Well, its *not* free - it costs someone development time. But the criteria of which product to use isn't often done on cost. Infact, as history dictates, many products that have high adoption rates are quite expensive.
of the "just use Firefox" comments. I pressume using this train on thought we should scrap WINE, OpenOffice and other "Linux emulating Windows" software.
Just for one second PLEASE realize that there are legitimate reasons for this plugin. They might not be reasons you would choose, or it could be that are forced on you (businesses), but they are valid nonetheless.
but you're in the minority that (pressumeably) know what the problem is - the vast majority of people don't. Unless its "in your face" most people don't know or care to know about worms, hacking etc.
And we do this in all facets of sociey (whether its a good idea is another matter) - for instance we let the government have a standing army as part of the defence policy, we don't rely on each individual protecting their 1/4 acre property.
Can't find any link to it but I remember watching a tv proggy how you could make glasses by creating liquid filled lenses. All the glasses were identically built but were adjustable - it was being touted as a cheap way to bring glasses in Africa.
Also worth noting that the destruction of the A-bomb brough was previously unfathomable.
From a military perspective Hiroshima proved the concept of the A-bomb and its effects. Nagasaki proved 2 things - a) that it wasn't some kind of "fluke" or one off scientific anomally, and b) that the Americans were prepared to drop another one, despite the Japanese trying to call their bluff.
That said, it was a horrible waste of lives but the Japanese had numerous chances to not have it happen - either not attacking a non agressive country in the first place, by pulling out after it did, or by not fighting to the death many, many the amount of lives the A-bombs brought would have been saved.
if I remember right I thought the "visitors" wandered off to unauthorised parts of the show, were asked to leave, but didn't - or something like that. It wasn't *just* because they were taking photos at an air show which is implying they were in a crowd of people etc.
then he shouldn't have signed the damn contract - that was part of the deal. You can't pick and choose what bits you find are "morally right" AFTER the fact. He accepted a big salary, now he should accept the waiting period before he can join google.
Can you name a country with a list of freedoms greater than the US?
Being a UK ex-pat living here in the States its obvious to me that there certainyl isn't a European country that comes close. I mean the US has had the Constitution for 200 years which has the ideals of freedom and liberty enshrined in it. Contrast that with Europe, for instance, that comes out with a 300 page legalese constitution that takes away freedoms from member states.
So modesty isn't what I'm concerned about, but accuracy.
I quite agree. Coming from the UK (but now in the US) I consistently hear how "unbiased" the BBC is. The problem is that EVERY organization outlet is biased in one form. Sure the BBC doesn't have fancy glossy graphics etc. but they are VERY biased.
People too easily confuse presentation style with bias. 10 years ago the BBC was exceptionally good but these days its reporting and twisting of the facts is downright atrocious.
Thats like saying the Y2K thing was a fuss over nothing because it went pretty smoothly - in reality if they didn't fix the problems it would've been much worse. And likewise, if MS don't grab as much IP as they can then they'd fall victim to it even more than this $9M.
Bear in mind that company's make certain decisions (release software for instance) based on different criteria than that of a sole engineer. It takes the engineer's position into account but also marketing, finances etc. Whilst an engineer myself I can see that a manager has a balancing act to perform.
But the key is realistic time estimates and realistic features - something very difficult to do.
ok, so a little late but nevermind. So let me expand my point - *if* the software does everything you want it to do then it doesn't matter if the company dies or not.
So if doesn't export what you want then this is a failure of the implementation, not of longevity (the point of the post). As a consequence you then shouldn't have bought it in the first place. Open source is a good thing because it offers a choice to the closed proprietry offerings, but it doesn't mean everything has to follow the open source model. But this is a different topic.
On activation - this is really your only valid point that counters my original. In most circumstances activation is only on install - assuming consumer software (not counting dongles and all that). But then if the software breaks then it doesn't meet my previously stated requirements.
Above all propietry formats exist for reason and have their place. All the doomsdayers have always predicted the end of the world because of closed source\formats and its yet to manifest itself.
The fact is that if the company providing the software ever dies, you'll be left with nothing.
Thats hogwash. If you've got the software to create, read and export your documents now what difference does it make whether the company who originally made that software goes bust or not?
It is April 1st in many other parts of the world though. You know, there are other people on this planet that do not live in the US.
yes but why does that matter? Since Apple, a US company is anouncing a product made in the US, from the US, I think the grand parents reasoning is perfectly valid on the point you tried to retort him\her on.
I'll concede part of the second point: There are cases where saying "I was doing it at my employer's request" is an insufficient defense, and I may be held culpable anyhow. But there are cases where it's a perfectly valid defense.
[snip]
In your hypothetical, the employer shouldn't be held liable unless it specifically instructed you to kill the client, or otherwise agreed that you could kill people on its behalf.
Summary: The whole thing is way more complicated than either of us have made it out to be thus far. I'm now officially out of my depth.
Fair point made, especially on the summary:) To be clear, I'm not dissolving the corporation of any legal responsibility, just that with this issue it was perfectly clear that he was violating the DMCA and should be held accountable, as should his employer.
"Lets all disregard laws that we disagree with."
I wasn't saying that everyone should ignore every law that they don't like. But I feel strongly about the DMCA and the obvious harm it does to the public in order to benefit of a few big corporations. So I'm willing to continue holding a grudge against Adobe, and any other company that uses this law for its benefit.
And you are perfectly entitled to hold a grudge against the DMCA. You're also more than entitled to put forward your argument and try to convince the voter to repeal the DMCA. No question it would be an uphill battle but thats the basis upon which the legal system rests.
I think that, in a way, refusing to cooperate with bad laws is a service to the rule of law. When bad laws are on the books, people quickly lose their belief in the idea that our laws are reasonable and respectable. So bad laws should be broken, and breaking them in such a way as to draw attention to their immorality is a public service.
And this is where I severly depart from your POV. What and who determines a bad law? Should I not pay property taxes because I feel its bad law and have the moral high ground? If a begger stole your car\wallet etc citing a moral high ground that he needed to buy food does is that acceptable?
I personally don't really buy into this corporations == bad and indivuals == good argument. Corporations are just groups of people with self interests just as consumers have their self interests. Being in one camp or the other should not allow one to act outside the rule of law.
May I ask you: if a corporation felt that a law was "bad" would it acceptable for it to break the law?
Point the first: Skylarov wrote the code on behalf of his employer. Any legal liabilities should have been theirs, not his.
why? If I take a client for a company lunch and poison him then its my employer thats liabel? HE wrote the code and should take responsibility for it. If its deemed illegal (as determined by the courts) then he should've said so to his employer.
Point the second: Skylarov lived and worked in Russia, a place where American law doesn't apply.
But he came to the US and is now subject to US law.
Point the third: Skylarov was arrested under the DMCA, which is a bad, nasty, pointless, stupid law which effectively overthrows the balance of rights that has always existed between publishers and their customers....[snip]
Bad laws shouldn't exist. People shouldn't be prosecuted under bad laws. Case closed.
Ah excellent idea. Lets all disregard laws that we disagree with.
I read this is as "whhhhaaaaa, whhhhaaa, whaaaa...". If you don't like the law then DO something about it to convince people that its bad and have the law changed. But if you break the law, which is what Adobe felt he did, then he should face the consequences. If we all went around disregarding laws that we don't like it would negate the reason to have law in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, its *not* free - it costs someone development time. But the criteria of which product to use isn't often done on cost. Infact, as history dictates, many products that have high adoption rates are quite expensive.
Just for one second PLEASE realize that there are legitimate reasons for this plugin. They might not be reasons you would choose, or it could be that are forced on you (businesses), but they are valid nonetheless.
And we do this in all facets of sociey (whether its a good idea is another matter) - for instance we let the government have a standing army as part of the defence policy, we don't rely on each individual protecting their 1/4 acre property.
Why shouldn't that be legal? If thats the case then both school and MS won't benefit from each other.
Can't find any link to it but I remember watching a tv proggy how you could make glasses by creating liquid filled lenses. All the glasses were identically built but were adjustable - it was being touted as a cheap way to bring glasses in Africa.
From a military perspective Hiroshima proved the concept of the A-bomb and its effects. Nagasaki proved 2 things - a) that it wasn't some kind of "fluke" or one off scientific anomally, and b) that the Americans were prepared to drop another one, despite the Japanese trying to call their bluff.
That said, it was a horrible waste of lives but the Japanese had numerous chances to not have it happen - either not attacking a non agressive country in the first place, by pulling out after it did, or by not fighting to the death many, many the amount of lives the A-bombs brought would have been saved.
A brave, yet accurate, POV. Well done.
if I remember right I thought the "visitors" wandered off to unauthorised parts of the show, were asked to leave, but didn't - or something like that. It wasn't *just* because they were taking photos at an air show which is implying they were in a crowd of people etc.
so you would say that since Linux is free its a total piece of crap?
same difference really. Hitler was head of the Socialist party in Germany, Stalin in Russia.
come on, thats using common sense to the subject and completely ruins the big bad corporate bashing that is going on.
then he shouldn't have signed the damn contract - that was part of the deal. You can't pick and choose what bits you find are "morally right" AFTER the fact. He accepted a big salary, now he should accept the waiting period before he can join google.
I love the way that slashdot uses cases \ scenarios in the extreme to hide behind some piracy law...
Being a UK ex-pat living here in the States its obvious to me that there certainyl isn't a European country that comes close. I mean the US has had the Constitution for 200 years which has the ideals of freedom and liberty enshrined in it. Contrast that with Europe, for instance, that comes out with a 300 page legalese constitution that takes away freedoms from member states.
So modesty isn't what I'm concerned about, but accuracy.
People too easily confuse presentation style with bias. 10 years ago the BBC was exceptionally good but these days its reporting and twisting of the facts is downright atrocious.
Thats like saying the Y2K thing was a fuss over nothing because it went pretty smoothly - in reality if they didn't fix the problems it would've been much worse. And likewise, if MS don't grab as much IP as they can then they'd fall victim to it even more than this $9M.
Bear in mind that company's make certain decisions (release software for instance) based on different criteria than that of a sole engineer. It takes the engineer's position into account but also marketing, finances etc. Whilst an engineer myself I can see that a manager has a balancing act to perform. But the key is realistic time estimates and realistic features - something very difficult to do.
I know...
So if doesn't export what you want then this is a failure of the implementation, not of longevity (the point of the post). As a consequence you then shouldn't have bought it in the first place. Open source is a good thing because it offers a choice to the closed proprietry offerings, but it doesn't mean everything has to follow the open source model. But this is a different topic.
On activation - this is really your only valid point that counters my original. In most circumstances activation is only on install - assuming consumer software (not counting dongles and all that). But then if the software breaks then it doesn't meet my previously stated requirements.
Above all propietry formats exist for reason and have their place. All the doomsdayers have always predicted the end of the world because of closed source\formats and its yet to manifest itself.
Is this an example of tolerance that Christians are told to adhere to?
Thats hogwash. If you've got the software to create, read and export your documents now what difference does it make whether the company who originally made that software goes bust or not?
yes but why does that matter? Since Apple, a US company is anouncing a product made in the US, from the US, I think the grand parents reasoning is perfectly valid on the point you tried to retort him\her on.
I pressume if the EU really is interested in choice for its citizens, then one will have a choice as to which version to buy?
[snip]
In your hypothetical, the employer shouldn't be held liable unless it specifically instructed you to kill the client, or otherwise agreed that you could kill people on its behalf.
Summary: The whole thing is way more complicated than either of us have made it out to be thus far. I'm now officially out of my depth.
Fair point made, especially on the summary :) To be clear, I'm not dissolving the corporation of any legal responsibility, just that with this issue it was perfectly clear that he was violating the DMCA and should be held accountable, as should his employer.
"Lets all disregard laws that we disagree with." I wasn't saying that everyone should ignore every law that they don't like. But I feel strongly about the DMCA and the obvious harm it does to the public in order to benefit of a few big corporations. So I'm willing to continue holding a grudge against Adobe, and any other company that uses this law for its benefit.
And you are perfectly entitled to hold a grudge against the DMCA. You're also more than entitled to put forward your argument and try to convince the voter to repeal the DMCA. No question it would be an uphill battle but thats the basis upon which the legal system rests.
I think that, in a way, refusing to cooperate with bad laws is a service to the rule of law. When bad laws are on the books, people quickly lose their belief in the idea that our laws are reasonable and respectable. So bad laws should be broken, and breaking them in such a way as to draw attention to their immorality is a public service.
And this is where I severly depart from your POV. What and who determines a bad law? Should I not pay property taxes because I feel its bad law and have the moral high ground? If a begger stole your car\wallet etc citing a moral high ground that he needed to buy food does is that acceptable?
I personally don't really buy into this corporations == bad and indivuals == good argument. Corporations are just groups of people with self interests just as consumers have their self interests. Being in one camp or the other should not allow one to act outside the rule of law.
May I ask you: if a corporation felt that a law was "bad" would it acceptable for it to break the law?
why? If I take a client for a company lunch and poison him then its my employer thats liabel? HE wrote the code and should take responsibility for it. If its deemed illegal (as determined by the courts) then he should've said so to his employer.
Point the second: Skylarov lived and worked in Russia, a place where American law doesn't apply.
But he came to the US and is now subject to US law.
Point the third: Skylarov was arrested under the DMCA, which is a bad, nasty, pointless, stupid law which effectively overthrows the balance of rights that has always existed between publishers and their customers....[snip]
Bad laws shouldn't exist. People shouldn't be prosecuted under bad laws. Case closed.
Ah excellent idea. Lets all disregard laws that we disagree with.
I read this is as "whhhhaaaaa, whhhhaaa, whaaaa...". If you don't like the law then DO something about it to convince people that its bad and have the law changed. But if you break the law, which is what Adobe felt he did, then he should face the consequences. If we all went around disregarding laws that we don't like it would negate the reason to have law in the first place.