Here's how I've been told he SPA works (assuming they even bother to do an audit of you in the first place).
(We're also assuming that you have in fact purchased the software in question, and are using either duplicate serials or pirated serials for the sake of convenience.)
They audit your machines...they find either pirated or duplicate keys.
They ask: "What's up with these keys? Did you in fact purchase our software?
You answer: "Of course we did."
They challenge: "OK...then let's see your proof of purchase/COAs/etc."
You show them the required proof.
They go home.
Software companies don't care if their products are licensed properly...that's just a means to an end. What they are really concerned about is whether or not they have your money.
I must be missing something...it seems like the same tactics spammers use to evade law enforcement today could be used to evade the imposition of this "attention bond mechanism".
Act strangely enough and you can subtlely extort your company for continued employment.
I've been doing that for years. It's easy. Just get a lot of assorted action figures and display them all around your work area. Then occasionally have disturbing conversations with them...making sure you are overheard.
"Oh Boba Fett, murder can't always be the answer...what's that, Spawn? But you always agree with Boba Fett!"
"Look...the people you are looking for are the people you depend on. We fix your computers, we update your websites, we route your packets, we patch your servers, we guard your data while you sleep. Do not fuck with us."
Seriously, though, sabotaging your former or current network is just a plain dumb idea, especially if it is/was your job to keep this sort of thing from happening. In the final analysis, the only real thing an I.T. professional possesses is their reputation. Trash that, and you'll find it difficult to secure further employment.
it is quite plainly spelled out in the narcotics laws of your local jurisdiction
So your entire argument can be summed up as:
"You should be allowed to do anything you want, as long as it is legal".
Pathetic. I liked your argument better when it was ill-defined...at least then it was an argument, rather than a reflexively true statement.
which are by definition the local standards for materials that impose a higher perceived cost than benefit.
Those rose-colored glasses sure do look good on you, but don't they give you a headache after while? Are you aware how much the use of alcohol costs this society? No? Well then, how about tobacco, which, as it turns out, costs society more than all of the other drugs combined.
Your citing existing laws and regulations as your yardstick is disingenuous in the extreme. Happy trolling to you...I'm off to take part in a more intellectually honest discussion.
Once again, an interesting theoretical tack that is of no practical value in society.
Yup....kinda like this tack:
If you understand the risks, side-effects, and possible benefits, anyone who is mentally fit should be able to insert whatever materials they wish into their own body presuming no perceived liabilities to others (which would preclude crack, PCP, etc).
Look familiar?
If the GPs post has no practical value, then how do you justify yours? Actually, the GPs post has more value, as his does not include an ill-defined caveat regarding the nebulous property of 'percieved value to others'.
If you refuse (or are unable) to define and quantify 'percieved value to others' to the satisfaction of this group, you are just trolling.
OK....I'm seeing a lot of faulty assumptions flying around here about PCP...so I think I'll do my part to set the record straight.
Here's a quote from The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Substances by Richard Rudgley:
By the mid to late seventies PCP use was sufficiently common for it to attract the interest of the media and government agencies. When a relatively unknown drug suddenly gains prominence the initial reactions to it are often highly distorted and even hysterical. The PCP case is no exception. Through media hype and a lurid concentration on exceptional reports of its use by aberrant individuals PCP became inextricably linked with extreme violence. The myth was thus born that simply by taking PCP an individual would become prone to commit all kinds of monstrous attacks. In 1978 at special hearings organised by the Select Committee on Narcotic Abuse and Control of the US House of Representatives one senator called PCP: 'one of the most dangerous and insidious drugs known to mankind.' Whatever the dangers of the drug, violent behaviour does not appear to be among them. Ethnographic and sociological studies of PCP users do not support such a view. Most of the users interviewed expressed surprise that PCP was associated with violence at all.
And now, a quote about alcohol, from Dr. L. Kolb, Assistant Surgeon General, specialist on addiction, 1928. Cited by E. Brecher in Licit and Illicit Drugs:
Perhaps now we can start a debate based on sound facts, instead of wild, unfounded assumptions.
"More than any other unstable group, drunkards are likely to be benefited in their social relations by becoming addicts. When they give up alcohol and start using opium, they [stop] becoming drunk or violent."
Tip for young/.'ers: Ask for it when you have your wisdom teeth/tonsils out.
Wish I knew that when I had mine out...just novacaine and nitrous for me, and all four wisdom teeth had to be split into four pieces each to get them out of my head.
Ketamine is not intended for human consumption, therefore your comment is a non-sequiter. Find me one vet who will tell me otherwise and I will retract this statement.
Slashdot Mirror
All I can say is that for a grand, this card better blow me and make me toast in the morning.
All hail the magnificent Sharpie!
I have about a hundred Sharpies at work, and about half that amount at home. I think it would be flat-out impossible to do my job without them.
(We're also assuming that you have in fact purchased the software in question, and are using either duplicate serials or pirated serials for the sake of convenience.)
Software companies don't care if their products are licensed properly...that's just a means to an end. What they are really concerned about is whether or not they have your money.
I bill four digits an hour while reading Slashdot.
Unfortunately, there's a decimal point involved....
^_^
Great...three people managed to post this bright idea before me.
Last time I answer the phone at work!
I must be missing something...it seems like the same tactics spammers use to evade law enforcement today could be used to evade the imposition of this "attention bond mechanism".
Just make sure you document what you do, but not how you do it.
Yeah...apparently, God pushed him off a ladder.
I've been doing that for years. It's easy. Just get a lot of assorted action figures and display them all around your work area. Then occasionally have disturbing conversations with them...making sure you are overheard.
But if their system goes down 6 months later, there is no link to you.
Until they look through their logs...
Seriously, though, sabotaging your former or current network is just a plain dumb idea, especially if it is/was your job to keep this sort of thing from happening. In the final analysis, the only real thing an I.T. professional possesses is their reputation. Trash that, and you'll find it difficult to secure further employment.
`_
/ \
O O
|||/
|\/|
\__/
Hey there, partner! It looks like you're running out of oxygen!
What would you like to do?
I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce my new invention:
The InterNetWorkPlaceHolder
I don't know what it does yet, but with a name like that, it can't miss!
Ever wanted to see the black of space but just can't pay a cool 20 million to do so?
I could beat you over the head with a pipe until you think that's what happened...
it is quite plainly spelled out in the narcotics laws of your local jurisdiction
So your entire argument can be summed up as:
"You should be allowed to do anything you want, as long as it is legal".
Pathetic. I liked your argument better when it was ill-defined...at least then it was an argument, rather than a reflexively true statement.
which are by definition the local standards for materials that impose a higher perceived cost than benefit.
Those rose-colored glasses sure do look good on you, but don't they give you a headache after while? Are you aware how much the use of alcohol costs this society? No? Well then, how about tobacco, which, as it turns out, costs society more than all of the other drugs combined
Your citing existing laws and regulations as your yardstick is disingenuous in the extreme. Happy trolling to you...I'm off to take part in a more intellectually honest discussion.
Once again, an interesting theoretical tack that is of no practical value in society.
Yup....kinda like this tack:
If you understand the risks, side-effects, and possible benefits, anyone who is mentally fit should be able to insert whatever materials they wish into their own body presuming no perceived liabilities to others (which would preclude crack, PCP, etc).
Look familiar?
If the GPs post has no practical value, then how do you justify yours? Actually, the GPs post has more value, as his does not include an ill-defined caveat regarding the nebulous property of 'percieved value to others'.
If you refuse (or are unable) to define and quantify 'percieved value to others' to the satisfaction of this group, you are just trolling.
OK....I'm seeing a lot of faulty assumptions flying around here about PCP...so I think I'll do my part to set the record straight.
Here's a quote from The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Substances
by Richard Rudgley:
And now, a quote about alcohol, from Dr. L. Kolb, Assistant Surgeon General, specialist on addiction, 1928. Cited by E. Brecher in Licit and Illicit Drugs:
Tip for young
Wish I knew that when I had mine out...just novacaine and nitrous for me, and all four wisdom teeth had to be split into four pieces each to get them out of my head.
Ahh...good times...
Ketamine is not intended for human consumption, therefore your comment is a non-sequiter. Find me one vet who will tell me otherwise and I will retract this statement.
Here you go...retract away.
(P.S.: You might find page 7 especially enlightening...
I've tried plenty in my time...didn't know you could get paid for doing so...
^_^
Gaaah...you're absolutely right, Sanity.
I think reading his blog gave me cancer.
Thanks for the heads-up on this guy.
<pirate>
Avast, ye scurvy dog! This wretched excuse for a story be a scurrilous dupe!
</pirate>
Just wait till you see the one's that can swallow a man whole.
You mean like these?