Reverse engineering is perfectly legal. Though you can sue for just about anything, it would be difficult to win the case on just that.
I think a lot of people do what you describe. But not just with OSS. There are many programmers who will use other's work just to get work done on time. If it is used internally, I bet most forget or are too lazy about removing the illegal dependecies. For public releases, they are probably be much more careful (by buying licenses, or reimplementing). Unfortunately, an internally used program might someday become public and the management might forget or more likely not know about the internals of the program in question.
The very sentence you wrote is possible because of google. They made search/indexing a "commodity".
From the beginning its been a "commodity" for google.... yet they are profitable. Google just isn't a "search engine." They have a very positive brand, like Nike or BMW. Until they seriously tarnish that name, they will remain profitable.
The download comes on after the original, so I would say the majority of those who watch it can't watch the original, and couldn't do so even if the download didn't exist.
There is also those who would like to keep an archive of the aired show. If they wanted a DVD type collection, they would buy it either way. If you are suggesting that we force everyone to either buy a DVD or record the shows on their own time (thankfully that became an option), then we are doing a disservice to the consumer and that I believe is leaning way too much in favor of the IP owner.
Are you saying the download offers more and costs less to the consumer than the aired one, and thus why they download? In that case, we should be looking at why the broadcasting industry is failing to meet the needs of the consumers and make sure we do not hold back the progression of our society just to cater to the needs of a single industry.
The networks charge based on the number of people watching on TV. Once watched, that specific ad has served its paid purpose. The networks don't make anymore or less money whether people watch them again or not from a recording.
I drive a Toyota Corolla '97. I average about 33 miles per gallon. I do that same thing you described, but on a regular basis. I got my data dating back 2-3 years.
I found that driving around just under 55mph and 70mph gives me the best milage. Around 35. But with the city travel, that gets cut down to 33. I also found that heavier acceleration (not flooring, just below the stress point where it shifts down a gear) and predicting lights gives better milage.
I do my driving quite differently. I keep my acceleration to a min. Plus and minus (like cruise, but I don't have it so I do it manually). Also, I stay close to the gear shift. When you change gears, you change the ratios of the rpms. At a new gear, you got less rpms being used to run your tires. Lower rpms means less gas going through your engine block.
Atleast that is my logic. But it doesn't explain the high milage at 70 (60-65 really sucks, and 75+ isn't so good). Unless there is a gear shift at around 70mph, I shouldn't be getting this much milage. I tried to feel the gear shift, but I am going so fast, I can't hear or feel it.
Anyway, I also found the second level gas to be cheaper! Here in georgia, the price difference is 5%. The octane rating is different by around 2-3%. With that, my engine power seems to shift just enough to further optimize the milage and gives me a ~5.4%+ boost in milage (34+). So cheaper, cleaner, and longer lasting fuel when the regular price stays above $1.90.
Finally, I check my tire pressure once a month, and get my car checked based on the manufacture's recommendations (car manual), not the mechanics'.
Now this is very specific for my car, not just the make, but the particular car. And you will need to do your own tests to find the best speeds to travel at. And please PPL, when you are on the highway and people are passing you on the right, you are going too slow for that lane, move over to the right. Thx.
But my point is to keep the overall quality high. Basically, if the average grade is 30%, instead of adapting to it or being satisfied with it, lets raise that to 90%. Sure, there will still be people below it, but heck, they are all a lot better off. Especially when compared to the rest of the world. I think the US is losing, if not lost, the advantage that we have held for so long over other nations.
The previous poster seemed to imply that since half the students are not as smart as their peers, we should just set the standard to them. The whole idea of training them with "skills required by employers" is very troubling to me. The only constant is change, and the required skills of employers are not guaranteed to remain constant. So I am saying lets raise the goals and teach our kids to adapt to the changing landscape instead of teaching them to survive in an outdated one (it will ways be outdated as the teachers are atleast a generation older than the students and forcasting into the future carries a high risk).
Sure, understandable. But in this context, I think it is too much. Frontpage is nothing more than a right index finger stress inducer. The teacher shouldn't be training students on how to play with a particular GUI.
Teach them the technology, and let them learn the tools to work with such technology. Lend part of the class period for exploration, as I found that to be the best way to learn a PC. Give flexability in finding out ways to do an assignment.
[i] Maybe your child is very bright but 50% of our kids that leave school are of less than average intelligence.[/i]
Why not work harder to raise that "average" so that it is well above burger flipping. Even if the most demanded job out there was burger flipping and paid 10/hr, I still would want my child to know more than just burger flipping. Actually I wouldn't want my child wasting learning potential in school on burger flipping, if I need to, I will teach it at home. In a world where PC's remove physical distances, we can't afford to fall behind. I think the US has already done that as it is starting to show with offshoring, but I also believe the new generation has gotten a clue.
[i]... top 10% of kids it doesn't matter what u teach them they will acquire the skills...[/i]
Excellent point, but do you really want that 10% bored out of their minds and dummied down because the class is capped and restriced for the other 90%? I say give the class a huge flexability where students can go above and beyond what is considered standard. I wasn't the 10%, more like the 40%, and I though CS was the most fun class cause ALL I did was play games on that Mac. On hindsight, I think I only got dummer cause of it.
Hire a local LUG to help with the migration. It will at the least reduce costs. Big companes like RedHat and Suse probably will help a lot too as it is a BIG sale.
As for the teachers, sure, some training will be needed, but from what I have seen, I suggest hiring new teachers! IMO, the current skill level of the lab teachers is too low to actually pass any true knowledge to the students. In many cases, the lessons can be replaced by a flash tutorial!
Also, not every teacher has to be retrained fully, just the basics. Only the sys admin needs to know everything. The teachers don't get retrained for every new Windows or Office install, and I think there is as much of a difference between Windows/Office and Linux/OOo, as there is between Win## and WinNT.
As for games, I think students should be allowed to download and play them, they are a great way to step into the digital age. Basically they should have their own user accounts that they can do nearly whatever they want with (no DDOSing google;)). Including accessing it remotely and having webpages. This will encourage users of different skill levels to use the PC at their own pace and progress.
Depends on the company you keep.
Mine seems to always ask me what job I want to get done and then recommends the OS. Whether it be Linux. MS, Mac, or BSD. This is from people from all camps.
The only real biased, untrustable, realistically incorrect view I have seen is from some MS funded "independent studies". I think it would do them better if they just came out with fair valid logical studies even if it put them on the losing side like Progressive does. Cause it has gotten to a point where I just look at them for a laugh or as an after thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Reverse engineering is perfectly legal. Though you can sue for just about anything, it would be difficult to win the case on just that.
I think a lot of people do what you describe. But not just with OSS. There are many programmers who will use other's work just to get work done on time. If it is used internally, I bet most forget or are too lazy about removing the illegal dependecies. For public releases, they are probably be much more careful (by buying licenses, or reimplementing). Unfortunately, an internally used program might someday become public and the management might forget or more likely not know about the internals of the program in question.
Insightful???? No, more like an oxymoron.
The very sentence you wrote is possible because of google. They made search/indexing a "commodity".
From the beginning its been a "commodity" for google.... yet they are profitable. Google just isn't a "search engine." They have a very positive brand, like Nike or BMW. Until they seriously tarnish that name, they will remain profitable.
The download comes on after the original, so I would say the majority of those who watch it can't watch the original, and couldn't do so even if the download didn't exist.
There is also those who would like to keep an archive of the aired show. If they wanted a DVD type collection, they would buy it either way. If you are suggesting that we force everyone to either buy a DVD or record the shows on their own time (thankfully that became an option), then we are doing a disservice to the consumer and that I believe is leaning way too much in favor of the IP owner.
Are you saying the download offers more and costs less to the consumer than the aired one, and thus why they download? In that case, we should be looking at why the broadcasting industry is failing to meet the needs of the consumers and make sure we do not hold back the progression of our society just to cater to the needs of a single industry.
The networks charge based on the number of people watching on TV. Once watched, that specific ad has served its paid purpose. The networks don't make anymore or less money whether people watch them again or not from a recording.
I drive a Toyota Corolla '97. I average about 33 miles per gallon. I do that same thing you described, but on a regular basis. I got my data dating back 2-3 years.
I found that driving around just under 55mph and 70mph gives me the best milage. Around 35. But with the city travel, that gets cut down to 33. I also found that heavier acceleration (not flooring, just below the stress point where it shifts down a gear) and predicting lights gives better milage.
I do my driving quite differently. I keep my acceleration to a min. Plus and minus (like cruise, but I don't have it so I do it manually). Also, I stay close to the gear shift. When you change gears, you change the ratios of the rpms. At a new gear, you got less rpms being used to run your tires. Lower rpms means less gas going through your engine block.
Atleast that is my logic. But it doesn't explain the high milage at 70 (60-65 really sucks, and 75+ isn't so good). Unless there is a gear shift at around 70mph, I shouldn't be getting this much milage. I tried to feel the gear shift, but I am going so fast, I can't hear or feel it.
Anyway, I also found the second level gas to be cheaper! Here in georgia, the price difference is 5%. The octane rating is different by around 2-3%. With that, my engine power seems to shift just enough to further optimize the milage and gives me a ~5.4%+ boost in milage (34+). So cheaper, cleaner, and longer lasting fuel when the regular price stays above $1.90.
Finally, I check my tire pressure once a month, and get my car checked based on the manufacture's recommendations (car manual), not the mechanics'.
Now this is very specific for my car, not just the make, but the particular car. And you will need to do your own tests to find the best speeds to travel at. And please PPL, when you are on the highway and people are passing you on the right, you are going too slow for that lane, move over to the right. Thx.
But my point is to keep the overall quality high. Basically, if the average grade is 30%, instead of adapting to it or being satisfied with it, lets raise that to 90%. Sure, there will still be people below it, but heck, they are all a lot better off. Especially when compared to the rest of the world. I think the US is losing, if not lost, the advantage that we have held for so long over other nations.
The previous poster seemed to imply that since half the students are not as smart as their peers, we should just set the standard to them. The whole idea of training them with "skills required by employers" is very troubling to me. The only constant is change, and the required skills of employers are not guaranteed to remain constant. So I am saying lets raise the goals and teach our kids to adapt to the changing landscape instead of teaching them to survive in an outdated one (it will ways be outdated as the teachers are atleast a generation older than the students and forcasting into the future carries a high risk).
Abstraction is good.
Sure, understandable. But in this context, I think it is too much. Frontpage is nothing more than a right index finger stress inducer. The teacher shouldn't be training students on how to play with a particular GUI.
Teach them the technology, and let them learn the tools to work with such technology. Lend part of the class period for exploration, as I found that to be the best way to learn a PC. Give flexability in finding out ways to do an assignment.
[i] Maybe your child is very bright but 50% of our kids that leave school are of less than average intelligence.[/i]
Why not work harder to raise that "average" so that it is well above burger flipping. Even if the most demanded job out there was burger flipping and paid 10/hr, I still would want my child to know more than just burger flipping. Actually I wouldn't want my child wasting learning potential in school on burger flipping, if I need to, I will teach it at home. In a world where PC's remove physical distances, we can't afford to fall behind. I think the US has already done that as it is starting to show with offshoring, but I also believe the new generation has gotten a clue.
[i]... top 10% of kids it doesn't matter what u teach them they will acquire the skills...[/i]
Excellent point, but do you really want that 10% bored out of their minds and dummied down because the class is capped and restriced for the other 90%? I say give the class a huge flexability where students can go above and beyond what is considered standard. I wasn't the 10%, more like the 40%, and I though CS was the most fun class cause ALL I did was play games on that Mac. On hindsight, I think I only got dummer cause of it.
Hire a local LUG to help with the migration. It will at the least reduce costs. Big companes like RedHat and Suse probably will help a lot too as it is a BIG sale.
;)). Including accessing it remotely and having webpages. This will encourage users of different skill levels to use the PC at their own pace and progress.
As for the teachers, sure, some training will be needed, but from what I have seen, I suggest hiring new teachers! IMO, the current skill level of the lab teachers is too low to actually pass any true knowledge to the students. In many cases, the lessons can be replaced by a flash tutorial!
Also, not every teacher has to be retrained fully, just the basics. Only the sys admin needs to know everything. The teachers don't get retrained for every new Windows or Office install, and I think there is as much of a difference between Windows/Office and Linux/OOo, as there is between Win## and WinNT.
As for games, I think students should be allowed to download and play them, they are a great way to step into the digital age. Basically they should have their own user accounts that they can do nearly whatever they want with (no DDOSing google
Depends on the company you keep. Mine seems to always ask me what job I want to get done and then recommends the OS. Whether it be Linux. MS, Mac, or BSD. This is from people from all camps. The only real biased, untrustable, realistically incorrect view I have seen is from some MS funded "independent studies". I think it would do them better if they just came out with fair valid logical studies even if it put them on the losing side like Progressive does. Cause it has gotten to a point where I just look at them for a laugh or as an after thought.