In the DC area, you'd expect a starting salary near $60k. For starting salary with a technical Ph.D., $100k is reasonable (although I'm not a programmer and do not know how that compares to other technical fields).
It completely depends on the field for government pay. For technical staff, the government pays terrible. They tend to value people with technical degrees/professions the same as non-technical ones. The private sector/contractor pay is much better and you can get equal or better benefits with a technical degree, if you look around.
The government also contracts out a large portion of their IT and computer related needs.
It will also depend on your motivation and ability. These do not matter one bit in the government, but are very critical to your pay with non-government employers.
Exactly, you can stop certain vulnerabilities. The issue that the politicians and most of the press dont' understand is you can't stop them all. There are always going to be HUGE vulnerabilities when you have to check that number of people quickly and cheaply (how much more can we really spend on airport security before it makes flying uneconomical).
The other issue that you touch on is that those wishing to do harm have a pretty good grasp of the vulnerabilities in the system (as do most people who think critically about security), and are determined to exploit them.
The biggest issue is the special scanners will stop what they did last time. It's the same issue the TSA and their counterparts have with each iteration of security practices.
They all assume the terrorist will use the same method as they have already done. What happens when they don't? You get what happened over the holiday. The heightened security fights the last attack, not the upcoming one.
- The original 9/11 plot had terrorists taking over the plane, so the put in super doors and other measures to keep people out of the cockpit. - A potential attack had liquid explosives, so no more liquids over 3.4 oz (which is a joke measure anyway) - Next attack used a shoe bomb, so we take off our shoes - Next attack used a underpants bomb...
No security method will keep you perfectly safe. All methods have their weaknesses and it is ultimately up to the passengers to assist in combating those wishing to do harm to them.
The point isn't that you should do nothing, it is that security screening is not the answer. It's a waste of time as it is always back-looking and can't cover all possible attack possibilities. All the TSA security measures have been put in place to combat the last attack.
Even the attack methods they do cover, they don't do it all that well. Look at liquids for example, I can only carry a 3 oz bottle. But I can take a quart bag of them, and so can Bob, Jim, John, Luke, and Marty. It doesn't stop a large amount of hazardous liquids from being brought onto a plane. It just gives the impression it does.
The only way to effectively combat any terrorist activity is through old-fashioned police and intelligence work.
You yourself said that the measures won't stop a determined person. If a person is willing to die to do something, aren't they pretty damn determined?
The TSA is a waste of peoples time and is just put on for show.
The liquids things is retarded. You just have to have multiple people go through, or put the same thing in a dozen 3 oz bottles. This isn't hard to figure out. If you let any through, you let in as much as someone is willing to bring through. It is just slightly harder for a determined individual, and inconveniencing as hell for everyone else.
Knives being banned is dumb. Who is going to let the plane get taken over by someone with a knife after 9/11? Nobody. They're also terrible at catching them anyway. I've accidently carried knives on planes a couple times.
Taking your shoes off is dumb. Terrorists also know they have to take off their shoes, you really think they'll do the same thing again?
"Reasonable fees" are going to be nearly impossible to determine.
The sentiment is right though. You need to make some effort at using the patent and not sitting on it. I'm not sure how you'd prove someone was trying sufficiently, but you could scale the damage awards based on "actual" damage done. This doesn't really fix the issue though as these things are all so dependent on markets and other factors that are not realistically evaluated.
A little off topic, but patents are also written in such a manner that it is difficult to figure out what they actually cover. They're written in lawyer speak, which engineers who need to interpret them don't readily understand. They're written in insanely broad ways to cover as much ground as possible, including the kitchen sink (and therefore say nothing at all).
And it is not uncommon for some of them to use odd language for things so that they're hard to search for. So instead of a patent for binoculars, you have a patent for dual-ocular magnification devices as an example.
A DVD player should work all the time. As a manufacturer, you have total control over the system (both software and hardware).
The issue with "pure" software is you really don't know what it is going to be running on. For a PC, there are millions of potential hardware and software configurations. Most of these combos behave the same (to the program), but not always. It is literally impossible to test all configurations.
According to the article, fair use would be eliminated because circumvention devices would be illegal. If you are allowed to make a copy, but the program to do it cannot be traded/sold/distributed, you essentially are barred from doing so. It's a nice loophole in the law that the media companies are quite happy with.
Yeah, doesn't mean much. TPB is not located in any jurisdiction the Dutch have any control over, so it means nothing/very little. Same reason none of them showed up or would show up to the original BRIEN trial.
you'll never see a competing company come out and say "wow, their free product is so good you should use it rather than ours." Their response is not surprising at all
Physically storing the data isn't really the biggest problem. Magnetic Tapes are good for a very long time, as are other magnetic storage options. The issue is that the tape formats tend to not last that long. What happens when you make the tape in the format of the day, in the "best" codec of the day, and that becomes obsolete within 10 years? 50 years down the road, nobody will be able to read it since the machines to do so will not exist.
The only way to do it would be to constantly monitor the data and keep the format up to date, backed up, etc. If you're not proactive, you can't garauntee long term storage. For museums, this tends to not happen. They put stuff in storage, and forget about it. They can have hundreds of thousands of items in their collections, so they don't have the resources to adequately monitor things. They do a pretty good job, but it is not uncommon for you to see a story about something valuable "found" in a museum vault.
The simple answer is there is no archival way of storing it. While the digital media may last for ages, the readers probably won't. This is the biggest issue with digital media.
Just look at things like the (remaining) Apollo tapes. The electronic media that exists works fine, but the machines to read them do not.
The Afghan "insurgents" don't have any of those weapons systems. They use mostly items that can be carried. They rely on speed and carting around a howitzer doesn't make you fast or stealthy. They may have some stingers from their war with the Soviets, but you don't hear about them downing helos with them. So it's not likely that they're many of them at all.
The issue with most lawsuits is that it doesn't come down to who is right or wrong. It comes down to money.
It costs X to fight it and you may loose and pay Y settlement, and it costs Z to settle.
If X>Z, you settle. If the probability of loosing is high, that makes you more likely to settle, but it is not as large a concern for large corporations as people believe.
Granted, that is siimplified but it is more or less how it all goes.
This, when kevlar is struck it expands to "catch" the projectile. It gives a little. If you place it on your head, it'll expand right into your skull and not be too effective.
Actually, that sort of system is MUCH harder to balance. The combinations of skills/abilities are almost endless, so you have to account for so many more options. The more rigid the structure, the easier it is to balance because you have more control over it as a designer. The problem is most players dont' want a very rigid structure, they want some skill choices and ability to shape their character development.
The other huge issue is that there is such a huge difference between PvP and PvE. In PvP, you're fighting someone who is roughly your equal. You can also get large group on group action. In PvE, you always seem to be fighting something that has 10x your hp or more, and can hit so much harder (at least at endgame) and has pathetically predictable tactics. The two are so distinctly different that you can't balance out them both, they're essentially two separate combat designs within a game.
Yes, the most god awful mouse ever made and sold in "large" quantities. Why would you ever make a mouse that had no tactile feel to let you know which was was up, make it really light, and then put a really heavy cord on it so that the cord was always trying to make it rotate? Not to mention it was too small and just uncomfortable.
Yes, technically there is a potential increase in risk. But it is blown way out of proportion. The risk is small and certainly not significant. If you have any experience with electronics/electrical systems, the risk is exceedingly small.
I like how that number is nearly 2% of the US GDP. The total lost jobs is roughly 0.5% of the total US workforce.
Seems really high to me but then I'm always highly suspect of any job lost numbers. In general, jobs are only lost to a specific sector. If I'm not spending X dollars for Y, I'm spending it on something else. The jobs lost needs to factor in jobs gained in other sectors to have any relevance, and that's exceeding difficult to quantify.
Even the Square RPGs can be finished in under 200 hours easily, and for what it's worth they're not really violent. And as one of the previous posters suggested, the violence does not change throughout the course of the game.
Wikipedia is the default place to look for information on the web. It's the most respected free encyclopedia around, by leaps and bounds. It may not always be 100% accurate, but it's generally darn good. Especially for a first shot.
The issue is Wikipedia basically has to follow that model. It is not a commercial business, and only generates revenue from donations. How can they afford to track and maintain copyright for a large portion of the material on the site? It is easier to only accept completely open information/photos. It's all the same then, and they (and the users) can do what they want with any information on it. That's the best model for an encyclopedia to use IMO.
Additionally, it divorces them from being controlled by the owner of the copyright. If a photographer (or anyone else) had to actually license material to them, it's a massive headache, and Wikipedia is beholden to the copyright owner in the end. They then would have an external, biased influence on the content on the site. Clearly not a direction they want to go, and something the NYT article really seems to miss. They even talk about how someone got sued for putting information on the site, and can't see that is a huge issue that forces them to use Creative Commons licensed material.
The other way is the potential for lawsuits (even if they do have Safe Harbor status, and its equivalent in other countries, it doesn't stop them from being sued in the first place. It just means they're likely to win after all the legal bills are paid.), the need to respond to more DMCA takedowns, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
In the DC area, you'd expect a starting salary near $60k. For starting salary with a technical Ph.D., $100k is reasonable (although I'm not a programmer and do not know how that compares to other technical fields).
It completely depends on the field for government pay. For technical staff, the government pays terrible. They tend to value people with technical degrees/professions the same as non-technical ones. The private sector/contractor pay is much better and you can get equal or better benefits with a technical degree, if you look around.
The government also contracts out a large portion of their IT and computer related needs.
It will also depend on your motivation and ability. These do not matter one bit in the government, but are very critical to your pay with non-government employers.
Exactly, you can stop certain vulnerabilities. The issue that the politicians and most of the press dont' understand is you can't stop them all. There are always going to be HUGE vulnerabilities when you have to check that number of people quickly and cheaply (how much more can we really spend on airport security before it makes flying uneconomical).
The other issue that you touch on is that those wishing to do harm have a pretty good grasp of the vulnerabilities in the system (as do most people who think critically about security), and are determined to exploit them.
The biggest issue is the special scanners will stop what they did last time. It's the same issue the TSA and their counterparts have with each iteration of security practices.
They all assume the terrorist will use the same method as they have already done. What happens when they don't? You get what happened over the holiday. The heightened security fights the last attack, not the upcoming one.
- The original 9/11 plot had terrorists taking over the plane, so the put in super doors and other measures to keep people out of the cockpit.
- A potential attack had liquid explosives, so no more liquids over 3.4 oz (which is a joke measure anyway)
- Next attack used a shoe bomb, so we take off our shoes
- Next attack used a underpants bomb...
No security method will keep you perfectly safe. All methods have their weaknesses and it is ultimately up to the passengers to assist in combating those wishing to do harm to them.
The point isn't that you should do nothing, it is that security screening is not the answer. It's a waste of time as it is always back-looking and can't cover all possible attack possibilities. All the TSA security measures have been put in place to combat the last attack.
Even the attack methods they do cover, they don't do it all that well. Look at liquids for example, I can only carry a 3 oz bottle. But I can take a quart bag of them, and so can Bob, Jim, John, Luke, and Marty. It doesn't stop a large amount of hazardous liquids from being brought onto a plane. It just gives the impression it does.
The only way to effectively combat any terrorist activity is through old-fashioned police and intelligence work.
You yourself said that the measures won't stop a determined person. If a person is willing to die to do something, aren't they pretty damn determined?
The TSA is a waste of peoples time and is just put on for show.
The liquids things is retarded. You just have to have multiple people go through, or put the same thing in a dozen 3 oz bottles. This isn't hard to figure out. If you let any through, you let in as much as someone is willing to bring through. It is just slightly harder for a determined individual, and inconveniencing as hell for everyone else.
Knives being banned is dumb. Who is going to let the plane get taken over by someone with a knife after 9/11? Nobody. They're also terrible at catching them anyway. I've accidently carried knives on planes a couple times.
Taking your shoes off is dumb. Terrorists also know they have to take off their shoes, you really think they'll do the same thing again?
"Reasonable fees" are going to be nearly impossible to determine.
The sentiment is right though. You need to make some effort at using the patent and not sitting on it. I'm not sure how you'd prove someone was trying sufficiently, but you could scale the damage awards based on "actual" damage done. This doesn't really fix the issue though as these things are all so dependent on markets and other factors that are not realistically evaluated.
A little off topic, but patents are also written in such a manner that it is difficult to figure out what they actually cover. They're written in lawyer speak, which engineers who need to interpret them don't readily understand. They're written in insanely broad ways to cover as much ground as possible, including the kitchen sink (and therefore say nothing at all).
And it is not uncommon for some of them to use odd language for things so that they're hard to search for. So instead of a patent for binoculars, you have a patent for dual-ocular magnification devices as an example.
A DVD player should work all the time. As a manufacturer, you have total control over the system (both software and hardware).
The issue with "pure" software is you really don't know what it is going to be running on. For a PC, there are millions of potential hardware and software configurations. Most of these combos behave the same (to the program), but not always. It is literally impossible to test all configurations.
According to the article, fair use would be eliminated because circumvention devices would be illegal. If you are allowed to make a copy, but the program to do it cannot be traded/sold/distributed, you essentially are barred from doing so. It's a nice loophole in the law that the media companies are quite happy with.
Yeah, doesn't mean much. TPB is not located in any jurisdiction the Dutch have any control over, so it means nothing/very little. Same reason none of them showed up or would show up to the original BRIEN trial.
you'll never see a competing company come out and say "wow, their free product is so good you should use it rather than ours." Their response is not surprising at all
Ok, so you don't use a "codec" but you do need to know how the 0s and 1s make a picture/file/whatever. You DO have to decode it.
Physically storing the data isn't really the biggest problem. Magnetic Tapes are good for a very long time, as are other magnetic storage options. The issue is that the tape formats tend to not last that long. What happens when you make the tape in the format of the day, in the "best" codec of the day, and that becomes obsolete within 10 years? 50 years down the road, nobody will be able to read it since the machines to do so will not exist.
The only way to do it would be to constantly monitor the data and keep the format up to date, backed up, etc. If you're not proactive, you can't garauntee long term storage. For museums, this tends to not happen. They put stuff in storage, and forget about it. They can have hundreds of thousands of items in their collections, so they don't have the resources to adequately monitor things. They do a pretty good job, but it is not uncommon for you to see a story about something valuable "found" in a museum vault.
They should do that, but history tells us that they probably won't.
The simple answer is there is no archival way of storing it. While the digital media may last for ages, the readers probably won't. This is the biggest issue with digital media.
Just look at things like the (remaining) Apollo tapes. The electronic media that exists works fine, but the machines to read them do not.
The Afghan "insurgents" don't have any of those weapons systems. They use mostly items that can be carried. They rely on speed and carting around a howitzer doesn't make you fast or stealthy. They may have some stingers from their war with the Soviets, but you don't hear about them downing helos with them. So it's not likely that they're many of them at all.
The issue with most lawsuits is that it doesn't come down to who is right or wrong. It comes down to money.
It costs X to fight it and you may loose and pay Y settlement, and it costs Z to settle.
If X>Z, you settle. If the probability of loosing is high, that makes you more likely to settle, but it is not as large a concern for large corporations as people believe.
Granted, that is siimplified but it is more or less how it all goes.
This, when kevlar is struck it expands to "catch" the projectile. It gives a little. If you place it on your head, it'll expand right into your skull and not be too effective.
Actually, that sort of system is MUCH harder to balance. The combinations of skills/abilities are almost endless, so you have to account for so many more options. The more rigid the structure, the easier it is to balance because you have more control over it as a designer. The problem is most players dont' want a very rigid structure, they want some skill choices and ability to shape their character development.
The other huge issue is that there is such a huge difference between PvP and PvE. In PvP, you're fighting someone who is roughly your equal. You can also get large group on group action. In PvE, you always seem to be fighting something that has 10x your hp or more, and can hit so much harder (at least at endgame) and has pathetically predictable tactics. The two are so distinctly different that you can't balance out them both, they're essentially two separate combat designs within a game.
Yes, the most god awful mouse ever made and sold in "large" quantities. Why would you ever make a mouse that had no tactile feel to let you know which was was up, make it really light, and then put a really heavy cord on it so that the cord was always trying to make it rotate? Not to mention it was too small and just uncomfortable.
Yes, technically there is a potential increase in risk. But it is blown way out of proportion. The risk is small and certainly not significant. If you have any experience with electronics/electrical systems, the risk is exceedingly small.
I like how that number is nearly 2% of the US GDP. The total lost jobs is roughly 0.5% of the total US workforce.
Seems really high to me but then I'm always highly suspect of any job lost numbers. In general, jobs are only lost to a specific sector. If I'm not spending X dollars for Y, I'm spending it on something else. The jobs lost needs to factor in jobs gained in other sectors to have any relevance, and that's exceeding difficult to quantify.
Faraday cage.
Even the Square RPGs can be finished in under 200 hours easily, and for what it's worth they're not really violent. And as one of the previous posters suggested, the violence does not change throughout the course of the game.
Wikipedia is the default place to look for information on the web. It's the most respected free encyclopedia around, by leaps and bounds. It may not always be 100% accurate, but it's generally darn good. Especially for a first shot.
The issue is Wikipedia basically has to follow that model. It is not a commercial business, and only generates revenue from donations. How can they afford to track and maintain copyright for a large portion of the material on the site? It is easier to only accept completely open information/photos. It's all the same then, and they (and the users) can do what they want with any information on it. That's the best model for an encyclopedia to use IMO.
Additionally, it divorces them from being controlled by the owner of the copyright. If a photographer (or anyone else) had to actually license material to them, it's a massive headache, and Wikipedia is beholden to the copyright owner in the end. They then would have an external, biased influence on the content on the site. Clearly not a direction they want to go, and something the NYT article really seems to miss. They even talk about how someone got sued for putting information on the site, and can't see that is a huge issue that forces them to use Creative Commons licensed material.
The other way is the potential for lawsuits (even if they do have Safe Harbor status, and its equivalent in other countries, it doesn't stop them from being sued in the first place. It just means they're likely to win after all the legal bills are paid.), the need to respond to more DMCA takedowns, etc.