I would argue that none of the businesses you mentioned, as they are, do anything wrong. The types of companies you speak of are usually publically traded and have an obligation to their shareholders (by nature of being publically traded) to make a lot of money -- that's how stock works.
So, given any particular environment a company is supposed to attempt to maximize its profits. Google's approach to doing this is no different than any other's, they just have a different formula. Most companies define companies entirely in terms of units sold; Google's formula includes the notion that mindshare and honor are very important, if not the most important, things: having them results in more products (ads) sold.
The problem is that United States copyright law, as it stands, is terrible. I'll agree with you on that. If you look at the wording of the initial laws themselves, you'll see that copyright was created to promote the science and the arts [not exact quote]. I think in its current form it is doing nothing, at all, of the sort. If anything it is hindering scientific art and progress (in some areas) more than helping promote it.
So, it's not the companies that are doing anything wrong so much as the laws need to be changed. But those are very, very different things. Getting mad at Google for doing this would be akin to setting up a boardgame and getting mad if people follow the letter (if not spirit) of the rules.
Now, if you want to change the rules, call your congressman. Until then, stay your hate for companies that play by the rules made by people we elect, and see if you ever see Pepsi and Coke fountain machines in the same store. You won't.
thanks, i guess the "do no evil" is redundant thesedays, much like the US constitution
The US constitution says nothing about what kinds of lawful agreements (called contracts) you can and cannot make with your fellow citizens (or corporations). If you don't like some particular product, then don't buy it.
It would only be a violation of the constitution if the government were forcing everybody to use DRM; but that is not what we're talking about here.
And besides, maybe if they did force everyone to use DRM, it would stop the whole "buy 10,000 email addresses for $10" kind of privacy violations we see rampantly all over the US.
I wouldn't call landing a spot with EA the mostawesomejob.
How many companies do you call 'awesome' that have workers suing their employer?
Re:I don't want to be stuck with one..
on
Pro C#
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Er, how was the parent marked insightful? Mark parent down!
C# runs on the.NET platform which was openly standardized. The standards have been adopted by the ISO, the same body that determines the metric units and also manages the C++ language. Furthermore, a number of open sourcegroups have begun implementing.NET for other platforms than Windows.
And last but not least, all of the patents that Microsoft has covering the.NET platform have been
released for public use.
With open-source leaders such as Miguel de Icaza (founder of GNOME, Mono) involved in producing.NET implementations for OSes other than Windows, it's hard for me to believe you just said what you did if you're anything but completely ignorant..NET will exist on as many platforms and OSes as people choose to implement it on. And it currently exists on many.
Berkeley DB is not a relational database. It is a key/value pair database, much like a set of files in an individual directory in a filesystem. Apples and oranges:)
You must keep in mind that Microsoft has no intention of directly supporting Linux in any sense. If they buy a company because they like its product, why should they spend more of their dollars to continue Linux development?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you're being rather speculative in assuming that they bought companies specifically to shut down their Linux offerings. It seems more likey to me that they simply wanted the Windows version of the technology then saw no reason to continue Linux development.
For a lie detector to be less accurate than a coin toss, the lie detector would actually have to be more consistent (in detecting lies), but report the opposite result.
It's generally impossible to be less accurate than random chance... or, better put, it doesn't mean anything because you could simply flip your results and be more accurate than random chance.
All that is required for Administrators to gain Localsystem (what you referred to as SYSTEM) privileges is to start a particular executable as a service. At that point, the executable has *complete* access to the machine, as root would on Linux.
It is trivial, for example, to start even a command shell with such privileges. I'd provide a link, but I have to leave shortly:) Check http://www.sysinternals.com/ for examples, I'm sure they have one.
Or will they just say "Eminent Domain" and just take the thing
The principle of eminent domain does not allow the government to just "take" things. Eminent domain requires that the government compensate you a fair market value.
Of course, that says nothing about other methods they have of preventing you from releasing your invention (national security?) or who decides what "fair market value" is.
Being the technically literate person you are, and all, I would appreciate it if FOR ONCE IN THE WORLD someone would use the proper terminology. Instead of:
Rent online, at any time of day, and get the videos shipped straight to you (with return postage included free!).
You say:
Rent online, at any time of day, and get the videos shipped straight to you (with return postage included in the package!).
I know I sound like an ass, but is it that hard to say what you really mean? Do you think the people who rent videos like this won't realize they're still paying for the return postage, whether you say it's free or not?:(
Affect and effect are both nouns and both verbs, but the one you wanted was "effect".
An effect (n) is something that happens as a result of some action.
To effect (v) a change is to cause a change to occur.
A affect (n) is a feeling or emotion you feel.
To affect (v) something is to change it through your actions. To affect something is to effect a change in it.:)
Being the intelligent people we are, with great precision in our computer languages, let's not ride the wave of many technologists who believe they are too good to condescend to write English properly. Strive to do well in all things.
The problem is that you are being overly idealistic. In reality, conflict of interest is a bad thing. Humans are not perfect and the so-called safety nets you say we need on a societal level we also need on a personal level. Many countries have anti-lobbying rules to prevent the individuals that comprise the legislature from having a conflict of interest between representing their constituents and representing the people that "contribute" massive amounts of money to their "campaign".
At the end of the day we can't assume all politicans are corrupt, but we can try to remove temptation.
There are downsides of such a law; but then there are downsides of any law. By restricting the campaign contributions of the rich you restrict the ability of the rich to buy pieces of the government.
That no single organization runs it? That destroying pieces of it will not disrupt the rest?
The success of the Internet is that its peer-peer nature has allowed it to evolve and struggle past any sort of obstacles, most of them having been technical. Now we have a political obstacle. Why is it necessary that any one organization "control the Internet"? Isn't that exactly not the point of its design?
I have no problem with people voting differently from me. I DO have a problem with any government blanketly deciding issues like this without giving the population -- through their representatives -- a say in how things will be decided.
I would vote that children born by parents who knew they were likely to be diseased should not have state-provided healthcare. Then again, I would vote against most forms of state-provided healthcare period. I would prefer a private system, not a system like Canada where a patient has to wait 6+ months for a mammogram.
No one is obligated to give their money to anyone else, ever. By living in the United States, however, you consent to give your taxes to the country and proportioned to things that the people -- through their representatives -- feel are important. *The people* decide where the money goes. No one deserves money.
But as I said, you are free to vote differently, and I would (hypothetically speaking:) die for your right to do so.
It's not an issue of blaming the child or punishing them. It's an issue of entitlement.
No one in society is entitled to money from the government -- that much I know. In our representative democracy, however, we as a people have decided to give some people support. We, the taxpayers have our representatives come together to vote on whether certain other people in society should receive money from us.
No one is entitled by nature to have them given money. The society as a whole should vote on whether individuals should receive money.
I would support people who have had tragic accidents being given some money to help. However, when the parents blatently ignore probability to bring children into the world who in all probability have a debilitating disease that will ruin their lives and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars... I think the taxpayers have the right, morally, to say no.
The problem with this is that someone has to pay for it. If you have genetic privacy legislation, then you can keep it secret from the insurance companies. However, all this means is that everyone else's premiums will go up to cover the undisclosed risky people. The risky people cost more, as a statistical fact, and SOMEONE has to pay for it, so maybe that should be the general population.
And I am not being sarcastic here -- I am saying that maybe it is a societal solution. I Definitely think it is in the best interests of society to have all of us pay for Katrina clean-up, not just those affected by it. However, it is a different situation to use societal money to rebuild those areas, below sea level, water held back by bumps and walls...
I think there comes a time when particular people in society engage in such risky behavior that society cannot afford to pay for their mistakes. From what I have read of the literature, you have a 50% chance to pass the gene of Huntington's to your child, and a 25% chance of giving them the disease. Is it up to society to pay for that child's medical care for life when you knowingly engage in this risky behavior?
You are effectively gambling with hundreds of thousands of other taxpayers' dollars when you decide to have a child. And I am not saying you should be prohibited from having a child, merely that the people who will likely be PAYING for this child's medical care should have a vote as to whether they support paying for it. If not, then the child must be supported by his family.
The situation would be no different than AIDS a child inherits from his parent. If you bring a child into the world having AIDS yourself, you know there is a good chance your child may have it. That is unnecessarily risky behavior and it is irresponsible to assume that society should "clean up" after you in the sense of providing health care to the child.
There has to be times when society says, "OK, sir, engage in whatever behavior you wish, but we cannot support you in this action". Dangerous sports activities are one of these sorts of things, and deliberately bringing children into the world who are likely to be diseased are another.
And I am not saying that these actions should not be allowed to happen; no, merely I am saying that the taxpayers of society should have a vote as to whether they allow their money to go to such uses.
This is a democracy and people on wellfare having children only to increase their government handouts are leeches on the system. They are a leech by choice; you could potentially be a leech by wreckless action and disregard for others' (time and money).
I don't mean to sound morbid but perhaps you would be doing society a favor by removing your genes from the gene pool and not reproducing. After all, is it fair to bring a child into the world only for his life to be plagued by this condition? Is it fair to society to force others to support him, when this likely condition was known about in advance?
This is actually totally false. As well as being supported by a number of more "minor" languages,.NET fully supports: C#, C++ (with solid, awesome extensions for the.NET parts), VB, JS.NET.
Keep in mind that there are always extensions so that you can call methods in native assemblies on your platform. This means you can pretty much interact with anything.
This only applies to the original motion brought against the mother. The RIAA was not allowed to amend that. Instead, they have to file a new, completely separate motion against the child, with a guardian appointed.
IANAL, obviously, since I am posting to Slashdot, but it seems that since the case against the mother was dismissed with prejudice, she cannot again be named in her daughter's lawsuit as someone liable for the daughter's damages. I guess we'll have to see how this turns out.
Modify the application such that the "download source" feature is still completely functional but merely gives you the pre-modified, original source?:o)
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that none of the businesses you mentioned, as they are, do anything wrong. The types of companies you speak of are usually publically traded and have an obligation to their shareholders (by nature of being publically traded) to make a lot of money -- that's how stock works.
So, given any particular environment a company is supposed to attempt to maximize its profits. Google's approach to doing this is no different than any other's, they just have a different formula. Most companies define companies entirely in terms of units sold; Google's formula includes the notion that mindshare and honor are very important, if not the most important, things: having them results in more products (ads) sold.
The problem is that United States copyright law, as it stands, is terrible. I'll agree with you on that. If you look at the wording of the initial laws themselves, you'll see that copyright was created to promote the science and the arts [not exact quote]. I think in its current form it is doing nothing, at all, of the sort. If anything it is hindering scientific art and progress (in some areas) more than helping promote it.
So, it's not the companies that are doing anything wrong so much as the laws need to be changed. But those are very, very different things. Getting mad at Google for doing this would be akin to setting up a boardgame and getting mad if people follow the letter (if not spirit) of the rules.
Now, if you want to change the rules, call your congressman. Until then, stay your hate for companies that play by the rules made by people we elect, and see if you ever see Pepsi and Coke fountain machines in the same store. You won't.
And if it is on Google, will they censor their own search results?
And if they don't, will they be in violation of the DMCA for "pointing to" information on how to break a cryptographic system?
In any case, we may have DeCSS all over again, with a much larger and more powerful company (Google) pursuing the crackers.
thanks, i guess the "do no evil" is redundant thesedays, much like the US constitution
The US constitution says nothing about what kinds of lawful agreements (called contracts) you can and cannot make with your fellow citizens (or corporations). If you don't like some particular product, then don't buy it.
It would only be a violation of the constitution if the government were forcing everybody to use DRM; but that is not what we're talking about here.
And besides, maybe if they did force everyone to use DRM, it would stop the whole "buy 10,000 email addresses for $10" kind of privacy violations we see rampantly all over the US.
I wouldn't call landing a spot with EA the most awesome job.
How many companies do you call 'awesome' that have workers suing their employer?
Er, how was the parent marked insightful? Mark parent down!
.NET platform which was openly standardized. The standards have been adopted by the ISO, the same body that determines the metric units and also manages the C++ language. Furthermore, a number of open source groups have begun implementing .NET for other platforms than Windows.
.NET platform have been
released for public use.
.NET implementations for OSes other than Windows, it's hard for me to believe you just said what you did if you're anything but completely ignorant. .NET will exist on as many platforms and OSes as people choose to implement it on. And it currently exists on many.
C# runs on the
And last but not least, all of the patents that Microsoft has covering the
With open-source leaders such as Miguel de Icaza (founder of GNOME, Mono) involved in producing
You mean Linux? As another poster mentioned, Linux has had ACL filesystem support for a loooong time.
Berkeley DB is not a relational database. It is a key/value pair database, much like a set of files in an individual directory in a filesystem. Apples and oranges :)
You must keep in mind that Microsoft has no intention of directly supporting Linux in any sense. If they buy a company because they like its product, why should they spend more of their dollars to continue Linux development?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you're being rather speculative in assuming that they bought companies specifically to shut down their Linux offerings. It seems more likey to me that they simply wanted the Windows version of the technology then saw no reason to continue Linux development.
Tell us more about this "Live Journal" news organization and its insightful media coverage.
Interesting idea.
For a lie detector to be less accurate than a coin toss, the lie detector would actually have to be more consistent (in detecting lies), but report the opposite result.
It's generally impossible to be less accurate than random chance... or, better put, it doesn't mean anything because you could simply flip your results and be more accurate than random chance.
All that is required for Administrators to gain Localsystem (what you referred to as SYSTEM) privileges is to start a particular executable as a service. At that point, the executable has *complete* access to the machine, as root would on Linux.
:) Check http://www.sysinternals.com/ for examples, I'm sure they have one.
It is trivial, for example, to start even a command shell with such privileges. I'd provide a link, but I have to leave shortly
Or will they just say "Eminent Domain" and just take the thing
The principle of eminent domain does not allow the government to just "take" things. Eminent domain requires that the government compensate you a fair market value.
Of course, that says nothing about other methods they have of preventing you from releasing your invention (national security?) or who decides what "fair market value" is.
Being the technically literate person you are, and all, I would appreciate it if FOR ONCE IN THE WORLD someone would use the proper terminology. Instead of:
:(
Rent online, at any time of day, and get the videos shipped straight to you (with return postage included free!).
You say:
Rent online, at any time of day, and get the videos shipped straight to you (with return postage included in the package!).
I know I sound like an ass, but is it that hard to say what you really mean? Do you think the people who rent videos like this won't realize they're still paying for the return postage, whether you say it's free or not?
Ya. It's called karma ;]
I lose. I should've used "an" before the noun form of both "effect" and "affect".
Affect and effect are both nouns and both verbs, but the one you wanted was "effect".
:)
An effect (n) is something that happens as a result of some action.
To effect (v) a change is to cause a change to occur.
A affect (n) is a feeling or emotion you feel.
To affect (v) something is to change it through your actions. To affect something is to effect a change in it.
Being the intelligent people we are, with great precision in our computer languages, let's not ride the wave of many technologists who believe they are too good to condescend to write English properly. Strive to do well in all things.
The problem is that you are being overly idealistic. In reality, conflict of interest is a bad thing. Humans are not perfect and the so-called safety nets you say we need on a societal level we also need on a personal level. Many countries have anti-lobbying rules to prevent the individuals that comprise the legislature from having a conflict of interest between representing their constituents and representing the people that "contribute" massive amounts of money to their "campaign".
At the end of the day we can't assume all politicans are corrupt, but we can try to remove temptation.
There are downsides of such a law; but then there are downsides of any law. By restricting the campaign contributions of the rich you restrict the ability of the rich to buy pieces of the government.
That no single organization runs it? That destroying pieces of it will not disrupt the rest?
The success of the Internet is that its peer-peer nature has allowed it to evolve and struggle past any sort of obstacles, most of them having been technical. Now we have a political obstacle. Why is it necessary that any one organization "control the Internet"? Isn't that exactly not the point of its design?
They don't have the money to buy us :o) In your dreams...
Googlezon, on the other hand... that could be sweet.
-- Justin Crites, Amazon.com Software Development Engineer
I have no problem with people voting differently from me. I DO have a problem with any government blanketly deciding issues like this without giving the population -- through their representatives -- a say in how things will be decided.
:) die for your right to do so.
I would vote that children born by parents who knew they were likely to be diseased should not have state-provided healthcare. Then again, I would vote against most forms of state-provided healthcare period. I would prefer a private system, not a system like Canada where a patient has to wait 6+ months for a mammogram.
No one is obligated to give their money to anyone else, ever. By living in the United States, however, you consent to give your taxes to the country and proportioned to things that the people -- through their representatives -- feel are important. *The people* decide where the money goes. No one deserves money.
But as I said, you are free to vote differently, and I would (hypothetically speaking
It's not an issue of blaming the child or punishing them. It's an issue of entitlement.
... I think the taxpayers have the right, morally, to say no.
No one in society is entitled to money from the government -- that much I know. In our representative democracy, however, we as a people have decided to give some people support. We, the taxpayers have our representatives come together to vote on whether certain other people in society should receive money from us.
No one is entitled by nature to have them given money. The society as a whole should vote on whether individuals should receive money.
I would support people who have had tragic accidents being given some money to help. However, when the parents blatently ignore probability to bring children into the world who in all probability have a debilitating disease that will ruin their lives and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
The problem with this is that someone has to pay for it. If you have genetic privacy legislation, then you can keep it secret from the insurance companies. However, all this means is that everyone else's premiums will go up to cover the undisclosed risky people. The risky people cost more, as a statistical fact, and SOMEONE has to pay for it, so maybe that should be the general population.
And I am not being sarcastic here -- I am saying that maybe it is a societal solution. I Definitely think it is in the best interests of society to have all of us pay for Katrina clean-up, not just those affected by it. However, it is a different situation to use societal money to rebuild those areas, below sea level, water held back by bumps and walls...
I think there comes a time when particular people in society engage in such risky behavior that society cannot afford to pay for their mistakes. From what I have read of the literature, you have a 50% chance to pass the gene of Huntington's to your child, and a 25% chance of giving them the disease. Is it up to society to pay for that child's medical care for life when you knowingly engage in this risky behavior?
You are effectively gambling with hundreds of thousands of other taxpayers' dollars when you decide to have a child. And I am not saying you should be prohibited from having a child, merely that the people who will likely be PAYING for this child's medical care should have a vote as to whether they support paying for it. If not, then the child must be supported by his family.
The situation would be no different than AIDS a child inherits from his parent. If you bring a child into the world having AIDS yourself, you know there is a good chance your child may have it. That is unnecessarily risky behavior and it is irresponsible to assume that society should "clean up" after you in the sense of providing health care to the child.
There has to be times when society says, "OK, sir, engage in whatever behavior you wish, but we cannot support you in this action". Dangerous sports activities are one of these sorts of things, and deliberately bringing children into the world who are likely to be diseased are another.
And I am not saying that these actions should not be allowed to happen; no, merely I am saying that the taxpayers of society should have a vote as to whether they allow their money to go to such uses.
This is a democracy and people on wellfare having children only to increase their government handouts are leeches on the system. They are a leech by choice; you could potentially be a leech by wreckless action and disregard for others' (time and money).
I don't mean to sound morbid but perhaps you would be doing society a favor by removing your genes from the gene pool and not reproducing. After all, is it fair to bring a child into the world only for his life to be plagued by this condition? Is it fair to society to force others to support him, when this likely condition was known about in advance?
This is actually totally false. As well as being supported by a number of more "minor" languages, .NET fully supports: C#, C++ (with solid, awesome extensions for the .NET parts), VB, JS.NET.
Keep in mind that there are always extensions so that you can call methods in native assemblies on your platform. This means you can pretty much interact with anything.
This only applies to the original motion brought against the mother. The RIAA was not allowed to amend that. Instead, they have to file a new, completely separate motion against the child, with a guardian appointed.
IANAL, obviously, since I am posting to Slashdot, but it seems that since the case against the mother was dismissed with prejudice, she cannot again be named in her daughter's lawsuit as someone liable for the daughter's damages. I guess we'll have to see how this turns out.
Modify the application such that the "download source" feature is still completely functional but merely gives you the pre-modified, original source? :o)
I'm going to hell.