Article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/20/lenovo_caves_in_face_of_public_firestorm_release_superfish_killer/
My personal thoughts:
Lenovo's decision to include this major security flaw in their recent computers is a perfect example of a company giving up ethics for money. Lenovo is among the most prominent PC manufacturers in the consumer market; in general, companies do not achieve such success unless they are driven and focused on profit. Most often the role of a business is to make money, but in order to make money they need customers, which means they need to be considered trustworthy. I believe that once trusted, a company is obligated to stay worthy of that trust. I also believe that companies who violate that trust, even in secret, will come to regret their mistake. Lenovo is only one of many instances of a company that has damaged or ruined its business through unethical practices. In each instance, the dishonesty began in secret, but guilty secrets are all eventually discovered. I hope that more people will begin to see that sacrificing ethics to gain an extra buck is a pattern that will not lead to ultimate success.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Study Journal #3
10 February 2015
1) Intellectual property laws seem like they could cut both ways. Like if somebody can legally hide a good idea, then progression in general is sort of stunted.
2) I can't decide if intellectual property would stimulate progress in technology and society or if it would hinder development. The incentive I could see is that people might take and idea and extensively improve/change/adapt it in order to circumvent intellectual property laws.
3) I'm glad they've trained people on the whole legal side of technology so that nerds don't have to. I don't think I'd have the same draw to programming that I do now if I had to know the legal side.
1) Intellectual property laws seem like they could cut both ways. Like if somebody can legally hide a good idea, then progression in general is sort of stunted.
2) I can't decide if intellectual property would stimulate progress in technology and society or if it would hinder development. The incentive I could see is that people might take and idea and extensively improve/change/adapt it in order to circumvent intellectual property laws.
3) I'm glad they've trained people on the whole legal side of technology so that nerds don't have to. I don't think I'd have the same draw to programming that I do now if I had to know the legal side.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Intellectual Property Laws: Controversial & Subtly Sinister
Opponents of intellectual property (IP) laws cite two main arguments against IP legislation: IP laws discourage creativity because potential innovators may be legally hindered in their work and IP laws allow individuals or companies to monopolize on a discovery that could benefit science and the public if shared. I see merit in their views; however, I do not think these reasons would damage general creativity as much as IP law opponents assert. The counter-forces that result from IP laws can either force greater depth in research by requiring scientists to reverse-engineer products or encourage quick expansion of existing technologies to patent a new feature. In a way, patent laws can force the pace of discovery. Whether or not IP legislation increases progression, I believe IP laws cause great damage by shifting the motivation for creativity. Prior to IP laws, innovators and inventors were commonly driven by passion and personal interest. Today, IP laws subtly change a creator's goal to protecting his idea from others or inventing to defeat his competition. These forces, driven by money and greed, have always existed, but IP laws augment them. I am saddened by this outcome. Some fundamental, pure part of the path of progress has been tainted by greed, and one day society will feel the corruption derivative of this moral decay.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Study Journal #2
22 January 2015
1) Everybody talks about being in computer development for the love of computers rather than for the money. I, however, believe that some, like Steve Jobs, were mostly ambition.
2) It's a shame that some major players end up with nothing and other major players lose their nerdy passion because of the business.
3) I am impressed that Wozniak was able to hold on to his love of technology. I think he struck the happy medium between getting financially recognized and being able to stick to what he liked best. The spreadsheet guys retained their tech love, at least, but are only recognized conceptually rather than monetarily.
27 January 2015
1) If that dress code at IBM was enforced today, many programmers would be discouraged from working there when there are other places that have more laid back rules. Maybe that's the point though--it weeds out the applicants to only those that are serious enough for a dress code.
2) All of the most lucrative developments seem to be front end/user interface stuff such as GUI's, more compact machines, more intuitive software, and especially improved operating systems. For the most part the market doesn't care if back-end software improves unless they can see a physical result.
3) Many open source people have radical ideas about open source software, but that passion drives them to create some pretty amazing things! People are motivated to build software to make money, but they are also motivated, maybe just as effectively, by the belief in making a difference and expanding the software that they are personally invested in.
29 January 2015
1) Pretty ridiculous to say 5 seconds laves 50 lives... But maybe a logical fallacy can give people a boost sometimes.
2) Steve Jobs was pissed about getting booted, but he'd ousted tons of people already... Karma.
3) Jobs says they mercilessly stole good ideas, but he's ticked about Microsoft having "no taste" and stealing Apple type-facing.
4) Good ideas are only good if you can implement, sell, and be willing to adjust the business plan/vision to match the public mood.
3 February 2015
1) The Free Software Definition article asserts that nonfree programs are an instrument of unjust power, which I think is pretty extreme. If a product is copyrighted and only controlled by the owner/creator who sells it, that doesn't make them an unjust tyrant for keeping it private and using it to make money...
2) It is clear that this article was created by programmers or computer engineers. The focus is on having open source software so knowledge can grow and spread and so peoples lives can be improved. Business is a more important factor to many other people who care nothing for the programming knowledge, which discourages open source stuff.
3) The situation with Microsoft, IBM, and the QDOS operating system is another example how luck plays a major factor in success. Who knew that that specific operating system would be the successful one?
5 February 2015
1) Many of these big players were accidental (at least partially). How do you predict big success like this? Or is it possible?
2) Sometimes it doesn't pay to be a pioneer, especially when people don't see your vision... Even if you find something good.
3) Dogmatism is never a good idea, or almost never. You can blind yourself everywhere, not just in technology.
1) Everybody talks about being in computer development for the love of computers rather than for the money. I, however, believe that some, like Steve Jobs, were mostly ambition.
2) It's a shame that some major players end up with nothing and other major players lose their nerdy passion because of the business.
3) I am impressed that Wozniak was able to hold on to his love of technology. I think he struck the happy medium between getting financially recognized and being able to stick to what he liked best. The spreadsheet guys retained their tech love, at least, but are only recognized conceptually rather than monetarily.
27 January 2015
1) If that dress code at IBM was enforced today, many programmers would be discouraged from working there when there are other places that have more laid back rules. Maybe that's the point though--it weeds out the applicants to only those that are serious enough for a dress code.
2) All of the most lucrative developments seem to be front end/user interface stuff such as GUI's, more compact machines, more intuitive software, and especially improved operating systems. For the most part the market doesn't care if back-end software improves unless they can see a physical result.
3) Many open source people have radical ideas about open source software, but that passion drives them to create some pretty amazing things! People are motivated to build software to make money, but they are also motivated, maybe just as effectively, by the belief in making a difference and expanding the software that they are personally invested in.
29 January 2015
1) Pretty ridiculous to say 5 seconds laves 50 lives... But maybe a logical fallacy can give people a boost sometimes.
2) Steve Jobs was pissed about getting booted, but he'd ousted tons of people already... Karma.
3) Jobs says they mercilessly stole good ideas, but he's ticked about Microsoft having "no taste" and stealing Apple type-facing.
4) Good ideas are only good if you can implement, sell, and be willing to adjust the business plan/vision to match the public mood.
3 February 2015
1) The Free Software Definition article asserts that nonfree programs are an instrument of unjust power, which I think is pretty extreme. If a product is copyrighted and only controlled by the owner/creator who sells it, that doesn't make them an unjust tyrant for keeping it private and using it to make money...
2) It is clear that this article was created by programmers or computer engineers. The focus is on having open source software so knowledge can grow and spread and so peoples lives can be improved. Business is a more important factor to many other people who care nothing for the programming knowledge, which discourages open source stuff.
3) The situation with Microsoft, IBM, and the QDOS operating system is another example how luck plays a major factor in success. Who knew that that specific operating system would be the successful one?
5 February 2015
1) Many of these big players were accidental (at least partially). How do you predict big success like this? Or is it possible?
2) Sometimes it doesn't pay to be a pioneer, especially when people don't see your vision... Even if you find something good.
3) Dogmatism is never a good idea, or almost never. You can blind yourself everywhere, not just in technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)