The problem is that somebody who's orchestrating a billion-dollar scheme likely uses more subtle techniques to manipulate people into acquiescence than pointedly asking "will you break the law for me?" And if they do ask openly, you can be sure they've got some leverage: they'll either bribe or blackmail you. So, in this case, the moral really is: don't take bribes.
Excellent point: it _is_ a sliding scale. And where on the scale software is when it's released is a business decision. And you, as a consumer, can choose to not do business w/ a company who you feel has bad judgment.
"I'm sorry, Madam Secretary of State...can you please delete your previous email and resend it as plain-text without a signature? Only then will we inform the Secretary of Defense of the escalating issue. Thanks."
What would your choice be for programmers extending beyond their normal boundaries? The question hit the nail on the head.
Usually these threads try to predict the "next big thing" or discuss what high-paying job requirements are looking for. This question was surprisingly refreshing.
I agree with what you're saying, but to become comfortable in any language, you need to expand beyond your normal comfort zone. If you typically use procedural languages, try OO. If you're an OO master, try functional, etc.
The Linux community is exclusive (for good reason); the language (i.e. naming convention) helps perpetuate that. Anyone running Linux and hoping to find applications with foolproof names like Notepad, Windows Media Player, and Internet Explorer has a lot biggers issues on the horizon than just finding the application.
Organizations must be held responsible, not developers. Development is an organizational-based activity.
If you're going to blame the developer, you'll also need to look at the project manager. Did the project manager rush the developer? If the project manager was rushing the developer, maybe the president oversold the product? And what about the tester, maybe they should have found security holes?
The point is, software development typically isn't a solo activity. See How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?
Evil comes in many forms. I can see some arguing that Google is poising itself to eventually blur the line between corporate services and personal information. GMail rocks; 1 GB is above and beyond what anyone else is offering. Why, though, is Google stressing to never delete anything? Becuase they've got the extra disk space? Why did Google acquire Blogger? Because they wanted to build us a better interface? If we are, in fact, living in the information age, then information is power. And when one entity controls the power, even if it's not Microsoft, it's never a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that somebody who's orchestrating a billion-dollar scheme likely uses more subtle techniques to manipulate people into acquiescence than pointedly asking "will you break the law for me?" And if they do ask openly, you can be sure they've got some leverage: they'll either bribe or blackmail you. So, in this case, the moral really is: don't take bribes.
Same in the US ... to be prosecuted under Sherman you must both be a monopoly and use anti-competitive practices to maintain your monopoly.
Excellent point: it _is_ a sliding scale. And where on the scale software is when it's released is a business decision. And you, as a consumer, can choose to not do business w/ a company who you feel has bad judgment.
It's sad to see programs that purport to be about computer science cover only a few popular procedural languaages.
I get your point, but I'd go one further. It's sad to see computer science being equated to programming.
"I'm sorry, Madam Secretary of State...can you please delete your previous email and resend it as plain-text without a signature? Only then will we inform the Secretary of Defense of the escalating issue. Thanks."
Yes, but you do not own the right to resell the music. Thus, the legal definition is not that of ownership; you are, indeed, licensing it.
Perhaps the iPod will be embedded within a black box?
The Linux community is exclusive (for good reason); the language (i.e. naming convention) helps perpetuate that. Anyone running Linux and hoping to find applications with foolproof names like Notepad, Windows Media Player, and Internet Explorer has a lot biggers issues on the horizon than just finding the application.
Organizations must be held responsible, not developers. Development is an organizational-based activity. If you're going to blame the developer, you'll also need to look at the project manager. Did the project manager rush the developer? If the project manager was rushing the developer, maybe the president oversold the product? And what about the tester, maybe they should have found security holes? The point is, software development typically isn't a solo activity. See How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a lightbulb?
Evil comes in many forms. I can see some arguing that Google is poising itself to eventually blur the line between corporate services and personal information. GMail rocks; 1 GB is above and beyond what anyone else is offering. Why, though, is Google stressing to never delete anything? Becuase they've got the extra disk space? Why did Google acquire Blogger? Because they wanted to build us a better interface? If we are, in fact, living in the information age, then information is power. And when one entity controls the power, even if it's not Microsoft, it's never a good thing.