A lot of these attacks will masquerade as legitimate business agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Better Business Bureau and the SEC.
Will these attacks masquerade as legitimate business agencies, or as agencies such the Internal Revenue Service, the Better Business Bureau, and the SEC?
And how can we be at the end of "a decade of severe declines" when the high point was five years ago? A decade of decline does not necessarily mean a strictly decreasing sequence, but if the number of degrees granted in 2003-2004 was higher than the numbers for 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003--sounds like five years of decline, not a decade.
And maybe I'm just a cynic, but "changes in curriculum and the marketing of comp sci programs" sounds like "we're turning science programs into vo-tech training for engineers and programmers."
This story will probably just spur another dozen threads of whining about all the math required for any decent comp sci program.
I guess, however I think the joule, watt, newton, tesla, ampere, degree celsius, degree fahrenheit, volt and many others would probably have something to say about it.
Amazing. What are the chances that the two most used temperature scales would be named after guys with the first name "Degree"?
(And does that mean Kelvin was like the Madonna of his day?)
But pirating copyright music via p2p etc is OK because nobody got hurt right.
That's like the apples calling the straw man black. Or something.
In this case, the company used the stock photo without permission. For the analogy to work, the company would have to buy rights to use the photo, then get denied the right to make a back up copy, and then get charged full price to replace the photo when the CD-ROM gets scratched.
To just go online and download some random music without permission of the copyright holders is wrong. HOWEVER...
If I buy a CD and it comes with limitations on its use (can't be used with certain players, can't be backed up) with the reasoning, I'm licensing the content not buying a CD, then I don't see anything wrong with operating within the context of that license.
In other words, if the CD breaks, that does not affect my license to the content. I see nothing wrong with replacing those contents. If I want to shift that content from the CD to an mp3 player, I see nothing wrong with that. I've paid for my license to use that content.
If I want to make back up copies for my own personal use, it may seem like I purchased a physical disc because the content can be tied to that disc through DRM. Yet, the company wants to insists I haven't purchased a disc, only licensed the content. So if I download that content for my own personal use, and I'm only using one copy of the content at any one time, as is my right under the one license I have purchased, how is that anything like in any way the use of the photo in this case?
BTW, keep in mind "pirating copyright music via p2p" is not synonymous with downloading or sharing copyrighted music. There is a lot of music out there being shared with the explicit approval of the copyright holders.
"What is a 13-year-old girl doing on the Internet?"
You might as well say, why regulate broadcast TV for content? What is a 13-year-old girl doing watching TV?
For most kids today, the WWW sits right along side of TV, the telephone, and other electronic media. Yes, parents need to be parents, and pass that responsibility onto law enforcement. I wouldn't say a 13-yr old should be online without supervision, but that's like saying a 13-yr old shouldn't use the telephone without supervision.
You should who your child is talking to. Does that mean your on the other line, listening, when she calls a friend?
OK, now it's my turn to be aghast. You're suggesting testing code in production? That's quite risky. Wouldn't an approach that attempts to test before production be preferable?
Quite risky indeed, which is why proper thought and consideration before beginning development is even more important.
Law is the ultimate in practicality. 'What is legal' and 'what you can get away with' are, in the end, the same thing. (And everything is legal in New Jersey, as long as you don't get caught.)
The law is what the judge you are in front of says is the law. Usually it's not too hard to predict what a judge will say is the law on a certain case. On the other hard, there are times where what you have done is not illegal until a judge says it is.
This is why law school is all case law and precedent. What do we have, other than production, in which to test laws? What in software development would be done with a test or UAT platform, must in law, either be considered before hand in requirements gathering or after in production.
To do true testing with law, you either need legislators to consult with judges before a law is put into effect. (Which is unlikely as legislators are likely to see this as an encroachment on their powers by the judicial branch.) Or you need the right to challenge a law separate from any enforcement activity.
IANAL, but my impression is, that while this has been done, it is becoming harder and harder to do. For example, I'd like to challenge the holding of prisoners in Gitmo without trial or even charges being filed. The courts would likely rule I have no standing on which to bring a case--my rights aren't being infringed. At the same time, the prisoners aren't being afforded access to the legal system to challenge on their own behalf.
Basically, the US executive is saying, you can't run this code on a test system, and once it's in production we won't allow any changes.
I hope neither you nor the OP are developers or lawyers. Shouldn't the first step be deciding what the goal of the code (or law) is? You know, requirements gathering?
As it is, the system isn't far from what is being proposed. Lawmakers (legislators or corporate lobbyists) write the laws. Trial lawyers come up with the test cases. Judges are QA executing the tests and ruling whether the law passes the test.
How about they just write laws in plain english, write them so my developmentally disabled daughter can understand them?
Two reasons off the top of my head: 1) Plain english has to many ambiguities. The law should be as consistent as possible in its application. This requires a jargon where words and phrases have very specific meanings that may differ from the layman's understanding of a corresponding plain English word or phrase.
And 2) the law may have to address situations that are beyond the understanding of your developmentally disabled daughter, in any language. This is like saying, how about they just keep everything on the internet to a level appropriate for my developmentally disabled daughter?
Is there a problem if code is written so that only a developer can understand it? Laws shouldn't be obfuscated purposely, but that doesn't mean there is no place for specific legal language.
First, have lawmakers (analogous to "developers") write drafts of the laws.
Perhaps you meant to say (analogous to "an infinite numbers of monkeys that we hope might someday produce usable code")
Shouldn't there be some requirements gathering? Don't the developers need to know the function the code is performing? Where is the risk analysis?
I mention this because 1) I really hope your development process doesn't start with "write code." But also 2) you miss a HUGE issue with the ways laws are written and propagated in the US of A.
Many of our laws are written by corporations. Corporate lawyers do the requirements gathering and of course place the interests of the corporation at priority one. The corporate lawyers write the bills. The corporate lobbyists pass the bills to legislators.
This is why you see similar laws pop up in multiple states. Lobbyists get a law passed in one state, and they simply re-use the same code for other states. This is especially useful after a controversial law survives challenge in court.
In many instances, today's lawmakers are more akin to script kiddies than developers.
(The OP may have addressed this issue. I stopped reading after the SDLC started with writing code, and not deciding what the code should do.)
It is the system you use to operate the computer... It's what makes the silicon and copper do what you want.
Huh? You are 100% wrong. I'm a user. I don't want the silicon and copper to do anything. I don't know what silicon and copper can do. I don't know what silicon and copper are.
I want to surf the web and type up some email. I need a user interface to help me perform those tasks. That's the GUI, windows manager, CLI, applications, whatever.
Now it just so happens, inside this box on my desk, is a bunch of silicon and copper. The interface I am working with needs some way to get those raw materials to carry out the commands I am directing through the interface. That is the OS--the bits that get the hardware to do what they need to do so that my instructions to the interface are completed.
The interface determines when sending an email, do I click the send button or speak 'computer, send email.' What happens after that is the realm of the OS.
It's like the separation between business requirements and software requirements. Business process requirements should be completely independent of the system implementing those requirements.
all the condescending douchebags who are far too intelligent to watch television.
I was gonna post that going in to a Television thread just to say you don't watch tv/only own a tv to watch DVDs is like going in to a MS Windows thread just to talk about Linux/Apple.
But I never, ever hold feedback hostage. And likewise, as a buyer, I never, ever leave feedback until the seller does.
So, as a seller you never "hold feedback hostage" but as a buyer you always do? I don't understand--as a buyer, you paid your money and you have the item. There are no unknowns (other than the seller's feedback). Why not leave feedback?
For the seller, he got his money and shipping the item, but he doesn't know if it arrived, if there was damage during shipping, etc. Why expect the seller to leave feedback without knowing the end result of the transaction?
Also as a buyer, do you contact the seller to let them know the item arrived, matches the auction description, and you are satisfied? If you do so through some means other than ebay feedback, I guess that's your choice. Wouldn't it be easier to do so through feedback?
If you don't contact the seller, how would they know to leave you feedback? Yes, you paid your money. But did the item arrive? Was it damaged in shipping? Did it meet your expectations?
As a seller, it would be nice to just collect my money, drop a package in the post, and walk away. But unless you give me cash, you can dispute the charge with your bank, credit card, PayPal, etc. I can't be happy (and know I really have the money) until I know you're happy.
Whatever. I still like the idea of keeping the feedback hidden from both parties until both the buyer and the seller leave feedback or a reasonable amount of time has passed to allow for shipping, and then feedback is locked.
So let's try this one more time: what else should a seller care about except whether he/she received the money in full and in a timely fashion?
Because, through PayPal or credit card, the buyer can take the money back.
As a seller, I agree. I get my money, and I have no reason to be other than satisfied. However, I don't know that I have my money (for keeps) until the buyer confirms receipt of the item.
So let's try this one more time: as a seller, if payment is through PayPal or credit card, how do I know I will be happy until the buyer lets me know he is happy?
I'm not saying if a buyer ever questions my item, then I'm leaving negative feedback. I'm just saying, I like to know the transaction is complete. (I do have a transaction where an item I sold was damaged in shipping, but the issue was addressed and positive feedback was left all around.)
AS an ebay buyer, I don't leave feedback about shipping and accuracy of item until after the seller leaves feedback regarding my payment and communication
Can you explain your thinking here? As a buyer, you know the money has been paid, the item has been delivered, if the item matched the description, etc. You know when the transaction is complete and if your experience with the seller is posistive or negative.
Why not leave feedback?
As for why the seller might wait to leave feedback, the seller doesn't know if the transaction is complete. The seller doesn't know if you're going to claim the item never arrived (even if the shipping service says it was delivered), the seller doesn't know if you're going to say the item isn't as described.
So as a buyer, why would you not leave feedback, even if there was nothing wrong?
or the buyer complains the item doesn't match the description
I see feedback as reflected the entire transaction, which isn't complete until the buyer says it is complete. The seller knows the money is paid. But only only the buyer knows the money is paid, the item is delivered, and a refund request is not pending.
As a buyer I don't expect feedback from the seller until I say the transaction is complete by leaving my buyer feedback. As a seller I dont leave feedback until I hear from the buyer.
And not so I can relatiate against negative feedback (in fact I have 100% positive as a seller and buyer) but again, I think feedback is on the entire transaction, and the transaction isn't done until the buyer says it is.
I would definitely vouch for that. In my eyes the seller's only business with leaving you feedback is how you payed for the item. Was it timely, was it the correct amount, etc?
I disagree. I mostly a buyer through ebay, although I do have the occasional sale, and the deal isn't done until the buyer says the deal is done.
The seller has the money. But only the buyer knows that the money has been paid and the item arrived and there wasn't any damage in transit and the description was accurate to the buyer's satisfaction and...
In my eyes the seller's only business with leaving you feedback is how you payed for the item.
What if the buyer complains the item isn't new, when the auction clearly stated it was used? What if the buyer claims the item never arrived, when the seller has a tracking number from the shipping service saying it was delivered? Especially given the way PayPal operates outside the normal banking system and credit card charges can be disputed, even if the seller thinks payment is in hand, the deal isn't really done until the buyer says the deal is done.
As a buyer, I don't expect the seller to leave feedback until I provide feedback indicating the transaction is complete. As a seller, I don't leave feedback until the buyer does the same.
That said, I have tempered my feedback in the past knowing the other party can retaliate. I agree 100% with you agreeing 100% with the parent. Keep feedback hidden until both parties leave feedback (or some period of time has passed, so if one party suspects he will get negative feedback, he can't just not leave feedback to keep the other feedback hidden forever.)
[why] are you asking people from Slashdot. Why don't you approach your company and ask them what they think?
Because AC is asking Slashdot how to best approach the company.
And again, why ask Slashdot? Why not start with a forum or usenet group dedicated to the language the code is in or the license he wants to release under?
If the OP is not a regular/. reader, it's rude to just pop in and expect us to help you. If the OP is a regular/. reader, then he/she should have figured out, if there are two subjects on which/. is void of useful/informed advice, then those subjects are the law and intellectual property. The OP is 0 for 2.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of these attacks will masquerade as legitimate business agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Better Business Bureau and the SEC.
Will these attacks masquerade as legitimate business agencies, or as agencies such the Internal Revenue Service, the Better Business Bureau, and the SEC?
It'd be just like the Mayflower... Only without the natives and smallpox...
Yeah, only problem is, without help from the natives, everyone on the Mayflower would have died within a few years.
I'll make my own interplanetary mission...with hookers, and blackjack.
8,000 is not half of 14,185.
And how can we be at the end of "a decade of severe declines" when the high point was five years ago? A decade of decline does not necessarily mean a strictly decreasing sequence, but if the number of degrees granted in 2003-2004 was higher than the numbers for 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003--sounds like five years of decline, not a decade.
And maybe I'm just a cynic, but "changes in curriculum and the marketing of comp sci programs" sounds like "we're turning science programs into vo-tech training for engineers and programmers."
This story will probably just spur another dozen threads of whining about all the math required for any decent comp sci program.
Now get off my lawn.
Amazing. What are the chances that the two most used temperature scales would be named after guys with the first name "Degree"?
(And does that mean Kelvin was like the Madonna of his day?)
Yes, but watching the later in progress sounds like good entertainment. Living through the former is just sad.
That's like the apples calling the straw man black. Or something.
In this case, the company used the stock photo without permission. For the analogy to work, the company would have to buy rights to use the photo, then get denied the right to make a back up copy, and then get charged full price to replace the photo when the CD-ROM gets scratched.
To just go online and download some random music without permission of the copyright holders is wrong. HOWEVER...
If I buy a CD and it comes with limitations on its use (can't be used with certain players, can't be backed up) with the reasoning, I'm licensing the content not buying a CD, then I don't see anything wrong with operating within the context of that license.
In other words, if the CD breaks, that does not affect my license to the content. I see nothing wrong with replacing those contents. If I want to shift that content from the CD to an mp3 player, I see nothing wrong with that. I've paid for my license to use that content.
If I want to make back up copies for my own personal use, it may seem like I purchased a physical disc because the content can be tied to that disc through DRM. Yet, the company wants to insists I haven't purchased a disc, only licensed the content. So if I download that content for my own personal use, and I'm only using one copy of the content at any one time, as is my right under the one license I have purchased, how is that anything like in any way the use of the photo in this case?
BTW, keep in mind "pirating copyright music via p2p" is not synonymous with downloading or sharing copyrighted music. There is a lot of music out there being shared with the explicit approval of the copyright holders.
If this really works, I'd consider it one of the biggest break-throughs in A.I. ever.
You might as well say, why regulate broadcast TV for content? What is a 13-year-old girl doing watching TV?
For most kids today, the WWW sits right along side of TV, the telephone, and other electronic media. Yes, parents need to be parents, and pass that responsibility onto law enforcement. I wouldn't say a 13-yr old should be online without supervision, but that's like saying a 13-yr old shouldn't use the telephone without supervision.
You should who your child is talking to. Does that mean your on the other line, listening, when she calls a friend?
Will the toilet only accept one kind of input?
I just worry about the toilet becoming interactive. Input is okay...I just don't want any output.
Leaving Facebook sounds a lot like what I did when I joined Facebook.
Quite risky indeed, which is why proper thought and consideration before beginning development is even more important.
Law is the ultimate in practicality. 'What is legal' and 'what you can get away with' are, in the end, the same thing. (And everything is legal in New Jersey, as long as you don't get caught.)
The law is what the judge you are in front of says is the law. Usually it's not too hard to predict what a judge will say is the law on a certain case. On the other hard, there are times where what you have done is not illegal until a judge says it is.
This is why law school is all case law and precedent. What do we have, other than production, in which to test laws? What in software development would be done with a test or UAT platform, must in law, either be considered before hand in requirements gathering or after in production.
To do true testing with law, you either need legislators to consult with judges before a law is put into effect. (Which is unlikely as legislators are likely to see this as an encroachment on their powers by the judicial branch.) Or you need the right to challenge a law separate from any enforcement activity.
IANAL, but my impression is, that while this has been done, it is becoming harder and harder to do. For example, I'd like to challenge the holding of prisoners in Gitmo without trial or even charges being filed. The courts would likely rule I have no standing on which to bring a case--my rights aren't being infringed. At the same time, the prisoners aren't being afforded access to the legal system to challenge on their own behalf.
Basically, the US executive is saying, you can't run this code on a test system, and once it's in production we won't allow any changes.
I hope neither you nor the OP are developers or lawyers. Shouldn't the first step be deciding what the goal of the code (or law) is? You know, requirements gathering?
As it is, the system isn't far from what is being proposed. Lawmakers (legislators or corporate lobbyists) write the laws. Trial lawyers come up with the test cases. Judges are QA executing the tests and ruling whether the law passes the test.
Two reasons off the top of my head: 1) Plain english has to many ambiguities. The law should be as consistent as possible in its application. This requires a jargon where words and phrases have very specific meanings that may differ from the layman's understanding of a corresponding plain English word or phrase.
And 2) the law may have to address situations that are beyond the understanding of your developmentally disabled daughter, in any language. This is like saying, how about they just keep everything on the internet to a level appropriate for my developmentally disabled daughter?
Is there a problem if code is written so that only a developer can understand it? Laws shouldn't be obfuscated purposely, but that doesn't mean there is no place for specific legal language.
Perhaps you meant to say (analogous to "an infinite numbers of monkeys that we hope might someday produce usable code")
Shouldn't there be some requirements gathering? Don't the developers need to know the function the code is performing? Where is the risk analysis?
I mention this because 1) I really hope your development process doesn't start with "write code." But also 2) you miss a HUGE issue with the ways laws are written and propagated in the US of A.
Many of our laws are written by corporations. Corporate lawyers do the requirements gathering and of course place the interests of the corporation at priority one. The corporate lawyers write the bills. The corporate lobbyists pass the bills to legislators.
This is why you see similar laws pop up in multiple states. Lobbyists get a law passed in one state, and they simply re-use the same code for other states. This is especially useful after a controversial law survives challenge in court.
In many instances, today's lawmakers are more akin to script kiddies than developers.
(The OP may have addressed this issue. I stopped reading after the SDLC started with writing code, and not deciding what the code should do.)
Huh? You are 100% wrong. I'm a user. I don't want the silicon and copper to do anything. I don't know what silicon and copper can do. I don't know what silicon and copper are.
I want to surf the web and type up some email. I need a user interface to help me perform those tasks. That's the GUI, windows manager, CLI, applications, whatever.
Now it just so happens, inside this box on my desk, is a bunch of silicon and copper. The interface I am working with needs some way to get those raw materials to carry out the commands I am directing through the interface. That is the OS--the bits that get the hardware to do what they need to do so that my instructions to the interface are completed.
The interface determines when sending an email, do I click the send button or speak 'computer, send email.' What happens after that is the realm of the OS.
It's like the separation between business requirements and software requirements. Business process requirements should be completely independent of the system implementing those requirements.
Have you tried substituting the letter C with the letter K?
I was gonna post that going in to a Television thread just to say you don't watch tv/only own a tv to watch DVDs is like going in to a MS Windows thread just to talk about Linux/Apple.
Then I remembered, this is /.
Wasn't Stewart on Letterman's show before Conan was on Stewart's and Stewart could spawn Colbert?
(I don't have Sirius, but I'm sure Stern is taking credit for all of them.)
So, as a seller you never "hold feedback hostage" but as a buyer you always do? I don't understand--as a buyer, you paid your money and you have the item. There are no unknowns (other than the seller's feedback). Why not leave feedback?
For the seller, he got his money and shipping the item, but he doesn't know if it arrived, if there was damage during shipping, etc. Why expect the seller to leave feedback without knowing the end result of the transaction?
Also as a buyer, do you contact the seller to let them know the item arrived, matches the auction description, and you are satisfied? If you do so through some means other than ebay feedback, I guess that's your choice. Wouldn't it be easier to do so through feedback?
If you don't contact the seller, how would they know to leave you feedback? Yes, you paid your money. But did the item arrive? Was it damaged in shipping? Did it meet your expectations?
As a seller, it would be nice to just collect my money, drop a package in the post, and walk away. But unless you give me cash, you can dispute the charge with your bank, credit card, PayPal, etc. I can't be happy (and know I really have the money) until I know you're happy.
Whatever. I still like the idea of keeping the feedback hidden from both parties until both the buyer and the seller leave feedback or a reasonable amount of time has passed to allow for shipping, and then feedback is locked.
Because, through PayPal or credit card, the buyer can take the money back.
As a seller, I agree. I get my money, and I have no reason to be other than satisfied. However, I don't know that I have my money (for keeps) until the buyer confirms receipt of the item.
So let's try this one more time: as a seller, if payment is through PayPal or credit card, how do I know I will be happy until the buyer lets me know he is happy?
I'm not saying if a buyer ever questions my item, then I'm leaving negative feedback. I'm just saying, I like to know the transaction is complete. (I do have a transaction where an item I sold was damaged in shipping, but the issue was addressed and positive feedback was left all around.)
Can you explain your thinking here? As a buyer, you know the money has been paid, the item has been delivered, if the item matched the description, etc. You know when the transaction is complete and if your experience with the seller is posistive or negative.
Why not leave feedback?
As for why the seller might wait to leave feedback, the seller doesn't know if the transaction is complete. The seller doesn't know if you're going to claim the item never arrived (even if the shipping service says it was delivered), the seller doesn't know if you're going to say the item isn't as described.
So as a buyer, why would you not leave feedback, even if there was nothing wrong?
- the buyer pays
- the seller leaves feedback
- the seller ships
- the buyer receives the item
- the buyer claims the item never arrived
- or the buyer complains the item doesn't match the description
I see feedback as reflected the entire transaction, which isn't complete until the buyer says it is complete. The seller knows the money is paid. But only only the buyer knows the money is paid, the item is delivered, and a refund request is not pending.As a buyer I don't expect feedback from the seller until I say the transaction is complete by leaving my buyer feedback. As a seller I dont leave feedback until I hear from the buyer.
And not so I can relatiate against negative feedback (in fact I have 100% positive as a seller and buyer) but again, I think feedback is on the entire transaction, and the transaction isn't done until the buyer says it is.
I disagree. I mostly a buyer through ebay, although I do have the occasional sale, and the deal isn't done until the buyer says the deal is done.
The seller has the money. But only the buyer knows that the money has been paid and the item arrived and there wasn't any damage in transit and the description was accurate to the buyer's satisfaction and...
What if the buyer complains the item isn't new, when the auction clearly stated it was used? What if the buyer claims the item never arrived, when the seller has a tracking number from the shipping service saying it was delivered? Especially given the way PayPal operates outside the normal banking system and credit card charges can be disputed, even if the seller thinks payment is in hand, the deal isn't really done until the buyer says the deal is done.
As a buyer, I don't expect the seller to leave feedback until I provide feedback indicating the transaction is complete. As a seller, I don't leave feedback until the buyer does the same.
That said, I have tempered my feedback in the past knowing the other party can retaliate. I agree 100% with you agreeing 100% with the parent. Keep feedback hidden until both parties leave feedback (or some period of time has passed, so if one party suspects he will get negative feedback, he can't just not leave feedback to keep the other feedback hidden forever.)
And again, why ask Slashdot? Why not start with a forum or usenet group dedicated to the language the code is in or the license he wants to release under?
If the OP is not a regular /. reader, it's rude to just pop in and expect us to help you. If the OP is a regular /. reader, then he/she should have figured out, if there are two subjects on which /. is void of useful/informed advice, then those subjects are the law and intellectual property. The OP is 0 for 2.
Next question.
Mod parent up to +6