This is just a natural evolution. The same situation exists in hardware design. Very few young people can whip up a useful circuit with resistors, capacitors, and transistors. At my company we have 1 or 2 "dinosaurs" who invariably get called upon to solve problems in the hardware when it gets down to this level. Everyone is amazed when they throw together a quick little circuit with a breadboard and a few hand-soldered components. The simple fact is, more people don't learn to do this low-level type of work because there is not as much need for it anymore. But, and here is the rub, there will always be someneed. We'll always have to have a few folks around who understand the fundamentals. One could imagine as things continue to evolve, that these "low level specialists" could become quite expensive.
Having a computer you can pull an HD and stick into to make offline scans is also very handy but bulky.
It doesn't have to be bulky. Carry a laptop and an IDE-to-USB cable (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N8 2E16812156101). Then you can connect the customer's drive to your laptop, where you can scan it, offload data files, etc. You might not even have to remove the drive from the box - just pull off the IDE ribbon and attach your adapter.
There is not such thing as intellectual property. That is just an slogan
I had typed a long, thoughtful response to your comment, but then/. went down before I submitted it, so now you get the Reader's Digest version;-)
Mostly your post amounts to semantics. The usage of the word "steal" refers to the act of taking something that doesn't belong to you -- in most Western nations it is illegal to install software for which you do not have a license (or, to use your own words, software for which you have usurped the "distribution privilege" of its creator). This is commonly refered to as stealing, but to be technically correct as you point out, the crime is indeed copyright infringement. As regards my use of the work "pirate", again, one common definition of the word (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pirate) is to describe someone who copies software for which they do not have a legal license. I am not misusing this word in this context at all. The RIAA came along AFTER the word "piracy" was in common use, and they adopted the terminology, expanding it to cover copying of music.
It sounds to me like you really don't agree with the IP laws on the books in most western nations. They apparently clash with your views of how the world should work. But we are nations of laws, and however inconvenient or inconguous with our basic belief systems those laws might be, to violate them is to commit a crime. We are not all free to make our own interpretations of what constitutes a crime. For example, if an individual believed in life after death, then in their mind it is not "murder" to kill someone, since they go on living in the afterlife. So such an individual could say "there no such thing as 'murder'" and be just as correct as your "these is no such thing as intellectual property" assertion. I know this is an extreme example but I think it is illustrative.
It really depends on how you set them up. Many are configured to run a full scan every day at a certain time. Some are configured to do an "access scan", but this can really slow down your system so often it isn't the default. Plus, there are things called "shallow" scans and there are "deep" scans. You are right though, with most modern virus scanners, realtime protection is provided - especially when you try to run an executable, or when a process attempts to modify system settings or OS files. The problem, though, is that every virus scanner is only as good as its database. So, newer strains slip right by.
Illegal:
- Launch your favourite P2P program.
- Type program name, Click "download" on the list.
- Relax as it downloads.
- Unzip.
- Click "serial.txt", copy the serial.
- Install.
Umm, you forgot a few steps. You forgot the part where the illegal copy was infested with all sorts of malware. Let me finish the scenario for you:
- during the install your machine sends your private information (credit cards, passwords, etc) to some illicit server
- a root kit gets installed, turning your machine into a potential zombie
- some time later things start breaking on your machine and you have no idea why
Now, these steps don't happen every time - that's what keeps people coming back. But you have to admit, many of the "crackers" are doing this sort of thing. The "free software" is the bait. So perhaps you need to add a few steps to your illegal process - run virus scan, run rootkit scan, run malware scan BEFORE installing. Of course if you do that, then the legal path looks like the simpler path.
Admit it - people pirate software because it's free - not because it's easier.
Microsoft needs to stop treating every customer like criminals and then maybe more of them will feel inclined to start paying for the software.
Wait a minute! If somebody steals your software, they are not a customer, they are a pirate. Your ending clause "maybe more of them will feel inclined to start paying for the software" indicates you are specifically refering to those people who did not pay for the software in the first place. So, let's fix your statement so it is more correct:
Microsoft needs to stop treating every pirate like criminals and then maybe more of them will feel inclined to start paying for the software.
... Compaq, which reverse engineered the IBM BIOS and made is possible for cheap hardware to take over the market...
You are conveniently forgetting the most important piece of the puzzle. Yes, cloning the BIOS was a key step. But the BIOS is only the layer between the "cheap hardware" and the operating system. Applications (mostly) did not talk directly to the BIOS. It would not have mattered that the BIOS was cloned if there wasn't an available OS, with a collection of sought-after applications (Lotus 123, WordPerfect, Flight Simulator), to run on top of it. The simple fact is it only made sense for Compaq (and the other clone makers) to do what they did because Microsoft had the foresight and vision to retain distribution rights to MS-DOS while negotiating with IBM. It was Microsoft who saw the future was software. The lumbering giants around them were stuck in the past:
1) make hardware
2) bundle proprietary Operating System
3) get paid big bucks for captive applications
4) Profit!
you will forever be playing catch-up in the quality game
In the immortal words of Lee Iaccoca, "Too much quality will ruin you."
Those that do best in business (i.e. "outperform" their competitors) survive to compete another day. The business world is riddled with companies that gave "quality" a disproportionate weight in decision-making. Most software engineers who work for commercial concerns know and appreciate this truth. This is of course why we have defect tracking systems, defect triage meetings, and why we classify defects as "deferred", "must fix", "high priority", etc. It's why we have "releases", and "patches". The real magic, the real insight, comes in making those tradeoffs correctly (as defined by our customers). And success in the marketplace is one really good metric on how well those decisions are made.
make tricky business deals with IBM
BG: We will only license our OS to you if we maintain the rights to distribute it to other potential customers.
IBM: OK, we're a giant corporation who could squash you like a bug. We agree.
BG: (silently to himself) Boy, am I tricky!
Maybe it's because the world's number 1 software company didn't get to where it is today by outperforming its rivals
Talk about perpetuating myths! They did outperform their rivals, by definition. You can't argue that they abused their monopoly powers in order to *become* a monopoly. They outperformed their competitors, achieved market dominance, and THEN achieved their monopoly status. I know it's hard for you to admit, but at one time MS was the scrappy little guy competing against entrenched giants like IBM, HP, DEC,... and the only way they could survive was to outperform them.
Not sufficiently paying public officials (elected or not) is a guaranteed path to corruption.
I agree if we are talking about public employees (ie, not politicians or legislators, but the folks that do the work like inspectors, fireman, policeman, teachers, etc). However, I think we were specifically talking about elected officials. If you read the preceeding comments you will see that the discussion was about the accountability of politicians versus the accountability of business leaders.
I really don't think professional politicians is something the original framers of the constitution had in mind. Further I think there is plenty of evidence that if you pay politicians well, that is a guaranteed path to corruption, since they will do anything to keep their position, including selling favors and using the government's regulatory arms to harass opponents.
And it costs $129BN a year to run the Department of Agriculture.
And the US government spent $71BN for the Department of Education (mind you, the federal government operates ZERO schools)
One in five of their classmates go hungry at home or at school because their parents can't afford to give them enough food,
The National School Lunch Program spent $7.1 billion in FY 2003. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPF actSheet.htm According to the same source, "In Fiscal Year 2003, more than 28.4 million children each day got their lunch through the National School Lunch Program." There are about 60 million school age kids in the US (ages 3 to 17) http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cp s2004/tab01-01.xls. So already we provide lunch to half of them. It seems to me we could feed the other half for about $7BN. Now, which makes more sense - reduce the DoE budget by 10%, or elimate the space program? I know which way I would vote.
The "smoke" from the solid rocket engines contains huge amounts of hydrochloric acid.
Nice article. Did you read it? It's filled with lots of "maybes" and "could be's". Sure, huge amounts of HCL are released, and, according to your citation, some cars parked nearby could have their paintjobs pitted. And maybe if the wind blows right, and there are enough launches, the PH in nearby ponds could drop. The best example they have of environmental damage at a launch site was in Kazakhstan at the Baikonur launch site - not where 115 shuttles have launched from. Seriously, this is not a big issue.
As regards the ISS falling apart.. no big surprise. Big cross-government project... most likely the pork is spread around not based on merit, but on political correctness.
The Constitution calls for a "Citizen Legislature"
Here, here! Having spent most of my life in Massachusetts I get to experience the bitter taste of what things are like when you have "professional politicians" acting as a "permanent ruling class". I did spend one wonderful decade living in NH, and the contrast was striking. Of course NH has a citizen legislature (its members get paid a few hundred dollars a year as I recall, are only in session part time, and must hold "real" jobs to survive). I can tell you from personal experience which system works better - at least from the perspective of someone who works in the private sector and pays taxes.
Yes, I agree. But in my view, large corporations remain significantly more accountable than elected officials, at least in the US. When I delineated the entities that hold corporations' feet to the fire in my first reply, I forgot to mention the biggest one of all: the government. Now we can debate how effective they are (after all, as you acknowledged, they themselves are barely accountable to anyone), but they do play the role of a regulator on the behavior of businesses.
Large corporations now have more (or at least as much) power and influence over the general population as governments do yet are unaccountable and unelected.
Would you say that elected officials are accountable when 95% of incumbents get re-elected every election cycle? Isn't that basically the same as not being elected, but rather having a lifetime appointment? At least large corporations have competitors (well, most do;-)) and shareholders, both of which force them to be accountable to some level.
I'm curious if the products went downhill first or the quality of their management did. I'd have to guess that management did.
And you'd guess correctly. I worked at HP for over 21 years. When I started Bill and Dave were running the show. I even got to meet them because they made it a point to travel to each division annually to keep tabs on things. Things began to sour in the early 90s as Bill and Dave retired. However, I do take issue with your statement "the investors took over everything turned into crap". I think it would be better stated "the MBAs took over everything turned into crap". They started all those silly "quality" process improvements, one after another, that were so in vogue at the time. This turned the focus away from employees (which was demonstrated by their annoying habit of refering to us as "resources"), and towards process. They had the false belief that with great processes you can create great products, irrespective of the people doing the work. In the end, they systematically dismantled the HP Way http://www.amazon.com/HP-Way-Hewlett-Built-Company /dp/0887307477/sr=8-1/qid=1157806093/ref=pd_bbs_1/ 102-7106367-8277765?ie=UTF8&s=books, which was at the core of the company's success. The slide reached its peak the day Carly Fiorina basically declared the HP Way obsolete. Now, sadly, HP is just another company. People ask me why I left HP after 20+ great years. I tell them, actually, HP left me.
I contend that the vast majority of those regulations are on the product not the market.
And you would be woefully mistaken. Actually, the regulations that are most onerous are on the company's product development process. And don't get me wrong, those regulations aren't in themselves necessarily hostile to new product development. What ends up happening is that the "quality system", which is created by (mostly) company beaurocrats using the FDA regs as justification, dramatically slows down and even discourages new product development. I have seen this play out at 3 different medical companies, so I know whereof I speak.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just a natural evolution. The same situation exists in hardware design. Very few young people can whip up a useful circuit with resistors, capacitors, and transistors. At my company we have 1 or 2 "dinosaurs" who invariably get called upon to solve problems in the hardware when it gets down to this level. Everyone is amazed when they throw together a quick little circuit with a breadboard and a few hand-soldered components. The simple fact is, more people don't learn to do this low-level type of work because there is not as much need for it anymore. But, and here is the rub, there will always be someneed. We'll always have to have a few folks around who understand the fundamentals. One could imagine as things continue to evolve, that these "low level specialists" could become quite expensive.
Ummm, display, keyboard, mouse? Or perhaps this a machine you talk to and it talks back - in which case, speakers and microphone?
Having a computer you can pull an HD and stick into to make offline scans is also very handy but bulky.
8 2E16812156101). Then you can connect the customer's drive to your laptop, where you can scan it, offload data files, etc. You might not even have to remove the drive from the box - just pull off the IDE ribbon and attach your adapter.
It doesn't have to be bulky. Carry a laptop and an IDE-to-USB cable (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N
There is not such thing as intellectual property. That is just an slogan
/. went down before I submitted it, so now you get the Reader's Digest version ;-)
I had typed a long, thoughtful response to your comment, but then
Mostly your post amounts to semantics. The usage of the word "steal" refers to the act of taking something that doesn't belong to you -- in most Western nations it is illegal to install software for which you do not have a license (or, to use your own words, software for which you have usurped the "distribution privilege" of its creator). This is commonly refered to as stealing, but to be technically correct as you point out, the crime is indeed copyright infringement. As regards my use of the work "pirate", again, one common definition of the word (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pirate) is to describe someone who copies software for which they do not have a legal license. I am not misusing this word in this context at all. The RIAA came along AFTER the word "piracy" was in common use, and they adopted the terminology, expanding it to cover copying of music.
It sounds to me like you really don't agree with the IP laws on the books in most western nations. They apparently clash with your views of how the world should work. But we are nations of laws, and however inconvenient or inconguous with our basic belief systems those laws might be, to violate them is to commit a crime. We are not all free to make our own interpretations of what constitutes a crime. For example, if an individual believed in life after death, then in their mind it is not "murder" to kill someone, since they go on living in the afterlife. So such an individual could say "there no such thing as 'murder'" and be just as correct as your "these is no such thing as intellectual property" assertion. I know this is an extreme example but I think it is illustrative.
these steps happen transparently
It really depends on how you set them up. Many are configured to run a full scan every day at a certain time. Some are configured to do an "access scan", but this can really slow down your system so often it isn't the default. Plus, there are things called "shallow" scans and there are "deep" scans. You are right though, with most modern virus scanners, realtime protection is provided - especially when you try to run an executable, or when a process attempts to modify system settings or OS files. The problem, though, is that every virus scanner is only as good as its database. So, newer strains slip right by.
Ummm, I quoted his post. My comment was directed at that quote.
Umm, you forgot a few steps. You forgot the part where the illegal copy was infested with all sorts of malware. Let me finish the scenario for you:
- during the install your machine sends your private information (credit cards, passwords, etc) to some illicit server
- a root kit gets installed, turning your machine into a potential zombie
- some time later things start breaking on your machine and you have no idea why
Now, these steps don't happen every time - that's what keeps people coming back. But you have to admit, many of the "crackers" are doing this sort of thing. The "free software" is the bait. So perhaps you need to add a few steps to your illegal process - run virus scan, run rootkit scan, run malware scan BEFORE installing. Of course if you do that, then the legal path looks like the simpler path.
Admit it - people pirate software because it's free - not because it's easier.
Microsoft needs to stop treating every customer like criminals and then maybe more of them will feel inclined to start paying for the software.
Wait a minute! If somebody steals your software, they are not a customer, they are a pirate. Your ending clause "maybe more of them will feel inclined to start paying for the software" indicates you are specifically refering to those people who did not pay for the software in the first place. So, let's fix your statement so it is more correct:
Microsoft needs to stop treating every pirate like criminals and then maybe more of them will feel inclined to start paying for the software.
Always, always run Sandra http://www.sisoftware.net/ on any machine you buy or build.
... Compaq, which reverse engineered the IBM BIOS and made is possible for cheap hardware to take over the market ...
You are conveniently forgetting the most important piece of the puzzle. Yes, cloning the BIOS was a key step. But the BIOS is only the layer between the "cheap hardware" and the operating system. Applications (mostly) did not talk directly to the BIOS. It would not have mattered that the BIOS was cloned if there wasn't an available OS, with a collection of sought-after applications (Lotus 123, WordPerfect, Flight Simulator), to run on top of it. The simple fact is it only made sense for Compaq (and the other clone makers) to do what they did because Microsoft had the foresight and vision to retain distribution rights to MS-DOS while negotiating with IBM. It was Microsoft who saw the future was software. The lumbering giants around them were stuck in the past:
1) make hardware
2) bundle proprietary Operating System
3) get paid big bucks for captive applications
4) Profit!
Yeah, right. Tiny little 2-person company Microsoft used a gun on poor defenseless IBM. Brilliant analogy.
So, can somebody tell me why you would have a patent if you are not going to enforce it?
Easy. So somebody else doesn't patent it and prevent you from using it, or extort licensing fees from you.
you will forever be playing catch-up in the quality game
In the immortal words of Lee Iaccoca, "Too much quality will ruin you."
Those that do best in business (i.e. "outperform" their competitors) survive to compete another day. The business world is riddled with companies that gave "quality" a disproportionate weight in decision-making. Most software engineers who work for commercial concerns know and appreciate this truth. This is of course why we have defect tracking systems, defect triage meetings, and why we classify defects as "deferred", "must fix", "high priority", etc. It's why we have "releases", and "patches". The real magic, the real insight, comes in making those tradeoffs correctly (as defined by our customers). And success in the marketplace is one really good metric on how well those decisions are made.
Well, I guess the handwriting is on the wall then. It's probably only a matter of time before the O/S licensing is by core also.
make tricky business deals with IBM
BG: We will only license our OS to you if we maintain the rights to distribute it to other potential customers.
IBM: OK, we're a giant corporation who could squash you like a bug. We agree.
BG: (silently to himself) Boy, am I tricky!
before Microsoft starts charging more for multi-core installations? Seriously, if quad core means fewer boxes in the rack, it means fewer licenses.
Maybe it's because the world's number 1 software company didn't get to where it is today by outperforming its rivals
... and the only way they could survive was to outperform them.
Talk about perpetuating myths! They did outperform their rivals, by definition. You can't argue that they abused their monopoly powers in order to *become* a monopoly. They outperformed their competitors, achieved market dominance, and THEN achieved their monopoly status. I know it's hard for you to admit, but at one time MS was the scrappy little guy competing against entrenched giants like IBM, HP, DEC,
Not sufficiently paying public officials (elected or not) is a guaranteed path to corruption.
I agree if we are talking about public employees (ie, not politicians or legislators, but the folks that do the work like inspectors, fireman, policeman, teachers, etc). However, I think we were specifically talking about elected officials. If you read the preceeding comments you will see that the discussion was about the accountability of politicians versus the accountability of business leaders.
I really don't think professional politicians is something the original framers of the constitution had in mind. Further I think there is plenty of evidence that if you pay politicians well, that is a guaranteed path to corruption, since they will do anything to keep their position, including selling favors and using the government's regulatory arms to harass opponents.
OK, I have to weigh in here.
F actSheet.htm According to the same source, "In Fiscal Year 2003, more than 28.4 million children each day got their lunch through the National School Lunch Program." There are about 60 million school age kids in the US (ages 3 to 17) http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cp s2004/tab01-01.xls. So already we provide lunch to half of them. It seems to me we could feed the other half for about $7BN. Now, which makes more sense - reduce the DoE budget by 10%, or elimate the space program? I know which way I would vote.
.. no big surprise. Big cross-government project ... most likely the pork is spread around not based on merit, but on political correctness.
It costs $16BN a year to keep NASA running
And it costs $129BN a year to run the Department of Agriculture.
And the US government spent $71BN for the Department of Education (mind you, the federal government operates ZERO schools)
One in five of their classmates go hungry at home or at school because their parents can't afford to give them enough food,
The National School Lunch Program spent $7.1 billion in FY 2003. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/NSLP
The "smoke" from the solid rocket engines contains huge amounts of hydrochloric acid.
Nice article. Did you read it? It's filled with lots of "maybes" and "could be's". Sure, huge amounts of HCL are released, and, according to your citation, some cars parked nearby could have their paintjobs pitted. And maybe if the wind blows right, and there are enough launches, the PH in nearby ponds could drop. The best example they have of environmental damage at a launch site was in Kazakhstan at the Baikonur launch site - not where 115 shuttles have launched from. Seriously, this is not a big issue.
As regards the ISS falling apart
The Constitution calls for a "Citizen Legislature"
Here, here! Having spent most of my life in Massachusetts I get to experience the bitter taste of what things are like when you have "professional politicians" acting as a "permanent ruling class". I did spend one wonderful decade living in NH, and the contrast was striking. Of course NH has a citizen legislature (its members get paid a few hundred dollars a year as I recall, are only in session part time, and must hold "real" jobs to survive). I can tell you from personal experience which system works better - at least from the perspective of someone who works in the private sector and pays taxes.
They're _theoretically_ accountable
Yes, I agree. But in my view, large corporations remain significantly more accountable than elected officials, at least in the US. When I delineated the entities that hold corporations' feet to the fire in my first reply, I forgot to mention the biggest one of all: the government. Now we can debate how effective they are (after all, as you acknowledged, they themselves are barely accountable to anyone), but they do play the role of a regulator on the behavior of businesses.
Large corporations now have more (or at least as much) power and influence over the general population as governments do yet are unaccountable and unelected.
;-)) and shareholders, both of which force them to be accountable to some level.
Would you say that elected officials are accountable when 95% of incumbents get re-elected every election cycle? Isn't that basically the same as not being elected, but rather having a lifetime appointment? At least large corporations have competitors (well, most do
I'm curious if the products went downhill first or the quality of their management did. I'd have to guess that management did.
y /dp/0887307477/sr=8-1/qid=1157806093/ref=pd_bbs_1/ 102-7106367-8277765?ie=UTF8&s=books, which was at the core of the company's success. The slide reached its peak the day Carly Fiorina basically declared the HP Way obsolete. Now, sadly, HP is just another company. People ask me why I left HP after 20+ great years. I tell them, actually, HP left me.
And you'd guess correctly. I worked at HP for over 21 years. When I started Bill and Dave were running the show. I even got to meet them because they made it a point to travel to each division annually to keep tabs on things. Things began to sour in the early 90s as Bill and Dave retired. However, I do take issue with your statement "the investors took over everything turned into crap". I think it would be better stated "the MBAs took over everything turned into crap". They started all those silly "quality" process improvements, one after another, that were so in vogue at the time. This turned the focus away from employees (which was demonstrated by their annoying habit of refering to us as "resources"), and towards process. They had the false belief that with great processes you can create great products, irrespective of the people doing the work. In the end, they systematically dismantled the HP Way http://www.amazon.com/HP-Way-Hewlett-Built-Compan
At least they aren't using Sony laptop batteries. Now that would be a problem.
I contend that the vast majority of those regulations are on the product not the market.
And you would be woefully mistaken. Actually, the regulations that are most onerous are on the company's product development process. And don't get me wrong, those regulations aren't in themselves necessarily hostile to new product development. What ends up happening is that the "quality system", which is created by (mostly) company beaurocrats using the FDA regs as justification, dramatically slows down and even discourages new product development. I have seen this play out at 3 different medical companies, so I know whereof I speak.