A properly written contract would prevent that from happening. A clause saying "This agreement is no longer valid if either company goes into bankruptcy or is liquidated" or something like that.
That seems like a fairly obvious clause to add, and I only thought about it for 30 seconds. I'm sure IBM and Cisco's army of lawyers thought it over a bit more carefully. And if not, who gives a shit? It's not my problem, and it's probably not your's either. It's their IP, let them do what they want with it.
Kill enough of them and the others will be scared away.
Has that ever worked? I don't really care if we execute them as punishment, but it seems a bit naive to think that will stop it from occuring in the future. It's a punishment, not a deterrent.
Once you've developed the software with basic functionality, it costs more to develop the additional functionality, while leaving out the new functionality is as simple as a compiler switch, justifying the higher price.
In any case, I still don't see the "problem". The end user has more options and can buy cheaper software, so what exactly are you complaining about? If you don't like it, just buy the "Ultimate" version of everything and stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us.
Just because Obama assigned them to that post does not mean he has to do as they say.
Wouldn't that theory only be plausible if they had different polices? Obama and Hillary basically agree on everything. Their Senate voting records are almost identical. He doesn't have to listen to them; he wants to.
They also knew that, as Reed Hastings, the chief executive of Netflix, told me recently, getting to 10 percent would certainly be worth well in excess of $1 million to the company.
If somebody were really smart, they'd develop the algorithm, skip the contest, and sell it to Netflix for quite a bit more than $1 million.
...of selectively disabling features in a software product and selling a product at a lower price. It's a bit different for things in the real world, where there's a real physical cost involved with adding extra do-dads and features to products. But in software, it's just flipping a few bits to remove features you've already developed. The crazy thing is, it actually costs *more* to do this, as the company now has multiple versions of the product to package, distribute, and support.
Since when is there no cost to writing software?
I'd much prefer the game industry's model of "premium versions" of a game containing extra bonuses. The core product is the same, but if you want to pay for it, you can get a few extras, maybe a "making of" DVD, or a CD containing the soundtrack, books and figurines, stuff like that.
How is that different than what you're complaining about? Isn't the "core product" just the "premium version" with the extra bits removed?
It definitely wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft is doing it wrong, but in most cases everybody benefits when people can pay for just the parts they want. The software company sells an extra copy of their software, and the customer gets just the software they need, for less money. I'm really not seeing what there is to complain about.
It's entirely possible, but that doesn't excuse it.
Hell, the Patriot Act gets a free pass using that excuse.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the huge difference between actually passing something like the Patriot Act, and merely saying "We should censor the interweb." But the president has power to push something like that through. And it's not a good sign when somebody advising the president has a history of jumping to wild conclusions like "We should censor the internet."
Oh please! Did you not hear his slogan "Change you can believe in"? The entire foundation of that slogan was an attempt to convince people he wasn't a Washington insider.
He'd look pretty ridiculous saying "Vote for change by voting for a Washington insider", now wouldn't he?
- Go back to letter grades. This 1 to 4 and R thing we have here is BS. An 'F' doesn't damage the child's psyche for crying out loud, and an A+ is more encouraging than a '1'.
I agreee with everything you said, but what is this? I've never heard of it.
If I thought like that, I'd be an idiot. However, I would say, "Hey, we already use tax money for this stuff over here... what makes it more deserving of tax money than this stuff over here?" You can't just take people's money to run your own pet programs and then cry foul when they want to do the same thing.
LOL! Convenient you snipped out the part where I corrected myself on that. But now you're just putting words in my mouth, so I'm not even going to bother. Enjoy your communism!
You're example has a flaw - a nation with slavery cannot be called a democracy. There were more blacks than whites in Mississippi at the time of the US Civil War, yet only the whites got to vote. That's not democracy - even majority rule was not applied.
That directly contradicts history. There's no point arguing with you if you're going to flat out deny reality. The majority of people in the US were in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter what the situation in the south was.
Anyway, I'd never argue that democracy is perfect. Simple majority rule will always leave under-represented groups feeling disenfranchised and won't work long term. But personally I'd rather be at the mercy of the majority than a single fickle ruler or ruling class.
And I'm saying you shouldn't have to be at the mercy of anybody. There are rights that can not be taken away. Haven't you read the Declaration of Independence?
That isn't my argument at all, and I have either failed in my writing or you in your reading. I'm justifying taxes on their own merits, and simply pointing out that they are not in the least bit controversial.
You're trying to justify taxes on the grounds that they've always existed. That's what I'm getting out of it, at least.
I'll also point out that taxes *are* controversial. Look at the last election, for example. One of the major differences between the candidates were their tax plans.
Because there's an ideal to work towards, and then there's what you do when cold, hard reality kicks you in the face. For example: Thou shalt not kill. Good ideal, terribly complicated in practice.
If an ideal wouldn't work, then it's not an ideal. And by the way, that example is terrible. I don't know anybody who has a hard time not killing people.
So you'll compromise your ideals and deprive money of their property for your own priorities?
I guess we're back to deciding on what priorities are worthy of tax money and which aren't.
I thought you just said you don't mind paying taxes for some stuff?
Okay, I admit that was poorly phrased. I don't think we should have to pay taxes for those things either. But just because we already do, doesn't mean we should say "Fuck it, we use tax money for some stuff, let's just use it for everything." To use your ultra-lame "Thou shalt not kill" example, it's like saying "Well, we've killed a couple people , we might as well go for genocide." It doesn't make sense.
A good argument, and one that I would agree with under normal circumstances. However, the failure of GM at this point would most likely throw much of the midwest into depression. The few billion it would take to save GM - even if just for a short time - is minor compared to the amount we'd have to spend on social benefits. And I'd even argue that the money loaned to GM would be profitable for the government.
How do you come up with this shit? How are we not in "normal circumstances"? Companies go out of business every day.
My idea is to make the GM employees work for free, right now. According to your logic, under these supposedly "special circumstances," they should be more than happy to sacrifice their pay checks, because they'll be directly preventing a depression in the midwest. Instead of taking money from people who aren't involved, take the money directly from the employees. GM wouldn't "need" the loan if they didn't have to pay their employees.
And how do you figure the money given to GM will be profitable to the government? If that were true, banks would be standing in line to loan them money. Banks love making huge, profitable loans when they know for sure it'll be paid back. Hell, that's exactly what the banks need right now. Know why they're not volunteering? Because there's not a chance in hell they would get the money back.
So are you claiming that a democratic republic is like slavery? Or were you just using it as an example of a moral wrong that has nevertheless existed for a long time. If the latter, than I won't dispute it - though I have to point out that it's kind of wasting our time to say something so obvious.
I was using it as an example where "the majority" was clearly in the wrong.
I wasn't trying to make that argument, and I suspect you know that. You seemed to be saying that I was "compromising" by going along with taxation and that somehow compromising is a bad thing. It's not. Taxation is a compromise that has been happening for pretty much the entire existence of humanity - or at least since agriculture made protection of land important to our survival. Taxation can be abused such that the subjects are in virtual slavery. It can also be used for the common good, like defense. Not everything is so black and white.
But that is the argument you were making. "We've always done this, so it must be okay." And by saying "not everything is so black and white", you're admitting that one option is better than the other, and then saying we should still do a little of both anyway. That doesn't make any sense. Why do both when we know one option is better?
Also, I'm not saying we should get rid of taxes. I don't mind paying taxes for some stuff, like defense, police and the courts. What I'm not okay with is redistributing the money to other people and claiming they just need it more than I do. Why should I have to suffer so that some other people can supposedly be better off? How can you claim you're doing it for the "common good" when your plan involves knowingly making some people worse off?
Yup. You can keep restating this and I'll keep agreeing. My argument is that it is warranted, not that I'm taking away your rights - which to me is blatantly obvious. The important thing is that there be an inclusive democratic process when taking people's property rights away.
And my argument is that taking away people's rights is never warranted, no matter what process is behind it.
Rhetorical?
No, it wasn't. If anybody is going to pay the price for GM screwing up, why not the GM employees who screwed up?
I don't advocate forced labor.
Yes you do. You want GM to get the output of other people's labor, by force and against their will. Sounds like forced labor to me.
Yes, I do. We live in a democratic republic. You can work on changing that if you'd like, but for now the majority certainly can deprive you of property if they get the itch.
For hundreds of years the majority of people thought slavery was okay, too. That doesn't make it right.
Wasn't me - I don't know who gets credit for inventing taxes, but it was a long time ago.
Well, no point trying to fix it now! It was somebody else's idea! It must be okay!
And, by the way, you left China off of that list... I wonder why?
I left it off because I thought four examples were enough. You really want us to become more like China?
Authoritarian governments go hand in hand with socialist/communist economic systems because taking away property rights means taking away freedom. It's only a matter of time before one turns into the other. And yes, taking my money and giving it to GM because you think they need it more is a violation of my property rights.
And what about my plan on making GM employees work for free? If you're going to advocate slavery you might as well make it explicit.
I think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and while I'd prefer to stick with a purely market-based economy I won't be dogmatic in a crisis situation.
And I completely disagree with you. Your opinion isn't inherently more worthy than mine. You don't get to violate people's rights simply because *you* think it would be best.
There's nothing stopping you from investing your money in GM. There's nothing stopping you from convincing other people to invest in GM. But you have no right to violate people's rights and *force* them into giving their money to GM. Hell, if we're going to violate people's rights, why don't we just force GM employees to work for free? Problem solved! They won't mind because they'll understand it's best for everybody, right?
Further, you've failed to show that your premise even holds. I'm not convinced GM staying in business would be best for the majority. Who even gets to decide that?
Ideology has to make way for pragmatism sometimes.
Gee, nice of you to compromise on violating other people's rights.
I think that the taxpayers will come out ahead in the long term if the bailout is structured correctly.
And what gives you that idea? The taxpayers in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and East Germany seemed to get screwed in the long term. I'm curious why you think we'll be better off.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that bailing out the auto-industry is a really stupid idea. Granted, that didn't stop them from being gung-ho about the Wall St. bailout, but at least they're limiting their stupidity a little bit. Just because they fucked up in one case doesn't mean we should throw up our arms and insist they be stupid all around.
But if you have a good reason why the auto industry should be able to take my money without earning it, I'd love to hear it.
Even the "They provide jobs" argument is ridiculous, because they provide jobs building products nobody wants to buy.
Also funny how it's the Democrats pushing for the auto bailout, but its the Republicans who are always accused of being in cahoots with corporations.
Is "link spam" illegal? No. Despite your not liking it, they're completely within their rights to pay somebody to setup a "link farm" for them. If that person rips them off, they have the right to sue. Whether or not *you* like their choice doesn't matter - it's their decision.
Also, I'm not seeing how buying "ad-words" is any more "honest" than paying for SEO. They're both for scumbags, IMO.
Fine, think of it this way: I can build a processor that directly executes Java byte code, therefore it wouldn't require a software implementation of the JVM, and so wouldn't be running in an emulator. Making the OP's "Every programming language is an emulator" statement false, even for Java.
I don't even know why you're wasting your time arguing about this. The issue was the truth of the statement "Every programming language is an emulator," not whether Java requires a virtual machine. It's fairly obvious that you recognize that the JVM is the emulator and not the actual language itself.
They are not part of Sun's Java platform. They are part of anything that can call itself Java (because Sun still controls the trademark, and using JVM bytecode is a requirement to use it). Which is why GCJ,BEA, IBM and other Java implementations all also use the same bytecode format, and Java classes compiled by them all are interchangeable.
You're missing the point. There's a difference between the implementation and the language. Sun requires all Java implementations be compatible with theirs in order to use the "Java" trademark. And their implementation uses a virtual machine (emulator). But there's nothing inherent in the Java language itself that requires using a virtual machine. It's a purely artificial requirement put on by Sun in order to use their trademark. It's an implementation detail.
It's irrelevant anyway, because even for Sun's Java platform, the virtual machine is the emulator, not the language itself. So the OP's statement is still stupid. If he had said "Any language can be compiled to run on an emulator," or something like that, I would never have even said anything. But his statement "All languages are emulators," is simply incorrect.
GCJ working in a native mode is not a Java compiler. It's a compiler of a language that is 100% Java-compatible, but it's not a Java implementation (because Sun says so).
Now you're just being ridiculous. Just because "Sun says so" doesn't make it not a Java compiler. They can't legally call it a Java compiler, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one. If Sun told you the sky was green, would you believe that too?
When I have to do Java work, I use Emacs. I tried really hard to use Eclipse at my last job, because that's what everybody else used. But after two months I broke down and installed Emacs.
I found Eclipse to be slow, bloated (even compared to Emacs!), difficult to use, difficult to configure, difficult to customize, and difficult to add new functionality.
Note: even experts on C occasionally discuss the implications of the C standard in terms of "the C virtual machine" - you can find the evidence by searching comp.lang.c on google groups.
Imagining a virtual machine helps explain the abstraction provided by the language. But that doesn't make the language an emulator. It doesn't even make sense that you'd jump to that conclusion.
Java bytecode format is also specified, and that spec is an integral part of the whole Java-the-platform thing. It's not an implementation detail.
Yes it is. There's a difference between "Java-the-platform" and "Java-the-language". Java byte-code and the JVM are part of Sun's Java platform - not part of the language.
There are Java compilers that do not emit bytecode for a JVM.
Slashdot Mirror
A properly written contract would prevent that from happening. A clause saying "This agreement is no longer valid if either company goes into bankruptcy or is liquidated" or something like that.
That seems like a fairly obvious clause to add, and I only thought about it for 30 seconds. I'm sure IBM and Cisco's army of lawyers thought it over a bit more carefully. And if not, who gives a shit? It's not my problem, and it's probably not your's either. It's their IP, let them do what they want with it.
Has that ever worked? I don't really care if we execute them as punishment, but it seems a bit naive to think that will stop it from occuring in the future. It's a punishment, not a deterrent.
But the answers aren't "pay-to-view". That's why I'm confused. Nobody has heard of scrolling?
Once you've developed the software with basic functionality, it costs more to develop the additional functionality, while leaving out the new functionality is as simple as a compiler switch, justifying the higher price.
In any case, I still don't see the "problem". The end user has more options and can buy cheaper software, so what exactly are you complaining about? If you don't like it, just buy the "Ultimate" version of everything and stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us.
There have been a dozen comments saying this, so I have to ask: Why do people dislike experts-exchange? Am I missing something?
Wouldn't that theory only be plausible if they had different polices? Obama and Hillary basically agree on everything. Their Senate voting records are almost identical. He doesn't have to listen to them; he wants to.
Face it, he was lying.
Yeah, there's also this line in the article:
If somebody were really smart, they'd develop the algorithm, skip the contest, and sell it to Netflix for quite a bit more than $1 million.
Since when is there no cost to writing software?
How is that different than what you're complaining about? Isn't the "core product" just the "premium version" with the extra bits removed?
It definitely wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft is doing it wrong, but in most cases everybody benefits when people can pay for just the parts they want. The software company sells an extra copy of their software, and the customer gets just the software they need, for less money. I'm really not seeing what there is to complain about.
Convenient that you left out the tiny detail that half of the commitee was Democrat.
What were you saying about having a bogeyman?
I'm also curious which part of the quoted "mission statement" you find so terrible?
It's entirely possible, but that doesn't excuse it.
Hell, the Patriot Act gets a free pass using that excuse.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the huge difference between actually passing something like the Patriot Act, and merely saying "We should censor the interweb." But the president has power to push something like that through. And it's not a good sign when somebody advising the president has a history of jumping to wild conclusions like "We should censor the internet."
Oh please! Did you not hear his slogan "Change you can believe in"? The entire foundation of that slogan was an attempt to convince people he wasn't a Washington insider.
He'd look pretty ridiculous saying "Vote for change by voting for a Washington insider", now wouldn't he?
I agreee with everything you said, but what is this? I've never heard of it.
LOL! Convenient you snipped out the part where I corrected myself on that. But now you're just putting words in my mouth, so I'm not even going to bother. Enjoy your communism!
That directly contradicts history. There's no point arguing with you if you're going to flat out deny reality. The majority of people in the US were in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter what the situation in the south was.
And I'm saying you shouldn't have to be at the mercy of anybody. There are rights that can not be taken away. Haven't you read the Declaration of Independence?
You're trying to justify taxes on the grounds that they've always existed. That's what I'm getting out of it, at least.
I'll also point out that taxes *are* controversial. Look at the last election, for example. One of the major differences between the candidates were their tax plans.
If an ideal wouldn't work, then it's not an ideal. And by the way, that example is terrible. I don't know anybody who has a hard time not killing people.
Okay, I admit that was poorly phrased. I don't think we should have to pay taxes for those things either. But just because we already do, doesn't mean we should say "Fuck it, we use tax money for some stuff, let's just use it for everything." To use your ultra-lame "Thou shalt not kill" example, it's like saying "Well, we've killed a couple people , we might as well go for genocide." It doesn't make sense.
How do you come up with this shit? How are we not in "normal circumstances"? Companies go out of business every day.
My idea is to make the GM employees work for free, right now. According to your logic, under these supposedly "special circumstances," they should be more than happy to sacrifice their pay checks, because they'll be directly preventing a depression in the midwest. Instead of taking money from people who aren't involved, take the money directly from the employees. GM wouldn't "need" the loan if they didn't have to pay their employees.
And how do you figure the money given to GM will be profitable to the government? If that were true, banks would be standing in line to loan them money. Banks love making huge, profitable loans when they know for sure it'll be paid back. Hell, that's exactly what the banks need right now. Know why they're not volunteering? Because there's not a chance in hell they would get the money back.
I was using it as an example where "the majority" was clearly in the wrong.
But that is the argument you were making. "We've always done this, so it must be okay." And by saying "not everything is so black and white", you're admitting that one option is better than the other, and then saying we should still do a little of both anyway. That doesn't make any sense. Why do both when we know one option is better?
Also, I'm not saying we should get rid of taxes. I don't mind paying taxes for some stuff, like defense, police and the courts. What I'm not okay with is redistributing the money to other people and claiming they just need it more than I do. Why should I have to suffer so that some other people can supposedly be better off? How can you claim you're doing it for the "common good" when your plan involves knowingly making some people worse off?
And my argument is that taking away people's rights is never warranted, no matter what process is behind it.
No, it wasn't. If anybody is going to pay the price for GM screwing up, why not the GM employees who screwed up?
Yes you do. You want GM to get the output of other people's labor, by force and against their will. Sounds like forced labor to me.
For hundreds of years the majority of people thought slavery was okay, too. That doesn't make it right.
Well, no point trying to fix it now! It was somebody else's idea! It must be okay!
I left it off because I thought four examples were enough. You really want us to become more like China?
Authoritarian governments go hand in hand with socialist/communist economic systems because taking away property rights means taking away freedom. It's only a matter of time before one turns into the other. And yes, taking my money and giving it to GM because you think they need it more is a violation of my property rights.
And what about my plan on making GM employees work for free? If you're going to advocate slavery you might as well make it explicit.
And I completely disagree with you. Your opinion isn't inherently more worthy than mine. You don't get to violate people's rights simply because *you* think it would be best.
There's nothing stopping you from investing your money in GM. There's nothing stopping you from convincing other people to invest in GM. But you have no right to violate people's rights and *force* them into giving their money to GM. Hell, if we're going to violate people's rights, why don't we just force GM employees to work for free? Problem solved! They won't mind because they'll understand it's best for everybody, right?
Further, you've failed to show that your premise even holds. I'm not convinced GM staying in business would be best for the majority. Who even gets to decide that?
Gee, nice of you to compromise on violating other people's rights.
And what gives you that idea? The taxpayers in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and East Germany seemed to get screwed in the long term. I'm curious why you think we'll be better off.
You know you can invest in GM using your own money, right? You'll even get a stake in it proportional to what you invest.
I don't want a stake in GM, and I don't think you, or anybody else, should be able to force me into helping you buy one.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that bailing out the auto-industry is a really stupid idea. Granted, that didn't stop them from being gung-ho about the Wall St. bailout, but at least they're limiting their stupidity a little bit. Just because they fucked up in one case doesn't mean we should throw up our arms and insist they be stupid all around.
But if you have a good reason why the auto industry should be able to take my money without earning it, I'd love to hear it.
Even the "They provide jobs" argument is ridiculous, because they provide jobs building products nobody wants to buy.
Also funny how it's the Democrats pushing for the auto bailout, but its the Republicans who are always accused of being in cahoots with corporations.
Is "link spam" illegal? No. Despite your not liking it, they're completely within their rights to pay somebody to setup a "link farm" for them. If that person rips them off, they have the right to sue. Whether or not *you* like their choice doesn't matter - it's their decision.
Also, I'm not seeing how buying "ad-words" is any more "honest" than paying for SEO. They're both for scumbags, IMO.
Fine, think of it this way: I can build a processor that directly executes Java byte code, therefore it wouldn't require a software implementation of the JVM, and so wouldn't be running in an emulator. Making the OP's "Every programming language is an emulator" statement false, even for Java.
I don't even know why you're wasting your time arguing about this. The issue was the truth of the statement "Every programming language is an emulator," not whether Java requires a virtual machine. It's fairly obvious that you recognize that the JVM is the emulator and not the actual language itself.
You're missing the point. There's a difference between the implementation and the language. Sun requires all Java implementations be compatible with theirs in order to use the "Java" trademark. And their implementation uses a virtual machine (emulator). But there's nothing inherent in the Java language itself that requires using a virtual machine. It's a purely artificial requirement put on by Sun in order to use their trademark. It's an implementation detail.
It's irrelevant anyway, because even for Sun's Java platform, the virtual machine is the emulator, not the language itself. So the OP's statement is still stupid. If he had said "Any language can be compiled to run on an emulator," or something like that, I would never have even said anything. But his statement "All languages are emulators," is simply incorrect.
Now you're just being ridiculous. Just because "Sun says so" doesn't make it not a Java compiler. They can't legally call it a Java compiler, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one. If Sun told you the sky was green, would you believe that too?
When I have to do Java work, I use Emacs. I tried really hard to use Eclipse at my last job, because that's what everybody else used. But after two months I broke down and installed Emacs.
I found Eclipse to be slow, bloated (even compared to Emacs!), difficult to use, difficult to configure, difficult to customize, and difficult to add new functionality.
Imagining a virtual machine helps explain the abstraction provided by the language. But that doesn't make the language an emulator. It doesn't even make sense that you'd jump to that conclusion.
It's not fucking rocket science.
Yes it is. There's a difference between "Java-the-platform" and "Java-the-language". Java byte-code and the JVM are part of Sun's Java platform - not part of the language.
There are Java compilers that do not emit bytecode for a JVM.