I quickly searched for evidence that it was supposed to be that and found nothing except one essay on medium refuting the idea.
One of the nice things about scrum is that it has an official source who defines it and you can look at it to see what it is and what it is not intended to be.
And Scrum is not even as strict as people paint it, honestly. It retains a lot of the good parts of Agile. It is a basic framework for a self-managing team.
The retrospective is where you can tweak the process, but you can honestly change things anywhere. Bad managers will resist change at any cost and will use Scrum as an excuse to resisting change, but that's true for any methodology.
The problem is it doesn't work when there's micromanagement, it doesn't work when there are waterfall-ish parts (eg: PMs not splitting tickets, QAs hogging releases). Scrum also doesn't work when the development team isn't empowered, or has no domain experts. But most methodologies also don't.
I don't remember anyone "clutching pearls" over https by default? Do you have any suggested references where I can find those? I do recall people really complaining that anything at all was allowed to be http, even sites that most people would consider "unimportant".
There were a lot of complaints that websites which never had to bother with certificates before now had to set one up (and pay for one). Though that's now largely solved by Lets Encrypt.
It isn't a debate. You're demanding access to a walled garden on the grounds that you don't think the wall should be there.
You're entitled to use or not use iMessage per your preference. You are not entitled to use of iMessage on a platform of your choosing. Where do we stop this? Is Apple then required to create iMessage clients for Windows Phone as well? Perhaps a Blackberry client too? Maybe a website?
If you want to share an iMessage account and all the rest of the ecosystem benefits Apple provides, then get an iPhone. That's how you do that. And you can still absolutely talk to Android users once you have an iPhone, because the iPhone provides the essential middle-agent between iMessage and SMS that enables you to do that. Apple has done this forever and has designed Messages to degrade gracefully: you are not barred from texting anyone who doesn't have an iPhone, instead your message is converted to SMS completely seamlessly and sent from your phone even if you actually sent it from a Mac or iPad.
The endless moaning and whining from people not in their ecosystem about iMessage is so, so fucking tired at this point: from the accusations of platform lockout to the bitching about the fact that SMS messages are green instead of blue, on and on. If you guys are SO HARD UP for that iMessage goodness then just pony up for an iPhone, holy shit. Or at the very least, go bitch up Google's tree so they'll develop a decent messaging client that won't be abandonware within 6 months.
"I own a Mac an iPhone and an iPad but iMessage and FaceTime are entirely useless to me because no one I communicate with on a regular basis uses Apple devices"
and
"The issue is that I as an Apple user want to be able to use iMessage to communicate with Android users."
To sum it up for you as succinctly as I can: I am an Apple customer expressing unhappiness about some aspects of the product and the product strategy.
> The key part is depriving the original owner of the use of the item.
I know that’s been a tribal shibboleth of piracy since the 2000s, and I’m sympathetic to the moral argument to this view… but it’s just factually untrue (both in terminology AND in law)
It’s not though, in law, as they are different crimes. And that’s where copyright infringement even is a crime rather than a civil matter as it is in many places.
There is thousands of hours of paid work to produce any kind of software or game. It doesn’t matter if the end result is burned into a physical disk or not. What’s of value here is not the 1 cent piece of plastic but the content.
When you copy content that has a cost, if the company is not offering it to you, what do you call your action ?
I mean, really, you spent 5 years working on a game with no salary. Then a day before launch day someone just makes a copy of it and distributed it « for free » in the internet. How are you going to make a salary out of it ?
Games are always pirated if they are even a little bit popular. I work in the games industry, and games I worked on are always pirated, but the more popular they are, the more copies will be sold legitimately.
People make two choices when they pirate - moral, and economical. If economically they cannot afford the game, they weren't going to pay. If morally they are against paying for a game (like if the game company is associated with suicides, etc), they weren't going to pay. There are some people that will pay if piracy isn't available, but not that many.
Anyways, after the income goes around, and all the exec, upper management, and publisher salaries are paid, the piracy or lack of it probably makes about a $1 difference to my weekly earnings. I put a lot of artistic and creative effort, blood, sweat, and tears into it. If it costs me $1 to make people enjoy it, so be it.
In the AAA games industry, piracy is a thing. People talk about it. And most people have only very mild things to say about it, except for execs. Execs make a disproportionate amount of money off games for what they do, and they do kinda have a lot of time to sit on their hands sometimes, so they can fight these piracy battles, die on these piracy hills.
My example was a illustrate a point. It could be a game or a productivity software, movies, music anything.
You can find any reason to steal, economical, hunger etc the point I making is that the motivation to make a copy does not make it legal.
Do we tolerate some form of theft for moral or other reasons ? Yes sure. But because I, as an individual, have my own reasons not to pay for something and decide to make a copy of it, that does not transforms my action to a perfectly legal thing.
Maybe we can’t do anything about software being copied but that doesn’t magically make laws and IP disappear with it and makes copying software legal ?
I was answering to the comment « nothing is taken ». Because the content is the result of an effort from other people being paid, the content has value. The fact that we can make infinite copies of it makes a single copy worthless because it’s not being burnt into a piece of plastic ?
There are moral principles, and legal principles. Legally, you are right. But the moral perception of piracy is shifting, and broadly speaking, this entire debate is in the moral/philosophical realm.
Legal systems ultimately enshrine the human morality in law. Common law - through case law, civil law - by committees that the legislators consult, religious law - by morality described in legal texts. We're not talking about any of it though. We are talking about day-to-day things, like what does it mean to steal, what kind of consequences it has, are these consequences real or supposed, and other such things.
Law is generally blind to externalities of an action. An action itself is legal, illegal, or undefined in law. We're not in this domain if we talk about the consequences of piracy or how someone might feel about it. We are having a conversation on morals.
Shifting morals will eventually shift the law, of course.
I completely agree with you.
It’s shifting but we cannot consider it as already shifted.
Some comments are going into this direction of the whole debate behind us and laws not applying anymore. Our feeling about it has changed but my country can still sue me if I make a copy without respecting the terms of the seller.
Maybe tomorrow a global business model will emerge and the whole notion of possession will kind of disappear because everything will be a subscription.
Or maybe we will pay a flat fee to whatever organization and use anything as much as we want and copies will be worthless because they won’t be sold individually anymore
That sense of the word “take” is fairly consistently used of physical things, where you are depriving another of possession (with or without permission).
—⁂—
(Just for fun, The Devil’s Dictionary (not a work to be taken particularly seriously):
> TAKE, v.t. To acquire, frequently by force but preferably by stealth.
I quite like that way of putting it because it’s the megacorporations that are the pirates when they steal their DRM content back, because they are acquiring it from you so that you can’t have it, by force if they have to but they prefer stealth.)
You’re using one of the intransitive definitions but general speaking it’s the transitive forms that apply to digital content, ideas, information, etc.
1. to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
2. to take away by force or unjust means
3. to take surreptitiously or without permission
You may not want stealing to mean that… but that’s irrelevant to reality.
The point is that stealing has traditionally meant denying the rightful owner the thing that has been stolen. What is going on here is that a copy has been made without permission - piracy is copyright infringement, this is different to stealing.
Now there has been a lot of effort by the media industry to equate copyright infringement with stealing, I think because the public at large doesn't really understand infringement as a terrible thing. Stealing appears in the 10 commandments, so in our judeo christian societies it's a home run to get 'right thinking' people on side.
Also in these transitive definitions, stealing is about taking. And in the case of piracy (communicating information to others without permission of the original source), nothing is taken.
The person that came up with the idea still has it. The photographer still has the picture. The programmer still has the program.
It's just about what another person may do with it, the one receiving the picture. May they also send it to someone else? We could have different ideas about that, but calling it "stealing" is inaccurate.
Taking can simply mean “to gain or acquire”. So, once again, incorrect. Sorry.
I’m sympathetic to the moral argument you’re making—though when the raw goods are digital too I think it’s an impractical & ill conceived one—but both legally AND linguistically… it’s incorrect
Which dictionary defines taking as simply gaining or acquiring something?
If you "take" something from someone else it generally means that they no longer have what you took.
Hot take, take a photo, take part, take the bus, take a left, take a shower, take pride in your work, take a joke, take something apart, take my word for it, take a while, take an oath. Being over precious about definitions is unwise.
Curious choice of example. I know what you mean of course, but the point is words shift meaning.
For a counter-example connected to your choice, I was recently made aware of the Latin word for "to abduct", and how that word may well be why it took so long for spousal abuse to become recognised as an offence — to paraphrase your own question to demonstrate how this goes very wrong, how can you "abduct" someone you live with?
Say one counterfeits a hundred dollar bill perfectly. Does he steal? Say he is able to do this in large quantities. Does he steal? You still have you hundred dollar bill. No loss to you right? Wrong. Your money’s worth is lessened by the counterfeiting, the copying. That is what they mean by stealing: you are decreasing the value of their products by providing identical copies outside of their control.
Copying movies is copying things congress said you can't, a crime distinct from both theft and fraud.
Piracy has for whatever reason been co-opted to refer to copying despite that having no relationship to piracy on the high seas, but no one is playing linguistic games to argue that they're the same thing so whatever.
By that definition, whenever I create (on my own) a product that is both superior and cheaper than a competitor's offering, lessening the value of their product, it is stealing.
There are actually people who reason like this. I remember being struck by this attitude when reading Bloomberg's book - effectively morally eqivocating business competition with stealing food out of their children's mouths.
If Alice breaks Bob’s leg, does she steal his mobility? Sure, but criminally she’d be charged with assault or battery or both.
Likewise, the legal definition of theft or stealing does not apply to copyright infringement despite decades long campaigns to get the public to believe that to ge the case. Relatedly, there are similar campaigns to redefine violence as something that offends someone.
Since value is only defined by what people are willing to pay for it, and lacking any extra common rules, these acts of copying simply signal not accepting the demanded price: so the value claimed by the owner was not the actual value, thus they have lost only their self-deception about the value.
If you've managed to create a perfect hundred dollar bill then you've done nothing different to what the bank did. Are both of you stealing?
One way of looking at it is that the banks didn't have to expend a tiny fraction of $100 worth of effort to obtain the dollar bill, whereas any normal person would have to. The question is does the bank deserve that $100? Especially at a cost to everyone else (who are largely unaware/tricked).
Personally I'd class that as "fraud" but it all comes under a similar umbrella.
Theft is taking something you don't deserve, without the other party's consent.
Fraud is taking something you don't deserve, with the other party's _misplaced_ consent.
So yes, in the case of copying music for example, I agree - you're copying someone's idea, which is essentially taking the product of their work without their consent. Their work is no longer scarce, and so loses half its value. It's not really any different to stealing half the money they've worked for, other than that it seems almost impossible to stop you without creating paradoxes such as this topic.
It's detrimental as they no longer have the same incentive to do that work and so society doesn't progress.
You've taken the reward from the person that did the work and shared it amongst the whole of society who didn't work for it. It's pure socialism - and we can see the effects of it in the quality of modern music.
But that isn't what it means in the context of theft, and linguistically the distinction is clear unless you are being disingenuous. There is absolutely no linguistic foundation for equating theft and duplicating information.
Legally the distinction is also clear - transgression of copyright law is specifically given the term "copyright infringement" in law in English speaking countries and in international agreements. A person cannot be convicted of theft for copying information. The US supreme court, among others, ruled on exactly this:
You seem to be using a dictionary with very short entries. Mine contains 10 different meanings of the verb "take" and one of them is "obtain, gain, acquire".
Dictionary definitions and legal definitions may or may not overlap. If not discussing the legal definition, than steal could mean someone enjoyed an appropriately licensed copyrighted work secretly or in private.
The last solar install I saw retrofitted to a (reasonably large) parking lot took about 3 days & the lot was only partially reduced in capacity for that time.
Yeah, it’s completely meaningless to compare but HN loves specs & seemingly hasn’t learned—after about 15 years of it being true—that direct spec comparisons are meaningless.
I see if with every major product announcement, the worst are usually Apple threads but it’s not constrained only there.
I am legitimately surprised that many people did not realize I was making a joke. I mean, priceless artifact, repaired with literally the thing people use as a metaphor for a "flimsy fix"
I think a lot of ppl forget that.