It is performances where musical artists make the bulk of their earnings. What another poster pointed out is that artists at one time only earned an income from performances. When recording devices made it possible to distribute copies of an artists performance to people who couldn't/didn't attend a live performance, the modern music business was born.
At issue, though, is that from one perspective, the providers of these recorded performances (records) are merely providing a service. This service is specifically that of providing a recording of a performance I couldn't/didn't attend live. The cost charged to me is for the service, and the costs incurred in providing it to me (the media, production, distribution, etc). If I am suddenly able to obtain a similar (MP3's do not equal CD or Anolog quality recordings) copy of an artist performance, for a lower cost or free, then I should be able to legally obtain that copy.
The artist still can earn an income from their live performances. The businesses who provide the service of producing, distributing, and selling CD or other physical copies of the artist's performance(s) can still earn an income for the service they provide. The method I use to obtain some/all of my copies in no way prevents either of these parties from earning an income for their respective products. Especially since I may still choose to obtain another copy, in CD format from the latter, and by attending a live performance by the first.
In this scenario the only purpose for a Copyright is to prove original authorship. This is necessary to prevent me from, for example, claiming I have written a song that in fact you wrote. By Copyrighting the song, you have a record of your claim which will no doubt predate my claim to have authored the same song. This is what you mean by "owning the ideas of these music makers/movie makers/software makers". I only steal an idea when I falsly claim to have thought of it first - not when I copy that idea without denying the original author due acknowledement. Take note though, acknowledgement does not automatically infer monetary compensation, merely the statement that "so-and-so" is the original creator of this idea.
Here, though, we are talking only of recognition of original authorship - not any type of control over the use of that song. This is exacly where the current scheme falls flat on it's face. By adding the layer of control on top, we pervert the original intent and create the legal and social mess we now have.
We need Copyrights as proof of authorship, we do not need them as control mechinisms used to derive additional income. A perfect example of the harm done to society by this perversion is the current limitations placed on consumer electronic devices. I, as a non-signed musician, cannot cost-effectively produce my own digital recordings because the components available to me at a price I can afford are hobbled so that I cannot output media in a digital format. This hobbling is done per "industry" pressure to prevent "pirating" of Copyrighted material. That it also prevents me from producing my own Copyrighted material doesn't matter one bit to them.
They listed the FreeBSD download as an X Windows Performance Monitoring application. Pointing out this error is shooting a bullet in a foot? Riiiiight!
Let's put up a site about motorcycles and when we mention Harley Davidson's, we'll describe them as skateboards with only 3 wheels and a fatal crack straight down the middle due to manufacturing problems. Then when all the Harley riders point out to them that Harley Davidson's are MOTORCYCLES - we can arrogantly and ignorantly rant that they just shot themselves in the foot for speaking up!
Your explanation of the wonderful environment that "big box stores" have is appreciated, yet you don't seam to realize that that is exactly what he's complaining to them about.
It's the execs at the meeting of topic that created the environment you describe - so who better than them to bitch at?
Sorry, but I have a huge problem with companies who patent drugs developed with tax-payer funding, then financially rape the consumers needing the medication. Combine that with the incentive to not cure a desease or illness, but focus on maintenance drugs because of the long-term financial incentive (make lotsa $$ over 20yrs vs. a few $ one-time), and you have a medical travesty.
The high cost of Health Care in the US is due, in huge part, to the costs of prescription maintenance drugs. The pharmaceutical companies are the worst abusers of the patent system for using it to leech enormous profits off the medical illnesses of our citizens.
This is what I consider them, they are not the "System" operating the hardware devices, they are merely an "Environment" with which the user operates the system.
Vaporware used to mean stuff that was announced, but not only didn't ship according to the announcement's schedule, but didn't materialize at all as well.
Microsoft's Chicago, Novell's Wolf Mountain (or whatever it was called), etc.
These were announced as "products", but were actually "projects" that spawned other products from the technology created. Some other notorious vaporware never actually produced any product(s).
I agree with others that view available pre-release versions of the announced products kinda disqualifies them as Vaporware - there IS something tangible in existence (not just vapor - hence the term).
OK, I wasn't born poor, started out kinda middle-classish. However, at age 9 my father lost his job in a really funky way (2 co-workers started there own company competing with his, the underbid jobs and got the contracts, my father's employer accused him of misappropriating company info by assisting his "friends" with their start-up. Not true, but the accusation made it difficult to get hired elsewhere until the he won his lawsuit). So from 9 to 15, I lived in the "projects" or ghetto/hood/whatever - getting by on welfare checks and foodstamps. Not exactly a child with "advantages" was I?
I hadn't any exposure what-so-ever with computers until I was 19. I dropped out of highschool at 16, and decided to go to a Community College after getting my GED. When asked by the admissions clerk, what degree program I was interested in, I said "I have no idea, what pays good these days?" She responded that computer programming seemed to be popular, so I said "sounds good to me!"
My first experience with a computer of any kind was on the first day of classes. I was instructed to pay my professor $1 for the 2 diskettes he was giving me for class use. One had PC-DOS on it, the other was for data files.
Now, 15+ years later, I'm also a very successful admin making far more than any of the teachers who claimed I'd amount to nothing when I dropped out!
So not all "advantaged" kids meet with success - and not all "disadvantaged" kids are destined for poverty! It's exactly your attitude that promotes the class-like inequalities within our society. The truth is anyone can be successful - all they need to do is try!
There is something called a prototype though, that is required to get people's interest. Even in alpha stages, some prototyping has to have been done to verify the basic design. Even if the binary is nothing more than static individual "applets" - seeing what the end goal is, although a rough draft it may be, is critical to getting the additional coders involved.
Just something to think about...
Perhaps he meant Elven Ass...
on
Gifts For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Nothing seems to get a lonely EQ geek more worked up than a newbie Wood or Dark Elf lady. They're rendered with G-String type body suits, with Barbie-style cleavage.
The relationship between Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and "Nerds" has nothing at all to do with some psycho-babble about introverts, anti-socials, and psychiatric patients!
It has to do with the same thing that further relates all of the above with music as well. I think if you were to do an indepth study of "nerds", you'd find a very large proportion who not only appreciate Sci-Fi and Fantasy works, but are also musically inclined - or artistically inclined via another medium.
What is this "thing" I speak of? It's called imagination. One cannot be creative if one cannot imagine the solution to a computing problem/compelling work of fiction/cutting edge song/fascinating painting/etc.
The fact is, all computer geeks are creative individuals - they have to be or they cannot possibly understand the complexities of modern computing environments. It is a strong imagination that fuels this creativity, and that lends itself perfectly to the appreciation of all things creative. Sci-Fi and Fantasy arts tend to push the edge of the imaginary possibilities, and are thus favored by those with the strongest sense of imagination.
My OS X system has been running the beta since 3 days after it was released, and I think I've powered down several times, can't remember ever having to reboot. So I've had much longer than 3 weeks of uptime, probably hitting about 6 weeks max before a shutdown over the Thanksgiving holiday.
I am so sick of reading/hearing this nonsense via the mainstream media outlets!
MP3 files are not perfect copies! They are degraded due to the compression, bitrate used, etc. They sound nearly indistinguishable to the common listener's ear - but this does not mean the are perfect copies. Furthermore, some aucustic qualities are noticably degraded when recorded digitally by just about anyone with decent hearing.
Copies of MP3's are perfect, assuming no data errors when writing the copy. This is, however, a non-issue since you are copying imperfect copies to begin with.
How can we possibly get this point out to the general public when the RIAA and friends are constantly spreading this falsehood?
I'm sorry for starting out on such a sour note, but I just read the top 9 (at the moment) rated messages and they, as well as nearly all others, are completely off-topic.
Instead of providing the requested features which should be incorporated into this project - we have an insane Exchange sux vs Exchange is great debate! Having moderators bump this stuff up is even more crazy!
With that off my chest, let me proceed to actually answer the original post's call:
Sounds like you are already planning the most common group scheduling/calendar functionality. Basic email is a given as well. So that leaves the fine points to consider...
1) Consistency in and completion of the user and Admin interfaces - This is a priority, I've used/admin'd Exchange, Groupwise, Netscape Mail+Calendar+LDAP, and Notes. The huge weakness in the Netscape solution was interface. Simple adding of users was a nightmare since they had to be individually added to each component. We used a shell script to perform Unix, email, and LDAP account additions, then manually added the LDAP account to the Calendar program. All command line add/modify/delete utils used different syntax - so the script was ugly as Hell! When I left that company, I had just started incorporating the Calendar account in the script... UGH!
2) Stick with Standards! If a standard protocol or some such is lacking a needed feature, please document and submit the change to that standards body. Don't invent your own and keep it proprietary. That's MS's job.
3) Write your own client - and perform End-User Usability tests (with real PHB types). It's great that umteen different clients can connect and use all/some of it's features; but for a Corporate requirement, you need a full feature, easy enough for the executive admin to use client. This is the achilles heel of too many Open Source projects. You really need a 58+ year old "secretary" type to evaluate the client functionality, otherwise his/her boss is never consider it as a viable solution.
4) Some form of Disaster Recover functionality. Be it via hooks to 3rd party mirroring/clustering solutions, or integrated DR processes. Relying on backups of email systems when they exceed *GB of disk storage is unacceptable. In large-scale environments, some data redundancy is needed in case of corruption.
5) Finally, SNMP based management and traps. Again, in any moderately large environment you will find some form of SNMP based operations monitoring. I've used NetView, OpenView, and Managewise. You have to provide standard MIBS for these platforms and try to integrate as much operational monitoring as you can.
That's all I can think up at the moment. Too bad so much of this discussion went awry. I hope I, at least, was able to offer some valued suggestions.
First, congratulations for understanding what IP laws are designed to do! A growing number of people are missing this point due to the massive propaganda being thrown about by media companies and their henchmen (RIAA, MPAA, etc).
To add an analogy to the mix, let's consider another of the IP Rights granted creators - Patents.
Now, avoiding the debate of application and longevity of Patents, and acknowledging that Patens are not exactly the same as Copyrights, consider the following:
Company Y has engineered a particular automobile, which compared to other cars produced, drastically lowers harmful emmissions. This is accomplished by use of their Propriatery Intellectual Property, which has of course been awarded the requisite Patent(s). They then begin mass-production and sales to drivers in Europe, with plans to sell them globally in the coming 2 years.
Now along comes Company T, another automobile manufacturer. It takes a "Y car" and duplicates the engine design for their "T car" and begins sales to North American drivers.
Although the "Y car" and the "T car" do not necessarily look the same, although they may. They are a violation of Company Y's Patents because they incorperate Company Y's IP in their design.
You, the driver of either the "Y car" or "T car" are not in violation of anything, as you simply bought the end product. You cannot, however, dismantle your car and rebuild it using the IP of Company Y without identifying that fact (ie: You cannot remove all of the serial numbers and identifiers from each component and replace them with something identifying you as the owner of the IP). If you think you can, I'd dare ya to sell a car with the VIN removed from all locations - you will be arrested on suspicion of Grand Theft Auto.
So what is the basic point of all of this?
Well, the "Y car" is not itself IP - it just contains IP. Just as a CD is not itself IP - it also just contains IP. The songs contained on the CD are IP. I cannot buy a CD from band ZYX and re-record the songs myself as band CBA - band ZYX will sue me for Copyright violations for trying to pass their songs off as written by me. Just as Company Y would sue Company T above for Patent Infringement for trying to pass off their engine design as being created by Company T.
In otherwords - it's the content - not the packaging that is IP.
So, what you are buying when you purchase that CD is the packaged product containing Copyrighted works. You are not purchasing the Copyright(s) to that work, nor are you purchasing the right to listen to that work. You are merely purchasing an Authorizedcopy of that protected IP.
This is why so many people, myself included, don't think that Napster is evil and trading/swapping/copying/whatever MP3's over the Internet is illegal. We are not taking the IP contained on our CD products and selling it as works of our own, nor are we selling unauthorized packaged products (CD, Tape, etc) containing that IP. We are simply doing what radio stations do when they broadcast the very same songs over open airwaves - we're freely allowing anyone who wishes to listen to that content to do so.
So, are you owed a CD of that vinal album? No, of course not. You bought the authorized package of those songs on a specific media. If you want it on another type of media, you need to buy the appropriate authorized package on the alternate format.
Are you free to create your own package of the material? Yes, as long as you do so under Fair Use provisions of Copyright law. You can create a tape containing songs from one or more CD's and listen to them in your car, or give them to your little brother/sister, or best friend. You can create an MP3 archive and give it to the same, and even post it on the Internet for anyone to listen to. You just can't charge for it. Once you make money off of someone elses IP, you have violated the intent(1) of the law.
(1) I use the term intent since these very laws are being rewritten to change this fact - however, the initial intent of IP law is as described.
I don't see DDR as a panacea, yes it is an extension of the existing technology, but I'm sure it will be included in any future memory design that comes along.
Also, as much as a dislike Rambus Inc., my faults with RDRAM are based upon the design of the technology. I'm not saying the car went forward slow because the tires are at fault. I'm saying that when I buy a car with four wheels, I expect to have tires on all of them. To say that this "great superior" technology, when used in my car, causes massive steering problems when all four wheels have tires on them is a fault with that technology. To say it's because the car is not up to snuff is ridiculous.
Intel designed the original (4 socket) i820 boards per Rambus specifications. When used in the real world, early adopters complained of major error rates when all 4 sockets where populated. Intel then recalled the boards, reworked the chipset so that no more than 3 RDRAM modules can be used, then re-released the i820. That is not an issue of the current implementations being inferior. They were implemented according to spec. The specs were found to be faulty, so they had to modify them to match the abilities of the technology (inferior to what it was supposed to be).
At this point in time, I can't see RDRAM making any time of progress. Intel is dropping it as soon as they can, leaving only Sony's PS2 as the major implementation (because it's designed well beneath the original specs and doesn't experience the same problems).
So, yes, DDR SDRAM is an interrim solution to extend SDRAM until another viable design can be finalized. But in light of the apparent short life of RDRAM, DDR SDRAM would be considered a better choice based upon price, availability, stability, and longevity (superior?).
If you personally get a high for RDRAM, cool! But don't knock others for pointing out it's flaws.
Your statement is that DDR SDRAM is a stopgap measure and the article you point is a comparison of SDR SDRAM not DDR - of course it will perform better.
However, the inferiority factor takes much more than performance into consideration. Cost is the most obvious, which is why RDRAM hasn't been flying off the shelves. The next is stability - even the review you point to, the reviewer doesn't have the modules side-by-side, he has them spaced. One of the comments to his review asks what the scores would have been if he added more memory. When RDRAM modules are installed next to each other, the crosstalk causes severe problems. This is what caused the initial recall/delay of the i820 chipset - they had to remove one of the RDRAM slots so you couldn't install 4 modules - too many errors due to crosstalk.
So, in light of these, and they may be others but I just put the coffee on and haven't fully woke yet, RDRAM is inferior technology when implemented as Rambus initially spec'd.
This isn't about a judge making a ridiculous ruling, as in Mr. John Littlguy was using a Nortel cellular phone in Phillidelphia on... so therefor shall be held for $1M. As he said in his ruling, Rambus thought they were going to get a "corporate freindly" judge at the time they filed, when they were assigned to his courtroom, they withdrew the complaint without showing valid justification.
His ruling that any future complaints filed by heard in his courtroom is basically a deterrant for what's called Malicious Prosecution - the filing of lawsuits to cause financial harm to the defendent, regardless of who wins. This is actually a "Good Thing" in that too many corporations and their henchmen (RIAA, MPAA, SBA, etc) use this very practice repeatedly against "the little guy/gal" when they figure they can intimidate through threat of litigation and get their way without "due process".
Futhermore, and off-topic, the problem with your opinion on child molestors is that occasionally an innocent person is accused of such a crime (especially in custody battles after a divorce), and is then found guilty by "due process" even though they have committed no crime. Would ya still shoot 'em?
That woman is a loser! I have no sympathy for people who are careless, only those who are older and less than full capity. To be told "no you can't fix a mistake" must really be a blow to some older folks who don't get out much anymore.
The problem is when "You" look closely, you can see where they point. When folks with poor eyesight look, however, they may not be so easy to discern.
The 2 issues people are ignoring are:
1) This is the first time the dual column format was used in that county, so voters were not necessarily aware of how it (albiet to some - obviously) functioned. So if you're right handed, you may incidentally cover the left column with your hand and not even notice there are candidates listed. People who are in there elder years are not as adaptable to new things as younger folks. They are used to doing things a certain way, and they ignore even obvious changes initially. (Ever try to teach a computer user how to use a new version of software - the slightest change in interface, ie: menu options, dialog options, etc. tend to overwhelm them with frustration!)
2) Those that did catch their mistake were informed they could not distroy the erroneous ballot and revote - so they were not allowed to correct their errors. This is not about "Party A" whining because "Party B" won - I for one, voted for "Party C"! The issue is that an unusually high (~20k) votes were invalidated and another couple thousand are suspected of being cast in error. That IS a big deal - regardless of who the votes were for!
So grow up and stop being so brash about how people screwed up and it's their own fault for not fixing it... Those that tried to were denied the right to correct their mistake. Others didn't realize it until after they walked out the door, and with lines and tempermental workers not allowing people to correct mistakes, they are now making the issue known to the masses.
BTW - My ASCII art attempt is a massive failure!:-( Stupid formatting messed up what I attempted to show, and it was less than accurate at that)
For the ignorant masses who've decided in their infinate wisdom that the ballots were NOT confusing, here's an example in ASCII showing how the ballot functioned in the voting booth:
First "Page"
=================|=|================
| Bush -> |O|###############|
| |O|###############|
| Gore -> |O|###############|
| |O|###############|
[...] |O|###############|
====================================
Second "Page" (plastic divider flipped to the left)
So, when looking at the first page, the second hole was beleived to be for the second candidate on that page.
Although all the Smarter-than-thou's complaining that this is NOT confusing, since even the poll workers have stated they too were confused, I'd have to say that the voters themselves are not to be blamed or ridiculed as being too stupid to vote.
The other note of importance, especially where the lawsuit(s) are/will be concerned - Florida law states the the candidate shall appear to the RIGHT of the checkbox/punch-hole on all ballots. Since this particular ballot has candidates listed to the LEFT of the punch-hole, it is technically an illegal ballot. Therefore, a re-vote for that county would be considered necessary.
Unfortunately, all of the examples in the major media show just the ballot card, not the card inserted into the device used during voting. Hopefully, my lame ASCII art shows at least the minimal concept of what took place.
Actually, even thought they have a "policy" of doing this, if they don't search everyone, then they are selectively harrassing people. I always walk straight out, ignoring them. If I'm challenged, I refuse to submit to the search - since I already have purchased my merchandise, what are they to do? They can call the police, but without probable cause and illegally obtained items in my posession, they are out of luck there as well. At that point, they "let me go", thereby suspending their policy. From that point forward, since they have previously demonstrated a lack of consistency in enforcing this policy, they cannot argue that I have "consented" by simply knowing of it's existence. I also know I have been excused from it in the past and assume that I will remain free from that policy.
I don't see how they can possibly enforce any such policy upon customers that refuse. They basically count on the ignorant shopping drones to allow them this unneeded practice. They don't search people who don't buy anything - wouldn't they be the more likely to be shoplifting? The entire practice is ridiculous, and I think anyone who submits to it is a fool.
I had quite and argument with a Fry's Electronics "doorman" over this issue a few years ago.
Basically, I stood in line for an hour, walk from the register to the door - nothing in between them but air - and the "doorman" attempt to stop me from walking out without being searched. I informed him I was protected by the US Constitution from unlawful searches & seizures. He stated "it's store policy, and I'm on private property", so therefor I must comply. I explain that the moment I paid, and received a receipt, for the merchandise, it was now my private property. Since they had invited me in as a shopper, I had every right to be on their property, but I had no intention of inviting them into mine (the bag). I then challenged him to call the appropriate law enforcement agency and have them come with a warrant to search my property if he had Just Cause to accuse me of shoplifting. I also stated that, should the police not find any unpaid for items in my bag, his store can look forward to hearing from my attorney. He immediately instructed me to pass through the exit without the search (most likely due to the line of "eyes & ears" taking all of this in).
That was the only time I've been challenged, and I refused to back down or be intimidated. Prior to, and since that time, I have always quietly exited without regard for the various "doorman/woman" located at any store.
Bottom line, if they have "probable cause" and call for police, they have to right to detain you until the police arrive and perform the search. They have NO right in any event to search you themselves. If you doubt this, then open a small store and post a policy that all customers are subject to a strip search at any time for no reason except that they are on "private property" - then attempt to enforce this on the first customer to walk in. You will be hauled away for invasion of privacy, harrassment, indecent assault, and/or any other such crime their lawyer can think up.
Did you watch the Mac Expo Europe?
on
X On OSX Now Free
·
· Score: 1
A single 500MHz G4 was compared side-by-side with a single 1GHz Pentium III, running the same Photoshop script. the results were 124 seconds for the P3, and 108 seconds for the G4. So basically, the G4 was faster than a P3 running at twice the clock speed.
This may not be true for *every* application, or Photoshop job for that matter, but it does support the claim that some applications, under some uses, perform at better than twice that of a similarly clocked P3.
In the US, Pork-barrel's are funding of programs with the only benefit is employing someone in your district (ex: funding the maintanence of helium reserves in case we need our zeppelins at wartime - even though we haven't had them in service in > 75yrs.)
The term you refer to is known as a "rider" - a seperate little law that would fail in open debate, but gets tacked onto a bill assured of passage as a way to get support from other congress members.
The relationship between the two, and probably the source of confusion, is that most pork-barrel programs are passed as riders on other legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
At issue, though, is that from one perspective, the providers of these recorded performances (records) are merely providing a service. This service is specifically that of providing a recording of a performance I couldn't/didn't attend live. The cost charged to me is for the service, and the costs incurred in providing it to me (the media, production, distribution, etc). If I am suddenly able to obtain a similar (MP3's do not equal CD or Anolog quality recordings) copy of an artist performance, for a lower cost or free, then I should be able to legally obtain that copy.
The artist still can earn an income from their live performances. The businesses who provide the service of producing, distributing, and selling CD or other physical copies of the artist's performance(s) can still earn an income for the service they provide. The method I use to obtain some/all of my copies in no way prevents either of these parties from earning an income for their respective products. Especially since I may still choose to obtain another copy, in CD format from the latter, and by attending a live performance by the first.
In this scenario the only purpose for a Copyright is to prove original authorship. This is necessary to prevent me from, for example, claiming I have written a song that in fact you wrote. By Copyrighting the song, you have a record of your claim which will no doubt predate my claim to have authored the same song. This is what you mean by "owning the ideas of these music makers/movie makers/software makers". I only steal an idea when I falsly claim to have thought of it first - not when I copy that idea without denying the original author due acknowledement. Take note though, acknowledgement does not automatically infer monetary compensation, merely the statement that "so-and-so" is the original creator of this idea.
Here, though, we are talking only of recognition of original authorship - not any type of control over the use of that song. This is exacly where the current scheme falls flat on it's face. By adding the layer of control on top, we pervert the original intent and create the legal and social mess we now have.
We need Copyrights as proof of authorship, we do not need them as control mechinisms used to derive additional income. A perfect example of the harm done to society by this perversion is the current limitations placed on consumer electronic devices. I, as a non-signed musician, cannot cost-effectively produce my own digital recordings because the components available to me at a price I can afford are hobbled so that I cannot output media in a digital format. This hobbling is done per "industry" pressure to prevent "pirating" of Copyrighted material. That it also prevents me from producing my own Copyrighted material doesn't matter one bit to them.
They listed the FreeBSD download as an X Windows Performance Monitoring application. Pointing out this error is shooting a bullet in a foot? Riiiiight!
Let's put up a site about motorcycles and when we mention Harley Davidson's, we'll describe them as skateboards with only 3 wheels and a fatal crack straight down the middle due to manufacturing problems. Then when all the Harley riders point out to them that Harley Davidson's are MOTORCYCLES - we can arrogantly and ignorantly rant that they just shot themselves in the foot for speaking up!
It's the execs at the meeting of topic that created the environment you describe - so who better than them to bitch at?
The high cost of Health Care in the US is due, in huge part, to the costs of prescription maintenance drugs. The pharmaceutical companies are the worst abusers of the patent system for using it to leech enormous profits off the medical illnesses of our citizens.
Microsoft's Chicago, Novell's Wolf Mountain (or whatever it was called), etc.
These were announced as "products", but were actually "projects" that spawned other products from the technology created. Some other notorious vaporware never actually produced any product(s).
I agree with others that view available pre-release versions of the announced products kinda disqualifies them as Vaporware - there IS something tangible in existence (not just vapor - hence the term).
I hadn't any exposure what-so-ever with computers until I was 19. I dropped out of highschool at 16, and decided to go to a Community College after getting my GED. When asked by the admissions clerk, what degree program I was interested in, I said "I have no idea, what pays good these days?" She responded that computer programming seemed to be popular, so I said "sounds good to me!"
My first experience with a computer of any kind was on the first day of classes. I was instructed to pay my professor $1 for the 2 diskettes he was giving me for class use. One had PC-DOS on it, the other was for data files.
Now, 15+ years later, I'm also a very successful admin making far more than any of the teachers who claimed I'd amount to nothing when I dropped out!
So not all "advantaged" kids meet with success - and not all "disadvantaged" kids are destined for poverty! It's exactly your attitude that promotes the class-like inequalities within our society. The truth is anyone can be successful - all they need to do is try!
Just something to think about...
It has to do with the same thing that further relates all of the above with music as well. I think if you were to do an indepth study of "nerds", you'd find a very large proportion who not only appreciate Sci-Fi and Fantasy works, but are also musically inclined - or artistically inclined via another medium.
What is this "thing" I speak of? It's called imagination. One cannot be creative if one cannot imagine the solution to a computing problem/compelling work of fiction/cutting edge song/fascinating painting/etc.
The fact is, all computer geeks are creative individuals - they have to be or they cannot possibly understand the complexities of modern computing environments. It is a strong imagination that fuels this creativity, and that lends itself perfectly to the appreciation of all things creative. Sci-Fi and Fantasy arts tend to push the edge of the imaginary possibilities, and are thus favored by those with the strongest sense of imagination.
MP3 files are not perfect copies! They are degraded due to the compression, bitrate used, etc. They sound nearly indistinguishable to the common listener's ear - but this does not mean the are perfect copies. Furthermore, some aucustic qualities are noticably degraded when recorded digitally by just about anyone with decent hearing.
Copies of MP3's are perfect, assuming no data errors when writing the copy. This is, however, a non-issue since you are copying imperfect copies to begin with.
How can we possibly get this point out to the general public when the RIAA and friends are constantly spreading this falsehood?
Instead of providing the requested features which should be incorporated into this project - we have an insane Exchange sux vs Exchange is great debate! Having moderators bump this stuff up is even more crazy!
With that off my chest, let me proceed to actually answer the original post's call:
Sounds like you are already planning the most common group scheduling/calendar functionality. Basic email is a given as well. So that leaves the fine points to consider...
1) Consistency in and completion of the user and Admin interfaces - This is a priority, I've used/admin'd Exchange, Groupwise, Netscape Mail+Calendar+LDAP, and Notes. The huge weakness in the Netscape solution was interface. Simple adding of users was a nightmare since they had to be individually added to each component. We used a shell script to perform Unix, email, and LDAP account additions, then manually added the LDAP account to the Calendar program. All command line add/modify/delete utils used different syntax - so the script was ugly as Hell! When I left that company, I had just started incorporating the Calendar account in the script... UGH!
2) Stick with Standards! If a standard protocol or some such is lacking a needed feature, please document and submit the change to that standards body. Don't invent your own and keep it proprietary. That's MS's job.
3) Write your own client - and perform End-User Usability tests (with real PHB types). It's great that umteen different clients can connect and use all/some of it's features; but for a Corporate requirement, you need a full feature, easy enough for the executive admin to use client. This is the achilles heel of too many Open Source projects. You really need a 58+ year old "secretary" type to evaluate the client functionality, otherwise his/her boss is never consider it as a viable solution.
4) Some form of Disaster Recover functionality. Be it via hooks to 3rd party mirroring/clustering solutions, or integrated DR processes. Relying on backups of email systems when they exceed *GB of disk storage is unacceptable. In large-scale environments, some data redundancy is needed in case of corruption.
5) Finally, SNMP based management and traps. Again, in any moderately large environment you will find some form of SNMP based operations monitoring. I've used NetView, OpenView, and Managewise. You have to provide standard MIBS for these platforms and try to integrate as much operational monitoring as you can.
That's all I can think up at the moment. Too bad so much of this discussion went awry. I hope I, at least, was able to offer some valued suggestions.
To add an analogy to the mix, let's consider another of the IP Rights granted creators - Patents.
Now, avoiding the debate of application and longevity of Patents, and acknowledging that Patens are not exactly the same as Copyrights, consider the following:
Company Y has engineered a particular automobile, which compared to other cars produced, drastically lowers harmful emmissions. This is accomplished by use of their Propriatery Intellectual Property, which has of course been awarded the requisite Patent(s). They then begin mass-production and sales to drivers in Europe, with plans to sell them globally in the coming 2 years.
Now along comes Company T, another automobile manufacturer. It takes a "Y car" and duplicates the engine design for their "T car" and begins sales to North American drivers.
Although the "Y car" and the "T car" do not necessarily look the same, although they may. They are a violation of Company Y's Patents because they incorperate Company Y's IP in their design.
You, the driver of either the "Y car" or "T car" are not in violation of anything, as you simply bought the end product. You cannot, however, dismantle your car and rebuild it using the IP of Company Y without identifying that fact (ie: You cannot remove all of the serial numbers and identifiers from each component and replace them with something identifying you as the owner of the IP). If you think you can, I'd dare ya to sell a car with the VIN removed from all locations - you will be arrested on suspicion of Grand Theft Auto.
So what is the basic point of all of this?
Well, the "Y car" is not itself IP - it just contains IP. Just as a CD is not itself IP - it also just contains IP. The songs contained on the CD are IP. I cannot buy a CD from band ZYX and re-record the songs myself as band CBA - band ZYX will sue me for Copyright violations for trying to pass their songs off as written by me. Just as Company Y would sue Company T above for Patent Infringement for trying to pass off their engine design as being created by Company T.
In otherwords - it's the content - not the packaging that is IP.
So, what you are buying when you purchase that CD is the packaged product containing Copyrighted works. You are not purchasing the Copyright(s) to that work, nor are you purchasing the right to listen to that work. You are merely purchasing an Authorized copy of that protected IP.
This is why so many people, myself included, don't think that Napster is evil and trading/swapping/copying/whatever MP3's over the Internet is illegal. We are not taking the IP contained on our CD products and selling it as works of our own, nor are we selling unauthorized packaged products (CD, Tape, etc) containing that IP. We are simply doing what radio stations do when they broadcast the very same songs over open airwaves - we're freely allowing anyone who wishes to listen to that content to do so.
So, are you owed a CD of that vinal album? No, of course not. You bought the authorized package of those songs on a specific media. If you want it on another type of media, you need to buy the appropriate authorized package on the alternate format.
Are you free to create your own package of the material? Yes, as long as you do so under Fair Use provisions of Copyright law. You can create a tape containing songs from one or more CD's and listen to them in your car, or give them to your little brother/sister, or best friend. You can create an MP3 archive and give it to the same, and even post it on the Internet for anyone to listen to. You just can't charge for it. Once you make money off of someone elses IP, you have violated the intent(1) of the law.
(1) I use the term intent since these very laws are being rewritten to change this fact - however, the initial intent of IP law is as described.
Also, as much as a dislike Rambus Inc., my faults with RDRAM are based upon the design of the technology. I'm not saying the car went forward slow because the tires are at fault. I'm saying that when I buy a car with four wheels, I expect to have tires on all of them. To say that this "great superior" technology, when used in my car, causes massive steering problems when all four wheels have tires on them is a fault with that technology. To say it's because the car is not up to snuff is ridiculous.
Intel designed the original (4 socket) i820 boards per Rambus specifications. When used in the real world, early adopters complained of major error rates when all 4 sockets where populated. Intel then recalled the boards, reworked the chipset so that no more than 3 RDRAM modules can be used, then re-released the i820. That is not an issue of the current implementations being inferior. They were implemented according to spec. The specs were found to be faulty, so they had to modify them to match the abilities of the technology (inferior to what it was supposed to be).
At this point in time, I can't see RDRAM making any time of progress. Intel is dropping it as soon as they can, leaving only Sony's PS2 as the major implementation (because it's designed well beneath the original specs and doesn't experience the same problems).
So, yes, DDR SDRAM is an interrim solution to extend SDRAM until another viable design can be finalized. But in light of the apparent short life of RDRAM, DDR SDRAM would be considered a better choice based upon price, availability, stability, and longevity (superior?).
If you personally get a high for RDRAM, cool! But don't knock others for pointing out it's flaws.
So, in light of these, and they may be others but I just put the coffee on and haven't fully woke yet, RDRAM is inferior technology when implemented as Rambus initially spec'd.
His ruling that any future complaints filed by heard in his courtroom is basically a deterrant for what's called Malicious Prosecution - the filing of lawsuits to cause financial harm to the defendent, regardless of who wins. This is actually a "Good Thing" in that too many corporations and their henchmen (RIAA, MPAA, SBA, etc) use this very practice repeatedly against "the little guy/gal" when they figure they can intimidate through threat of litigation and get their way without "due process".
Futhermore, and off-topic, the problem with your opinion on child molestors is that occasionally an innocent person is accused of such a crime (especially in custody battles after a divorce), and is then found guilty by "due process" even though they have committed no crime. Would ya still shoot 'em?
That woman is a loser! I have no sympathy for people who are careless, only those who are older and less than full capity. To be told "no you can't fix a mistake" must really be a blow to some older folks who don't get out much anymore.
The problem is when "You" look closely, you can see where they point. When folks with poor eyesight look, however, they may not be so easy to discern.
:-( Stupid formatting messed up what I attempted to show, and it was less than accurate at that)
The 2 issues people are ignoring are:
1) This is the first time the dual column format was used in that county, so voters were not necessarily aware of how it (albiet to some - obviously) functioned. So if you're right handed, you may incidentally cover the left column with your hand and not even notice there are candidates listed. People who are in there elder years are not as adaptable to new things as younger folks. They are used to doing things a certain way, and they ignore even obvious changes initially. (Ever try to teach a computer user how to use a new version of software - the slightest change in interface, ie: menu options, dialog options, etc. tend to overwhelm them with frustration!)
2) Those that did catch their mistake were informed they could not distroy the erroneous ballot and revote - so they were not allowed to correct their errors. This is not about "Party A" whining because "Party B" won - I for one, voted for "Party C"! The issue is that an unusually high (~20k) votes were invalidated and another couple thousand are suspected of being cast in error. That IS a big deal - regardless of who the votes were for!
So grow up and stop being so brash about how people screwed up and it's their own fault for not fixing it... Those that tried to were denied the right to correct their mistake. Others didn't realize it until after they walked out the door, and with lines and tempermental workers not allowing people to correct mistakes, they are now making the issue known to the masses.
BTW - My ASCII art attempt is a massive failure!
For the ignorant masses who've decided in their infinate wisdom that the ballots were NOT confusing, here's an example in ASCII showing how the ballot functioned in the voting booth:
First "Page"
=================|=|================
| Bush -> |O|###############|
| |O|###############|
| Gore -> |O|###############|
| |O|###############|
[...] |O|###############|
====================================
Second "Page" (plastic divider flipped to the left)
====================================
|################|O| |
|################|O| - Buchanan |
|################|O| |
|################|O| [...]|
====================================
So, when looking at the first page, the second hole was beleived to be for the second candidate on that page.
Although all the Smarter-than-thou's complaining that this is NOT confusing, since even the poll workers have stated they too were confused, I'd have to say that the voters themselves are not to be blamed or ridiculed as being too stupid to vote.
The other note of importance, especially where the lawsuit(s) are/will be concerned - Florida law states the the candidate shall appear to the RIGHT of the checkbox/punch-hole on all ballots. Since this particular ballot has candidates listed to the LEFT of the punch-hole, it is technically an illegal ballot. Therefore, a re-vote for that county would be considered necessary.
Unfortunately, all of the examples in the major media show just the ballot card, not the card inserted into the device used during voting. Hopefully, my lame ASCII art shows at least the minimal concept of what took place.
I don't see how they can possibly enforce any such policy upon customers that refuse. They basically count on the ignorant shopping drones to allow them this unneeded practice. They don't search people who don't buy anything - wouldn't they be the more likely to be shoplifting? The entire practice is ridiculous, and I think anyone who submits to it is a fool.
Basically, I stood in line for an hour, walk from the register to the door - nothing in between them but air - and the "doorman" attempt to stop me from walking out without being searched. I informed him I was protected by the US Constitution from unlawful searches & seizures. He stated "it's store policy, and I'm on private property", so therefor I must comply. I explain that the moment I paid, and received a receipt, for the merchandise, it was now my private property. Since they had invited me in as a shopper, I had every right to be on their property, but I had no intention of inviting them into mine (the bag). I then challenged him to call the appropriate law enforcement agency and have them come with a warrant to search my property if he had Just Cause to accuse me of shoplifting. I also stated that, should the police not find any unpaid for items in my bag, his store can look forward to hearing from my attorney. He immediately instructed me to pass through the exit without the search (most likely due to the line of "eyes & ears" taking all of this in).
That was the only time I've been challenged, and I refused to back down or be intimidated. Prior to, and since that time, I have always quietly exited without regard for the various "doorman/woman" located at any store.
Bottom line, if they have "probable cause" and call for police, they have to right to detain you until the police arrive and perform the search. They have NO right in any event to search you themselves. If you doubt this, then open a small store and post a policy that all customers are subject to a strip search at any time for no reason except that they are on "private property" - then attempt to enforce this on the first customer to walk in. You will be hauled away for invasion of privacy, harrassment, indecent assault, and/or any other such crime their lawyer can think up.
This may not be true for *every* application, or Photoshop job for that matter, but it does support the claim that some applications, under some uses, perform at better than twice that of a similarly clocked P3.
The term you refer to is known as a "rider" - a seperate little law that would fail in open debate, but gets tacked onto a bill assured of passage as a way to get support from other congress members.
The relationship between the two, and probably the source of confusion, is that most pork-barrel programs are passed as riders on other legislation.