• (unregistered) in reply to

    Pick up 12-inch vinyl record. Place in antiquated record player. Flip on switch. Jam to "Rock Me Amadeus" extended dance remix classic.

  • (unregistered) in reply to

    I'm so glad that you made a reference to a Falco classic. I really enjoyed the extended 12-inch version because it had a really long "history of Amadeus" intro. It was really funky.

  • (cs) in reply to

    don't you mean "the" Falco classic?  I had that too... [:$] but I have redeemed myself by performing principle roles in all of Mozart's standard repertoire operas.

  • (unregistered)

    Marcus here.

    Your replies have cracked me up time and time again... it's reassuring to know that so many share my "WTF?!" reaction to this code, but sadly it's just the tip of the iceberg. The entire application needs to be junked and a new one written from scratch. However, the problem is that's not going to happen for another 2 years. [:|]

    Isac's image left me speechless, but once I regained the power to speak, I couldn't stop laughing, so top marks for "wittiest response" goes to him! Genius indeed. [:D] I just wish I could show my boss that image (and the whole of this thread) but obviously I can't. (However, I might show a few coworkers who would appreciate it.)

    Anyway, other than making damn sure that we don't have the right to modify the code (I have a horrible feeling that the powers that be might have signed away that right), I'm left with data pruning and a total application rewrite. The first is a temporary fix which probably won't suffice for two more years, and the latter is out of the question for now.

    Fortunately, it's not my project, I merely offered to investigate the timeouts. Little did I know what I was going to find. Can open. Worms everywhere.

    I bid you all good morning/day/evening/night, and hope you all have a great New Year! I'll be checking back next week to see what else you guys come up with, so see you then, perhaps.

     

    Marcus

  • (unregistered)

    This makes me very angry!

  • (unregistered)

    Marcus:

    Okay, you can't modify the app or the DB, but perhaps there's a way of sticking a proxy in between the two which filters out the offending query and replaces it with something sane?

    I know very little about what you'd use in practice, but a service that appears as an ODBC source which just passes the data back and forth with a little filtering code in the middle... I believe there are various bits of middleware you can buy to do this (it may even be simple enough to write if you can find some decent ODBC libs) and it wouldn't invalidate the warranty.

    -- Yoz

  • (unregistered) in reply to

    Marcus: it might be possible to simplify the schema, recreate a database with the simplified schema, and write a routine to migrate the data. If everything in the client code uses views instead of direct queries on tables, this might work great. Otherwise, you might have to combine it with the ODBC proxy idea. But either solution seems like it would be license friendly.

    That is, unless your license also prohibits making derivitive works from the source code you have. Which it probably does, come to think of it.

    Come to think of it, even a ODBC middle layer would probably be considered a derivitive work and against the license. Oh well. But I'd check with a company lawyer.

  • (cs) in reply to Goudinov

    Goudinov:
    don't you mean "the" Falco classic? 

    Obviously, you've never heard "The Kiss of Kathleen Turner".

  • (cs) in reply to

    Nope, sorry, that's wrong. If you have signed a license with someone you have entered into a contract which alters your rights with respect to anything the contract governs, including your ability to use your own hardware and the bits in it. They might have the moral right, but they might not have the legal right. One would want to review the license/contract carefully to find potential loop-holes.

    I disagree.  Your basic arguement ("if it's in the contract, it must be binding") is nonsense.  I could sign a contract selling my children into slavery --- That wouldn't make it legal or enforceable.

    Consider a more common example:  I buy a book, also known as being licensed to read (use) the book, but not republish it.   Does this mean I cannot write notes in the margins?  Does this mean I cannot cross out the protagonist's name and write in my own where ever it appears in the book? 

    Then you have the more practical concerns, namely, (a) "How would they know?", (b) "Why would they care?", and (c) "Would could they do about it?".

    In (a), The service contract has already been cancelled, so why would anyone from the contracters be looking at the code on your machines?

    In (b), do you really think they are going to insist you use their crappy code instead of you own improvement?

    In (c), they could refuse to sell you a service contract, which is moot since you've already canceled it, Or they could attempt to sue you for breach of contract, which they will almost certainly lose (What judge is going to side with a geek expert witness he can't understand over "I should be able to write in the margins of a paperback"?), and which, won or lose, will cause irrepairable damage to their reputation ("Oh yes, they're the one's who write crappy code, and will sue ya if you don't use it!")

  • (unregistered)

    Unbelivable. That takes the cake as the years greatest WTF.

    Estimated execution plan: wtf?

    Number of tables joined: WTF?

    Most of those joins left outer: WTFF?

    use of DISTINCT: OMFGWTFBBQ!

    phx

  • (unregistered) in reply to JamesCurran

    JamesCurran, you took the words out of my mouth!

    Then you apparently stuck them in a nice soft baggie (like the kind you get with crown royal,) jumbled them around a bit, and pulled them out in a far more eloquent manner.

    As far as I'm concerned this is comparable to editing an .ini file that comes with any arbitrary such windows program, nothing like software reversing. I'm fairly certain an EULA or the like cannot govern this sort of thing, and if the powers-that-be aren't willing to take that chance or to find out, at least consider asking this "highly reputable" company if it's okay (they'll perhaps say sure, but at your own risk.) Something MUST be done about that WTF!

  • (unregistered)

    Afaik and ianal, but yes, modification would likely be breach of contract/copyright, but as pointed out - completely unenforcable. How are they going to (legally) find out?

    Code (or config files) is like a novel, or a painting, its is protected by copyright law. You cant modify my work unless I grant permission.

    It could be said that config files are in place to allow end user configuration, an implicit grant of permission. However after your (America's) recent "advances" in copyright law, I would personally - how do you put it? - "bet my ass" - that if I was dumb enough to put the line "HasBoughtProEditon = false" in my app's config file, and you changed it, then I would end up with your "ass" on a platter ;)

  • (unregistered) in reply to Blue

    Try CTRL-MOUSEWHEEL (aka, the View->Text Size menu.)  Since this forum uses relative font sizes, it works quite nicely.  (Way better than some I've seen.)

  • (unregistered) in reply to
    :

    However after your (America's) recent "advances" in copyright law, I would personally - how do you put it? - "bet my ass" - that if I was dumb enough to put the line "HasBoughtProEditon = false" in my app's config file, and you changed it, then I would end up with your "ass" on a platter ;)

    Only if you caught me. ;)

  • (cs) in reply to

    :
    Code (or config files) is like a novel, or a painting, its is protected by copyright law. You can't modify my work unless I grant permission.

    The confusion here is a misunderstanding of what is "The Code".

    I can't modify your work, because your work exists on your computer.  If you sell me a copy of your work, I can modify my copy which exists on my computer.

    Fundementally important point here: After I change my copy of your code, your Code still exist on your computer in it's unmodified form.

    Hence, my modifications to my copy of your code do not impair your ability to sell your Code to other people, which is pretty much the only concern of the copyright law.

     

  • (unregistered) in reply to Blue
    Blue:
    Scott, your solution doesn't work when I try it in SQL Query Analyzer against SQL Server 2003.

    Given Table1 with columns Col1 and Col2, and Table2 with columns Somecolumn, Othercolumn, and Id.

    SELECT
        col1,
        col2,
        (SELECT somecolumn AS col3, othercolumn AS col4 FROM table2 where table2.id=testvalue)
    FROM
        table1
    WHERE
        table1.[id]=12345

    yields the error:
    Only one expression can be specified in the select list when the subquery is not introduced with EXISTS.


  • (cs) in reply to

    Anonymous, your reply doesn't appear under your quote of me when I view the page, but whatever (possibly snide?) comment you were trying to make is probably moot since we had later discussion involving why I wrote that that way -- it is not how I generally write code, it was  in response to someone else's suggestion, and showing how it wouldn't work.

    Yes, I know how to use joins.

    Thanks.


  • (unregistered) in reply to Blue

    I think the important point here is that the two selects aren't related, so joins aren't the answer:

    SELECT
        @Col3 = somecolumn,
        @Col4 = othercolumn
    FROM
         table2
    where
         table2.id = testvalue

    SELECT
        col1,
        col2,
        @Col3,
        @Col4,
    FROM
        table1
    WHERE
        table1.[id] = 12345

  • (unregistered) in reply to JamesCurran

    "If you sell me a copy of your work, I can modify my copy which exists on my computer."

    That is similar to me saying if you park your car near my house I can smash the windows with a hammer.

    "Fundementally important point here: After I change my copy of your code, your Code still exist on your computer in it's unmodified form. Hence, my modifications to my copy of your code do not impair your ability to sell your Code to other people, which is pretty much the only concern of the copyright law."

    That concern is afaik in regard to determining compensation. The court can force you to stop using the code even if no compensation is offered. Also you are depriving me of the income when I do the modifications for you :)

    So you claim if I copy some music and listen to it at home and dont distribute it and claim i wouldntve bought it if I didnt copy it I would get away with that? (Assuming your RIAA found out about the "collection").

    Actually good example:
    A company recently sold XBOX mod chips. These were a drop-in replacement BIOS for the XBOX. These contained modified code owned by Microsoft, who got pissed off and shut them down mainly on breach of copyright. Now, Microsoft has already sold Joe an XBOX, and when Joe buys a chip MS isnt losing any money or potential to sell the original code. In fact Joe has a licence to run the MS code on his box, like any mod chip customer (otherwise the chip is useless).

    Now I understand a lot of people have this "Right to Copy" bullshit happening. This is basically "Right to get people to do shit for you for free" and "Right to rip off programmers like myself" which pisses me off. I dont get annoyed with people that copy software, I mean I do sometimes - like running full SQL server on my box at home for development. Its just when people make the claim that its their right to do so.... so fucking annoying. Its like this kid I saw with a shirt that said "Graffiti is not a Crime!". I told him that if you Graffiti my Wall, I will Punch you in the Face. He mumbled something about me hatin' his art. [:@]

  • (cs) in reply to

    :

    "If you sell me a copy of your work, I can modify my copy which exists on my computer."

    That is similar to me saying if you park your car near my house I can smash the windows with a hammer.

    Huh????  There is absolutely no similarity whatsoever between the two situations.

    So you claim if I copy some music and listen to it at home and dont distribute it and claim i wouldntve bought it if I didnt copy it I would get away with that? (Assuming your RIAA found out about the "collection").

    Again not even close to what we are talking about here. How 'bout we try modifying this to something closer:  I buy a music CD.  Do I have the right to use it as a Frisbee?

    Actually good example:

    Not really, but it's not quite as wacky as the rest....

    A company recently sold XBOX mod chips. These were a drop-in replacement BIOS for the XBOX. These contained modified code owned by Microsoft, who got pissed off and shut them down mainly on breach of copyright. Now, Microsoft has already sold Joe an XBOX, and when Joe buys a chip MS isnt

    OK, let's recap... Microsoft sold a copy of the code to Joe.  He can modify his copy as he pleases.   Microsoft also sold a copy of the code to the Unnamed company.  They can modify THEIR COPY of that code as they please --- However, they CANNOT sell the modified version.  This is EXACTLY what I said in my original comment.   They cannot sell it, because this would be using Msft's work to compete against them (ie, you could use their chip is a home-brew XBOX, or you could buy their ROMs instead of buying an upgrade from Msft or whatever).   The point is that Msft has the right to control how their work is distributed ("copyright" is literally "The right to make copies"), but once it's reached the end consumer, they can do what they want with their copy.

     

    P.S.  The comment before this guy's (with the SQL code) is also mine -- I forgot to sign in.

  • (unregistered) in reply to JamesCurran

    Ok, so following that logic...if I had some code which I created, which was distributed, and then I parked a car near a glass house and walked in with a hammer...oh no...I've gone cross-eyed. [:|]

  • (cs) in reply to
    :
    Actually good example:
    A company recently sold XBOX mod chips. These were a drop-in replacement BIOS for the XBOX. These contained modified code owned by Microsoft, who got pissed off and shut them down mainly on breach of copyright. Now, Microsoft has already sold Joe an XBOX, and when Joe buys a chip MS isnt losing any money or potential to sell the original code. In fact Joe has a licence to run the MS code on his box, like any mod chip customer (otherwise the chip is useless).
     
    Getting off topic here, but you are a bit confused on what mod chips actually are.
     
    An XBOX mod chip is a bit of hardware.  It does contain a BIOS chip, and that chip is rewritable unlike the standard XBOX BIOS chip. However, most mod chips do not ship with anything loaded on that BIOS chip. Therefore copyright is not infringed simply by the existence of a mod chip.
     
    There are several competing BIOSes available to be loaded into a mod chip. True, among them (and very popular at that) are reverse-engineered BIOSes that permit you to play illegal copies of games, or to play completely unsigned games; but there is also at least one BIOS (known as "Cromwell") which contains no Microsoft code, cannot be used to play XBOX games legal or illegal, and was developed in a "clean room" style (by people who had not viewed any NDA materials). This BIOS is used to run Linux on the XBOX hardware.
     
    Besides being rewritable, one of the main hardware functions of a mod chip is to prevent the machine from rebooting whenever you press the eject button. As you can imagine, a linux machine that reboots whenever you eject the CD isn't very useful.
     
    My point? There are substantial non-infringing uses to owning a mod chip. Microsoft is treading over the line when it pressures law enforcement to shut down mod chip companies.  Mod chips do allow XBOX hardware to be used in ways that Microsoft did not intend. But using an XBOX as a boat anchor is also a use that Microsoft did not intend; should that also be illegal? In my opinion, no.
  • (unregistered) in reply to Blue
    Blue:
    Scott, your solution doesn't work when I try it in SQL Query Analyzer against SQL Server 2003.

    Given Table1 with columns Col1 and Col2, and Table2 with columns Somecolumn, Othercolumn, and Id.

    SELECT
        col1,
        col2,
        (SELECT somecolumn AS col3, othercolumn AS col4 FROM table2 where table2.id=testvalue)
    FROM
        table1
    WHERE
        table1.[id]=12345

    yields the error:
    Only one expression can be specified in the select list when the subquery is not introduced with EXISTS.


  • (cs) in reply to

    Man, I wish people would read the thread before saying the same thing YET AGAIN that about an earlier reply that has been beaten to death.

    argh!

    I wish I could just delete that post, it caused way more useless discussion that it was worth.

    I can't even see what the reply was this time, thanks to the Magic Quoting Feature(tm), but it's annoying anyway.

     

  • Marcus (unregistered) in reply to Blue

    Thought you'd all like to know that The Powers That Be eventually saw the light, and we have now junked the application! We replaced it with a rather simple .Net app that replicates 90% of all the functionality that we actually used, and a few mods to another system covered the last 10%! Hurray! Good riddance to it! [<:o)]

    Marcus

  • Mike (unregistered)

    I've read this post 100 times and it makes me laugh out loud every single time.

  • Lan (unregistered)

    544

Leave a comment on “One View to Rule Them All”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article