And the ones who asked me to lie to customers went out of business in the meantime. I'm not sure it's related to their morals...
I'd say most likely yes, it was because of their unethical behavior -- or at least their treatment of customers was no doubt a factor in their own demise. Customers won't put up with being lied to, and they certainly won't come back to a company for services after being burned once, whether it's consulting or any other service or retail or whatever. They don't stand for that shit, and they shouldn't have to.
There ARE a lot of incompetent people in charge who realize how much easier their jobs would be if they didn't have to worry about protecting people's rights.
Funny, and here all this time I thought that was Job Numero Uno for public officials in the U.S.
I believe you're thinking of software keyloggers, in which case you're (probably) correct. However, to the best of my knowledge, a hardware-based keylogger (dongle between keyboard and port) doesn't give a rat's ass what your OS is. Then again, if someone has both physical access to your computer and motivation to spy on your online transactions, your bank's online security may be the least of your problems...
But when it comes down to it, I'd rather pay a few bucks than have advertising shoved in my face.
Speak for yourself. For those of us on a budget, it's better to deal with a few ads and have free content, than to have to pay to read articles or use web-based applications. Maybe YOU can afford to pay to have ads removed from X number of web-based apps or articles, but some of us can't, and it'd be nice to at least have the option to either pay for no ads or have free content with ads. Right now, on my modest income, I'll gladly deal with a few ads (to a point) to get content for free. I personally dislike ads as much as the next guy, but the harsh realities of economics are a more prevalent factor for some of us than dealing with a few annoying advertisements.
Gee, I hope you never get a job working on Windows source code.
Right, because embedding harsh language into the source would be far worse than if some of those iconic sound files in WinXP were made using a warezed copy of SoundForge... wait, was that out loud?
Yes, but you usians have the option to shoot the lawyers when they come to serve you the subpoena.
I'll never quite understand this insistence of some/. users of refusing to refer to Americans as Americans, as if it's somehow insulting to residents of other countries in North or South America. There's no continent called simply "America", so anyone living in either of the continents in question would be either "North Americans" or "South Americans", obviously. Also, to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), there's only one country with the word "America" in the title. Canadians certainly don't call themselves Americans; I have a good friend who's Canadian, and if you called him American he would, quite understandably, look at you like you were retarded. I'm also willing to bet that if you referred to a Mexican as an American he'd probably be insulted. Many people have some pride and/or loyalty to their nations of origin; this generally does not exist for mere continental landmasses.
It doesn't explain why Asians do so well in school compared to their European counterparts in America...
That is easily answered by very different social forces acting within those respective regions. Now matter how much natural (physiological) inclination an individual may have toward higher cognitive abilities than his peers, if that individual is raised in an environment that downplays intelligence and learning in favor of, say, physical strength and speed so as to perform better on the football team, learning be damned, then that will have far greater impact on the individual's mental capacity by the time they reach full adulthood. Obviously, the erroneously named "education system" here in the U.S. places less emphasis on teaching kids *how* to think, and more on *what* to think, and just getting 'em out the door with a diploma, than for ex. in Japan, where learning and intellect are more highly valued throughout one's life, not just in early childhood.
Gonna let ya in on a little secret. They got these things, see, they're called "servers". Websites live on these things. Sometimes, lots of websites can live on one server. Then, they got all these "users" trying to look at the websites on the "server", and sometimes things get messy, or at least a little congested. (See "Tubes" for more advanced technical info.)
Ok, all snarkiness aside, what it boils down to is simply this. It does not matter one damn bit *how* many zillion terraquads-per-nanosecond YOUR connection can handle, the *server* can only dish out so much per second to all the folks making page requests to sites on that server. Period. End of story. You may have an Internet connection so goddamned fast the packets travel back in time, it won't make any difference. Which reminds me, <looks around again> there's also this thing called "point of diminishing returns", and it's got tons of uses in all kindsa fields, not just Teh IntarTubes... but if ya wanna know more, you'll hafta buy a watch.
cpt kangarooski, you've raised many interesting points over the course of this thread. While I don't entirely agree with many of them (and thank ElleyKitten for her incisive rebuttals), I will say that we do agree on one point in particular -- that the time limit for copyright should be far shortened of what it is today. And I say that as a 'creator' of original works (graphic art, fiction, games, etc.). My personal opinion on this particular aspect is that copyright should be shortened to at most 10 years, and after that the work automatically becomes public domain, after which the only legal requirement for reproduction being credit given to the original author/artist. Honestly, if I can't recoup a financial gain from my work within a decade of copyrighting said work, it's probably a lost cause anyway, other than as an exercise in creative expression.
...assuming that there is even such a thing as fairness in the context of copyright law, which there is not.
That's a shame, because there could be, if the laws were rewritten properly. As they stand now, they mostly benefit artificial entities, namely corporations which have theoretically immortal lifespans.
Who are you, or anyone, to mandate that a legal burden be placed on every website designer to include certain features solely to benefit a tiny minority of users? Does this mean that if Joe Average who wants to create his own website to show off his beer can collection, then he must, by law and under threat of criminal penalty, conform to someone else's arbitrary page design specifications? If Joe pays for a domain name and server space out of his own pocket, then that website is his to do with as he damn well pleases; YOU didn't pay for it, so YOU have no right whatsoever to tell him how to design his site. Sure, his site might turn out to be complete and utter crap, but that's his right as the person who paid for the site.
As for business websites, if they fail to accommodate the visually impaired then they will lose their business, as well they should. And the impaired have every right to take their business elsewhere; that is their choice. Regardless of one's physical disability or lack thereof, the one thing they always have is personal choice.
...no one should be required to undertake burdensome measures to accomodate others unwillingly.
The truthfulness of that statement outweighs everything else in your argument. And I'd like to add, since the majority of Internet users live in one democratic nation or another, the very definition of democracy is that majority rules; that is the whole point of voting, that the leaders of the nation in question heed the will of the majority. Now, I don't make light of the troubles of being disabled, of lacking sight or hearing or mobility or what-have-you, but quite frankly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.* That is the whole point of any democratic society.
* Nevermind that the quote was from a fictional character, the premise is sound.
It's a common misonception that flash ins't accessible, the latest versions are very much so. JK Rowlings new site is meant to be a good example of this.
From that very site:
"We have noticed that you are using a pop-up blocker; to view this site correctly, you will need to switch off any pop-up blocking software. [link to Re-Enter Site]
The only sensible reply I can conjure for this foolishness is "WTF?!"
Other than an online cartoon, what do you have to do in Flash that can't be done in html?
Off the top of my head: Browser-based, OS-agnostic games. Here's one example by a friend of mine, out of many thousands across the Web. Flash is a wonderful tool which has a wide variety of uses; unfortunately, like any tool, it can - and often is - abused. Using Flash for a web page UI is nearly universally a bad idea, unless you also present the user with an HTML-based UI as an alternative.
Don't condemn the tool, condemn those who misuse it.
So many words put into my mouth, where to begin...
You do not have the "right" to make money off anything you do, just because you happened to work hard to accomplish it.
I never said I have the "right" to make money; I'm just saying I have the right to try to make money off what I do. If you are incapable of understanding the difference then you have no business contributing to this conversation.
You've still got this emotional attachment to what's "fair"...
Yeah, me and millions of others. Y'see, a great many people live on the principle of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you", which means don't treat others in a way that you wouldn't want them treating you. C'mon, it's a pretty simple concept, even you should be able to grasp it.
If you want to encourage content-creation, then figure out a societal mechanism to pay creators for their services...
No, YOU figure that one out. In the mean time, I'll continue to create content, and you can go ahead and cut yourself off from civilization. If you're not willing to at least acknowledge the hard efforts of those who create the books, music, games, etc. that you enjoy, then why are you even commenting here? Get over this silly hardheadedness of yours. If you're not willing to at least try to get along with others -- including the authors you seem to despise -- then you have no place within any community.
You know, if it weren't for government enforcement of an artificially-created monopoly [...] IP laws are socialistic at their fundamental - attempting to "twist" free-market economics to try and achieve a social effect (encouraging innovation).
So, you're saying that if I spend a year of my free time creating a fantasy game, complete with a new and unique world with its own history, events, species, characters, etc., and release that game for retail download from my website, according to you I have no right whatsoever to complain if someone else simply copies my work and tries to sell it themselves? I'm no fan of the *AA et al, nor of their (IMO) mobster business practices, and I believe Stanley got a bit too-harsh a punishment, but what you're saying goes too far the other direction. Intellectual property may seem like an artificial contrivance to you, but to someone who actually creates original works, the complete lack of IP laws would be just as bad for innovation as the current penalties for breaking those laws is bad for balanced justice.
And that's what it's all about, folks: balance. On one hand, creators of original works need some way to make sure no one else can simply steal their hard work out from under them; on the other hand, the punishment needs to fit the crime and not be too heavy-handed. I don't claim to have the perfect solution, but the current set of laws isn't it.
Does everyone on Slashdot have zero respect for intellectual property or just a few moderators?
You seem to be missing the point. The problem is not "zero respect for intellectual property", it's zero respect for punishment that is wildly disproportionate to the crime in question. Yes, a crime in which no one was harmed nor ever intended to be harmed should carry a lesser penalty. (And yes, intent does matter in a courtroom.)
Suggesting this guy should get a lighter sentence because no one is hurt is like suggesting a car thief should get off easy because no one got hurt. [...] Frankly, this guy is getting off easy.
Yep, definitely missing the point. IIRC, jacking a car while the driver is inside (ie. forcing/demanding their exit from the vehicle so you can take it) constitutes a violent felony, and carries greater penalty than stealing a car while it's parked and unattended. It may not be a huge difference, but yes, violent crimes should carry greater penalties than non-violent crimes. Hell this doesn't even constitute "theft" (denial of use), it's merely "theoretical loss of possible future revenue that we think we might have made". Hardly grounds for five years in prison.
Otherwise I charge friends and family $120.00 an hour.
Geez dude, I hope you at least give a free reach-around when you bone them from behind like that. Maybe it's a cost-of-living difference between geographical regions, but I find $20/hour for freelance tech support (with 3-hour minimum charge) more than sufficient.
Riiiight, it never happened to you therefore it couldn't possibly happen to anybody. Nice logic there, genius.
Hey guess what, I'm a smoker IRL but I haven't died of lung cancer yet, therefore all those other thousands of smoking-related deaths (lung cancer, heart disease) must be "pure FUD". Dumbass.
When it comes to Firefox upgrades, I too have been lucky. The only problems I've had are with broken extensions that need to be upgraded (or "forcibly" upgraded by changing their max version values). However, I have known people who've had difficulties with disappearing bookmarks when upgrading. Yes, it happens. Yes, there are often easy fixes (see earlier posts in this thread), but it does happen. Just because it doesn't happen to YOU doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.
Slashdot Mirror
And while we're on it: I'd say most likely yes, it was because of their unethical behavior -- or at least their treatment of customers was no doubt a factor in their own demise. Customers won't put up with being lied to, and they certainly won't come back to a company for services after being burned once, whether it's consulting or any other service or retail or whatever. They don't stand for that shit, and they shouldn't have to.
Oh, wait...
I believe you're thinking of software keyloggers, in which case you're (probably) correct. However, to the best of my knowledge, a hardware-based keylogger (dongle between keyboard and port) doesn't give a rat's ass what your OS is. Then again, if someone has both physical access to your computer and motivation to spy on your online transactions, your bank's online security may be the least of your problems...
Good God... My kingdom for two mod points! Parent and GP have just made my day, and probably yours too since you read this far. Well done, guys. :)
*ducks*
! <BR>, damn you!
For the love of God, man... please... <BR>...
<whimper>
Gonna let ya in on a little secret. They got these things, see, they're called "servers". Websites live on these things. Sometimes, lots of websites can live on one server. Then, they got all these "users" trying to look at the websites on the "server", and sometimes things get messy, or at least a little congested. (See "Tubes" for more advanced technical info.)
Ok, all snarkiness aside, what it boils down to is simply this. It does not matter one damn bit *how* many zillion terraquads-per-nanosecond YOUR connection can handle, the *server* can only dish out so much per second to all the folks making page requests to sites on that server. Period. End of story. You may have an Internet connection so goddamned fast the packets travel back in time, it won't make any difference. Which reminds me, <looks around again> there's also this thing called "point of diminishing returns", and it's got tons of uses in all kindsa fields, not just Teh IntarTubes... but if ya wanna know more, you'll hafta buy a watch.
That's a shame, because there could be, if the laws were rewritten properly. As they stand now, they mostly benefit artificial entities, namely corporations which have theoretically immortal lifespans.
Who are you, or anyone, to mandate that a legal burden be placed on every website designer to include certain features solely to benefit a tiny minority of users? Does this mean that if Joe Average who wants to create his own website to show off his beer can collection, then he must, by law and under threat of criminal penalty, conform to someone else's arbitrary page design specifications? If Joe pays for a domain name and server space out of his own pocket, then that website is his to do with as he damn well pleases; YOU didn't pay for it, so YOU have no right whatsoever to tell him how to design his site. Sure, his site might turn out to be complete and utter crap, but that's his right as the person who paid for the site.
As for business websites, if they fail to accommodate the visually impaired then they will lose their business, as well they should. And the impaired have every right to take their business elsewhere; that is their choice. Regardless of one's physical disability or lack thereof, the one thing they always have is personal choice.
* Nevermind that the quote was from a fictional character, the premise is sound.
Don't condemn the tool, condemn those who misuse it.
I never said I have the "right" to make money; I'm just saying I have the right to try to make money off what I do. If you are incapable of understanding the difference then you have no business contributing to this conversation.
Yeah, me and millions of others. Y'see, a great many people live on the principle of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you", which means don't treat others in a way that you wouldn't want them treating you. C'mon, it's a pretty simple concept, even you should be able to grasp it.
No, YOU figure that one out. In the mean time, I'll continue to create content, and you can go ahead and cut yourself off from civilization. If you're not willing to at least acknowledge the hard efforts of those who create the books, music, games, etc. that you enjoy, then why are you even commenting here? Get over this silly hardheadedness of yours. If you're not willing to at least try to get along with others -- including the authors you seem to despise -- then you have no place within any community.
Well said, Elley.
And that's what it's all about, folks: balance. On one hand, creators of original works need some way to make sure no one else can simply steal their hard work out from under them; on the other hand, the punishment needs to fit the crime and not be too heavy-handed. I don't claim to have the perfect solution, but the current set of laws isn't it.
Apologies, that should've been "months" in the parent post, not "years". Eh, it's been a long day. :/
Yep, definitely missing the point. IIRC, jacking a car while the driver is inside (ie. forcing/demanding their exit from the vehicle so you can take it) constitutes a violent felony, and carries greater penalty than stealing a car while it's parked and unattended. It may not be a huge difference, but yes, violent crimes should carry greater penalties than non-violent crimes. Hell this doesn't even constitute "theft" (denial of use), it's merely "theoretical loss of possible future revenue that we think we might have made". Hardly grounds for five years in prison.
Riiiight, it never happened to you therefore it couldn't possibly happen to anybody. Nice logic there, genius.
Hey guess what, I'm a smoker IRL but I haven't died of lung cancer yet, therefore all those other thousands of smoking-related deaths (lung cancer, heart disease) must be "pure FUD". Dumbass.
When it comes to Firefox upgrades, I too have been lucky. The only problems I've had are with broken extensions that need to be upgraded (or "forcibly" upgraded by changing their max version values). However, I have known people who've had difficulties with disappearing bookmarks when upgrading. Yes, it happens. Yes, there are often easy fixes (see earlier posts in this thread), but it does happen. Just because it doesn't happen to YOU doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.
My God, how is that comment NOT at +5000 Funny? Mods must be asleep at the mouse today...