A free market must include the possibility that somebody is allowed to provide you software without source code. Society needs to function, but competition within society is part of that.
I'm all for open source operating systems, but even there you need a layered approach to security. With the current Linux kernel, there are millions of lines of source code that you have to trust. And that's just the kernel. There's way too much trust required in software, open source or not.
As for your addendum, I don't consider proprietary software unethical, per se. Keeping the source code secret is the most straightforward way for an author to protect his investment. Users can also enjoy the benefit of a free market. Yes, there are downsides, but I don't see proprietary software going away.
The 15% number bandied about appears to be based on Marshall, and if you Google around there is plenty of debate besides "one nut on snopes". An example is New Evidence Regarding Fire Ratios.
By the same token, any proprietary software (regardless of its purported task) should be troublesome. Technically there's nothing that prevents a proprietary statistical analysis program from doing things you wouldn't want done without your full consent such as removing programs, altering files, opening a remote access point for someone, or sending information about your computer somewhere.
This is what permissions are for. There's no reason some random piece of software should have full access to your sensitive files or the Internet. The answer isn't to condemn all proprietary software. The answer is to reduce the amount of software you have to trust, and to limit the damage when the trust is broken.
And in all that time, the only method that has been shown to reliably make money in the long run was to analyze tens of thousands of results from a single wheel, and use that for future predictions on the same wheel.
The point is if the specified semantics are essentially patented, you can be sued. Whether you can find an acceptable workaround ($92 million after the fact) is another matter. You may or may not be able to, depending.
This is the whole issue with.NET and Mono, which is why I took exception to your comment: "But Microsoft couldn't take action against Mono or any of the Open Source.Net reimplementations because that's not something that can be protected."
"Eastman Kodak has won a controversial lawsuit in which it claimed Sun Microsystems had infringed several of its patents with its Java programming language."
With child rapists, it is most frequent that they cannot actually control their impulses and rarely have actual intent to harm at all.
I don't give anybody a free pass because they "cannot control their impulses". Both the hacker and the rapists chose to do harm for their own gain. My rule for "choice" is that if I put a device on you that would instantly kill you for making the wrong choice, would you still make the choice? If you would act differently with this device on you, then you really did have a choice.
Killing a pathological hacker would do more good than harm. There are a small group of types of people we would all like to see exterminated and I am sure the majority of us have a short list of our own.
The harm comes from killing people over non-violent offenses.
And if everything fails, we could actually maybe even create a copy protection system that is hard enough to break that nobody would willingly do it (after all, we spend a good deal of our time with disassembly).
You're seriously talking out of your ass. You know Windows and assembly, so you can create a practically unbeatable copy protection system? Wow. There's a long history of copyright systems, with a lot of smart and motivated people that have worked on them.
I would also prefer to create something, like some new software to make people happy or more productive, instead of poking at malware and trying to find a sensible way to detect it.
Then do so. It's a free market, after all. Either you like what you're doing or you're too comfy to move.
You know there's no reason to use tinyurl when you put the link inside an href. All it does it prevent people from hovering over the link to see where it goes.
If we had a discussion with one of them, we would hear a totally different story!
Then again, a lot of times "software engineers" are fumbling around and gaining experience on the job. There's just too much to know and too little standardized knowledge. Having read the article, the author sounds like he was involved.
Slashdot Mirror
A free market must include the possibility that somebody is allowed to provide you software without source code. Society needs to function, but competition within society is part of that.
How many Firefox add-ons would be hard to live without?
Would these be exclusive and proprietary to Firefox, and also a security risk for those installing them?
I'm all for open source operating systems, but even there you need a layered approach to security. With the current Linux kernel, there are millions of lines of source code that you have to trust. And that's just the kernel. There's way too much trust required in software, open source or not.
As for your addendum, I don't consider proprietary software unethical, per se. Keeping the source code secret is the most straightforward way for an author to protect his investment. Users can also enjoy the benefit of a free market. Yes, there are downsides, but I don't see proprietary software going away.
Why pretend that this is different from other companies? There's no need to use childish names.
The 15% number bandied about appears to be based on Marshall, and if you Google around there is plenty of debate besides "one nut on snopes". An example is New Evidence Regarding Fire Ratios.
By the same token, any proprietary software (regardless of its purported task) should be troublesome. Technically there's nothing that prevents a proprietary statistical analysis program from doing things you wouldn't want done without your full consent such as removing programs, altering files, opening a remote access point for someone, or sending information about your computer somewhere.
This is what permissions are for. There's no reason some random piece of software should have full access to your sensitive files or the Internet. The answer isn't to condemn all proprietary software. The answer is to reduce the amount of software you have to trust, and to limit the damage when the trust is broken.
So your suggestion is to run unpopular operating systems? Neither Apple nor Linux prevent you from installing something like "Antivirus 2009".
In WW2, only 15% of soldiers actually shot at the enemy
I find this to be an extremely dubious number, and having looked around, there's plenty of debate around it. There's a long thread about it here:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=48;t=000511;p=1
And we know three previous instances of how long it took.
How long did it take the first one to happen?
They think that this configuration is what the consumers want, and they may be right, but Nvidia has no route to get there.
Nvidia always has the option to sell out to Intel. They probably will if they feel the market slipping away.
And in all that time, the only method that has been shown to reliably make money in the long run was to analyze tens of thousands of results from a single wheel, and use that for future predictions on the same wheel.
Did these guys record input for tens of thousands of spins? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemons
The point is if the specified semantics are essentially patented, you can be sued. Whether you can find an acceptable workaround ($92 million after the fact) is another matter. You may or may not be able to, depending.
This is the whole issue with .NET and Mono, which is why I took exception to your comment: "But Microsoft couldn't take action against Mono or any of the Open Source .Net reimplementations because that's not something that can be protected."
Kodak wins Java patent suit
"Eastman Kodak has won a controversial lawsuit in which it claimed Sun Microsystems had infringed several of its patents with its Java programming language."
they merely codify the syntax and semantics
It's the semantics that are patentable, at least in the United States.
But Microsoft couldn't take action against Mono or any of the Open Source .Net reimplementations because that's not something that can be protected.
Yes they can, via patents.
I don't shop at record stores anymore because almost no one carries good metal.
Translation: My tastes are fixed from 20 years ago. Old man syndrome.
Now I just watch them at the theatre if I think they will be good
I have stopped going to the theater years ago, but when I went they would start the picture 20 minutes late after showing trailers and commercials.
Second link in the summary
I really hate summaries that link bomb you and don't give you any clue which one is the main article.
With child rapists, it is most frequent that they cannot actually control their impulses and rarely have actual intent to harm at all.
I don't give anybody a free pass because they "cannot control their impulses". Both the hacker and the rapists chose to do harm for their own gain. My rule for "choice" is that if I put a device on you that would instantly kill you for making the wrong choice, would you still make the choice? If you would act differently with this device on you, then you really did have a choice.
Killing a pathological hacker would do more good than harm. There are a small group of types of people we would all like to see exterminated and I am sure the majority of us have a short list of our own.
The harm comes from killing people over non-violent offenses.
And if everything fails, we could actually maybe even create a copy protection system that is hard enough to break that nobody would willingly do it (after all, we spend a good deal of our time with disassembly).
You're seriously talking out of your ass. You know Windows and assembly, so you can create a practically unbeatable copy protection system? Wow. There's a long history of copyright systems, with a lot of smart and motivated people that have worked on them.
I would also prefer to create something, like some new software to make people happy or more productive, instead of poking at malware and trying to find a sensible way to detect it.
Then do so. It's a free market, after all. Either you like what you're doing or you're too comfy to move.
Thanks for hearing out the rant.
And thanks for listening to the anti-rant.
If it were legal, I would contribute to a bounty on the lives of the people responsible for this stuff.
You'd kill somebody for spamming. Yep, you're so much more ethical than the spammers.
You know there's no reason to use tinyurl when you put the link inside an href. All it does it prevent people from hovering over the link to see where it goes.
If we had a discussion with one of them, we would hear a totally different story!
Then again, a lot of times "software engineers" are fumbling around and gaining experience on the job. There's just too much to know and too little standardized knowledge. Having read the article, the author sounds like he was involved.
Fixed that for you.
Fuck you too.
Fixed that for you.
Fuck off.