Re: Kill MS, again, but sideways
At 11:30 PM 4/15/03 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
The case of Blackboard security, which recently flashed through
Politech
(thanks, Declan!), nicely illustrates the situation - technical shortcomings addressed by lawyers.
Lawyers are merely implementing what the *legislators* let them. The legislators are the ones deserving of the jumpercables on the genitals, though perhaps though the lawyers could be required to do the honors. Since lawyers decay into legislators, this would have beneficial prophylactic educational effects.
Vendors, who keep crucial informations away from the customers, should be shot.
No Thomas, a market will find better uses for them if your arguments have merit. (Which they do, but it takes time.) It is, after all, the right of any individual (or group thereof) to keep secrets. (And Thomas, I wouldn't argue against that *here* :-) Or bind others with consensual contracts like NDAs. Much as it is the right of anyone to diddle with anything they own, and talk about it freely.
The ones, who try to sue the reverse engineers, should be boiled in oil before being shot.
The nice thing about jumpercables is the longer you use them, the lesser the ohmic resistance of the legislator, until you get charring, at which point you can move on to the next deserving most honorable sir. ... PS: TS you might at this point enjoy _A Xenix Chainsaw Massacre_
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Lawyers are merely implementing what the *legislators* let them.
Good note. But if we apply the "aiding and abetting" clause, they can be summarily executed together, saving the manpower.
Since lawyers decay into legislators, this would have beneficial prophylactic educational effects.
I like this idea. An ounce of prevention...
No Thomas, a market will find better uses for them if your arguments have merit. (Which they do, but it takes time.)
Do we have the time? In long term, everyone will end up dead. I have problems and I have them *now*. :(
It is, after all, the right of any individual (or group thereof) to keep secrets. (And Thomas, I wouldn't argue against that *here* :-) Or bind others with consensual contracts like NDAs.
Individuals, yes. For small subjects, cooperation is favorable mode of operation, which counteracts the tendency to secretiveness. Corporations, NO! Once these monsters get too big, they try to do every dirty trick in the books and then some more to get and keep market share and to raise the barriers to entry for the others as high as possible, and to prevent everyone around to learn that their preciousss sssecretsss are nothing more than poorly tested dirty hacks holding together with duct tape and blobs of hot-melt glue. During last couple years, I developed blind hate against them.
Much as it is the right of anyone to diddle with anything they own, and talk about it freely.
If we'll get this, and a set of decent rev-eng tools, I will scale down my demands for officially sanctioned access. (I don't care how I get the data, if I get the vendor to fax me the docs or have to visit my local blackmarket dealer, the important thing is that I have the specs.) ...and the definition of ownership as physical possession. No "licensing".
The nice thing about jumpercables is the longer you use them, the lesser the ohmic resistance of the legislator, until you get charring, at which point you can move on to the next deserving most honorable sir.
...and then the Market will finally find some useful use for the legislators. As a fertilizer.
PS: TS you might at this point enjoy _A Xenix Chainsaw Massacre_
Beeeeeeautiful! Thanks :)
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 07:21:20PM +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
Good note. But if we apply the "aiding and abetting" clause, they can be summarily executed together, saving the manpower.
It's a rare lawyer that will criticize his own cartel... -Declan
participants (3)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Major Variola (ret) -
Thomas Shaddack