Comment Re:Someone is making decisions for me regarding th (Score 1) 386
When has a GOTO ever been correct?
In assembly language.
When has a GOTO ever been correct?
In assembly language.
I don't get it either but it's not "stupid" per say since it will get you (if you use the standard 2048-bits size) a password with a length of 372 that is infeasible to crack.
Except when a site truncates the password to 8 characters.
My passwords are on a post-it note stuck to my monitor. Let's see them crack THAT!
Reflection off your glasses picked up by your monitor's camera.
Not for me. All new code, paid for by my customer, is owned by me. The customer gets a license to use it for their business, and I get to use the same code for the next customer. In return for this, they get free access to code I've made for previous customers.
Only a few client's would find those terms acceptable, many would move on to the next consultant.
If you found a niche or a few customers who do accept that then congratulations. You won a lottery of sorts.
that company owns the software they paid you to write unless there is contractual language saying otherwise.
It's fairly common for a contractor to have exactly such a contract, otherwise you're making things really hard for yourself when you get hired for a different job, and you need the same piece of code to solve a problem.
When a contractor gets such terms they take a massive cut in pay. Getting rights to the software involves some tradeoff.
I think people are confused. What typically goes into contracts is that contractors get to keep software they *brought* to the job, not new code written for the customer. For example I own software under a proprietary license. I will use that software in client's project. The client gets a license to use that software. I get to keep bug fixes and minor enhancements. Major enhancements for this particular job/client, now we are getting into that gray area and a price cut might be needed to retain ownership.
I don't code that much these days, but the question is familiar. Why do you still code? Yet no one asks an architect, surgeon or lawyer that question.
Only some people go into software development because they have an inherent interest. Others go into it as a career path.
The former are usually the better developers. The former usually don't ask that question because they already know the answer, the work interests you. Admittedly some of the former have also moved on to management out of necessity.
The owner was not deprived of the trade secrets. The owner still has all the information. It's just not secret anymore.
Its not that simple. The legal and property protections offered by a trade secret, a legally recognized type of intellectual property, is lost. The owner deprived of its benefits.
Let's say I buy a Ford F series truck. It's "America's best selling car". Now lets say a Toyota model gains the title. Was an "America's best selling car" stolen from me?
That is a title not a trade secret. Again a trade secret is a legally defined type of intellectual property that offers the owner specific legal rights and privileges. For example something in the process that Ford uses to manufacture those trucks. A Ford employee could not take that process to Toyota.
Stealing? So he REMOVED it from them with intent to deny them the use of it? Surely you mean copying? "Unlawful use of secret scientific material." wow, America is full of comedy laws.
It may actually be stealing in the sense of depriving someone too. The code supposedly included trade secrets. Trade secrets are no longer valid once disclosed. The disclosure does not have to be intentional, my understanding is that accidental, negligent, etc disclosure counts too. So if the trade secrets were lost through the source code being copied then the owner was deprived of their trade secrets and theft would have occurred.
"secret scientific material" is probably a pseudonym for trade secrets. Sorry, but if so then the charge is quite reasonable. Trade secrets are intellectual property just like copyrights.
You're right about restricted access, but you're misinterpreting the sentence. He's talking about a backdoor created *for* the good guys. As in, they wanted to have it, so it was put in. Not as in it's ours so only we can use it.
My point is about an intentionally manufactured backdoor, specifically how can it be engineered so that it is restricted to only the good guys?
That's kinda just restating what he was saying . .
Perhaps I should have included Lieu's next sentence: "That's just stupid. Our founders understood that an Orwellian overreaching government is one of the most dangerous things this world could have,"
"Creating a technological backdoor just for good guys is technologically stupid," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Stanford University computer science graduate.
How is "a technological backdoor" restricted to just the good guys? I don't think we need to go to the Orwellian level to demonstrate how misguided such a notion is. The fact that bad guys will likely gain access as well should be sufficient.
I don't know where you picked you stats, but recently Tesla just announced otherwise.
Actually I watched the recent excitement regarding Tesla on CNBC earlier this month, but googling shows:
"April 5 (UPI) -- Tesla Motors announced it broke a company record for the first quarter of 2015
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Wo...
Then what "-ism" would you suggest to describe what the current situation is in the US?
Maybe reality is more complex that any -ism? More complex than the politicians and their adherents would have us believe?
As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison