC. Very brave of you.
You may think so, but the dictionary would disagree.
The definitions I find for "theft" are:
- the act of taking something from someone unlawfully
- Any act of stealing. Theft includes larceny, burglary and robbery.
- his is the common word for "acts of stealing." There is no precise meaning in law.
- The willful taking of one person's property by another, wrongfully. To recover indemnity, an intent permanently to deprive the owner of his/her property need not be established for there to be a theft
Happy? I can find whatever definition I want to suit my needs too, from a dozen different sources, including one that directly contradicts yours. Your dictionary against mine.people don't have a problem with copyright infringement as they do with theft (see napster again)
Not all people used Napster because it was "ok" to download. My friend even said "Yeah it's wrong, but it's free." Them getting something for nothing outweighed having to pay for it, despite possible legal repercussions. That doesn't make it ok in the moral or the legal sense.
Not all crimes are equal in people's eyes. Should we equate child molesters with jaywalkers? After all, they are all actionable.
I never said all crimes were equal. But theft as a general term, in everyday discussion, is sufficient to cover copyright infringement. Instead of the assinine examples you provided, the queston should be "would I say all murders commited homicide?" to which the answer is "yes." You can consult the dictionary on that one.
Obviously these people have a lack of the true and absolute morals that you hold, and you must teach them.
No, Congress has taught them. By passing laws against it. It has nothing to do with my morals.
So you have to wonder, if the majority of the citizens do not feel that something is wrong, why is it illegal?
I'm sure many southerners felt the same way after the Civil Rights legislature was passed. I mean, they all hated the blacks, right? Why should it be illegal now to hang them? A point from my last post you neglected to dispute.
You're obvisiously incapable of agreeing to disagree. Instead you throw insults and use ridiculous analogies. gg. I'm done. Wasting further time on you is pointless. You have your opinion, I have mine.
-truth
Actually, I claimed theft was not something a person is generally charged with, they are charged with larceny. Like they are not charged with homicide, they are charged with muder in the first degree or manslaughter. What it is called is determined by the state.
then lets see what the dictionary has to say about theft:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
First, I am not claiming theft and copyright infringement are the same. I am asking why people get bent out of shape about confusing the two. Secondly, I think "theft" is an appropriate term for what infringers do. Legalese aside, they are taking something they do not have the right to take. That is theft. Is jumping on your neighbor's wireless connection not theft? The electrons that make up the signal are not "personal property." You're not removing the connection? Legally speaking it is probably trespass to chattels, but are you not taking something that does not belong to you and not paying for it?
But back to the point, are you not depriving the copyright owner of the right to the income from the sale of the game? Piracy is not acceptable to the general public, for the very reason you making a point of: people do not know that copyright infringment is wrong. Real property vs. Intellectual Property aruments aside, you are using a creative work not in the manner allowed by the creator. You are shafting them out of their cut from their work. The public is dumb and saying that because they "think" it is ok does not make it so. Christ, stringing up black people in the back yard was acceptable to people for a while, but does that mean it was ok to do so??
Copyright infringers should have the negative stigma attached to thieves because the Congress has enacted statutes making it actionable. Do slanderists, negligent ski lift operators, and companies that sell defective products not deserve the same stigmas as criminals?? All of those actions are torts, not crimes. Yet we the people hold them accountable. Christ, that's what half the people here bitching about corporations are complaining about! That the torts these corporations commit are not treated as severly as crimes!
-truth
-truth
Grand Theft Auto is not found in Black's Law Dictionary. Grand Larceny is though. My guess is that people are charged with Grand Larceny, but the "street" term used by police and criminals is GTA. But that's just my guess.
-truth
Because they are not the same thing. You can only steal a noun. Since information is neither person nor place nor thing it cannot be stealing or thievery.
Oi ve. First you describe Doom 3 as an "it," then go on to say you can only steal a noun. Well if "it" isn't a pronoun used for nouns, I don't know what is.
Look, yes, if someone was caught downloading it, they would be charged with copyright infringement. But on the flip side, no one is charged with "theft." They are charged with larceny or embezzelment or one of the various other versions of "theft." It's like homicide and murder. Just because no one is charged with "homicide" when they commit a murder does not mean they did not commit a homicide.
I honestly don't understand why people like you get bent out of shape when people call infringers thieves. I mean really, what do you gain out of correcting them?
I mean would it make you really happier if they used "copyright infringer" to describe people that download games/music? Would you appreciate the moniker "tortfeasor" since that's what they are? Does it make what they do any more acceptable?
It doesn't speak highly of a persons intelligence if...
...they argue anything on slashdot because half the people here don't know what they are talking about. At all. Including me.
-truth
Sarbanes-Oxley. Here's a blog about it at Gartner. Basically Sarbanes-Oxley makes CEOs liable for the actions of the company. Though this does not redefine the corporation as a citizen, it does hold someone criminally accountable for the actions of the corp. It was in response to Enron at all and severly weaked the coporation as an entity that can act wantonly.
-truth
See, my big beef with pro-lifers is that they are telling women what they can do (all christian "when does life begin" stuff aside). Being pro-choice for me has ALWAYS been about "Do what you want to do, but do NOT tell me (well my wife/gf/so) what to do."
However, I've always felt that everyone (the rich) should help out the everyone (the poor). It just seemed like it should be done and thus I've always leaned to the Democratic side (though I am loathe to affiliate myself with a party, because I don't think along party lines). But what you've said is exactly what I've been doing: The rich should be compelled to help out the poor. And when you put it that way, it doesn't really seem right. Just because I think the super rich should help out the poor doesn't give me the right to tell them what to do with their money.
You just blew my mind.
-truth
Grandparent poster: Democrat (or Green)
;-)
-truth.
-truth
Several bug fixes for POSIX compliance came in from Apple; their assistance is appreciated.
It looks like Apple is giving back to the community, and to a fundamental tool.
To the parent: I'm in the same boat. I thought bash 3?? What is there to add?? Looks like multibyte char support (sorry, I'm are a dum Amer'kin).
-truth
Yes and no. The idea is that the claim you make that you invented something someone else filed a patent on has to be based on fact. You must be able to provide documents like dated lab manuals or whatnot that "prove" you really did invent the invention first.
What is to prevent people from patenting other peoples ideas?
If they can prove that the filing you have is, and I forget the term actually used, in bad faith, then your patent is unenforceable (which is worse than being invalid). But the kicker is proving it and bascially is a lawsuit to get at that information.
How would they proved that they had the idea first, beyond saying "yes we did", if they did not publish it?
See above about lab manuals. Publishing will _never_ help you acquire patent rights. The best you can do is publish a technology someone else is trying to patent and hope that they don't have something on file yet (and that they cannot swear behind your publication).
-truth
-truth
Licenses are contracts according to the court.
-truth
Not necessarily true. Typically, a licensor gets money in return for use of their IP, phone lines, whatever. The GPL is a little different because it is two pronged: there is use and distribution (and it does not ask for monetary compensation). When you use the code in your development, you must make the source code available (to those that purchase, whatever) if you in turn distribute your code. You are not free to not make it available (as is the case with the BSD license). Licensing holy wars aside, you are giving up your rights, which is legal "consideration" (your part of the bilateral agreement), to NOT distribute the code. This is the very point behind the enforceability of the GPL. One side is making good on their promise and the other is not.
However, you raise a good point if the BSD license is considered since something does not readily jump to mind as the return promise (contracts require a promise and consideration, the consideration being a return promise or performance).
-truth
*snip*
IIRC, the basic difference between the two is in the penalties for failing to comply with the license or contract. If you fail to comply with a license the only real penalty is loss of the privleges granted by the license. If you fail to comply with a contract, there are various penalties (usually defined within the contract itself.)
ProCD, taught in every first year Contracts course in law school. From the decision (first sentence under II):
"Following the district court, we treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code"
The next sentence, "Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day," has yet to be tried, and therefor this case is still authority.
So, to put it simply, you're not the truth.
So, put simply, I am and you're wrong.
-truth
Or better yet, we'll realize that we watch too much TV anyway and start reading some damn books again.
-truth
That's rich. What do you think a license is? It's a contract between parties about the permissions granted by one party (licensor) to the other (licensee).
-truth