Fine. When Linksys put that GPL'd code into their router without releasing the modified source, who had standing to sue? On what basis? And why even bother suing, if the author "has no ownership and no rights?"
For those who don't want to click the link to Glynn Moody's reply, the gist of it is this: the young girl in question argues that:
1. Yes, she downloads the sheet music (illegally).
2. But she then performs the song, exposing it to a lot of other people.
3. These other people then go out and buy the albums, or other sheet music by Mr. Brown, or buy tickets to Mr. Brown's shows.
Therefore, the argument is made that Mr. Brown should just ignore the trading/sharing (whatever you want to call it), because he comes out ahead in the long run. "Spot on," says Ms. Moody.
What she misses is that Mr. Brown owns the copyright, and it is HIS CHOICE whether to permit it or not. If he chooses to miss these sales, then maybe he's worse off for it, but that's his decision.
Copyright is copyright. The *reason* why the GPL has standing in court is because someone has copyrighted that code, and chooses to permit usage and distribution under the GPL. Copyright is copyright, and if I choose to distribute under some free and unencumbered license, or if I choose to make it so restrictive that only one copy will ever be sold at auction to the highest bidder, it's MY choice as the copyright holder.
One cannot consistently argue for one, but not the other. (And I say that as a full-fledged supporter of open standards, open software, and the elimination of so-called software "patents.")
> The places that have water to spare also have humidity...
It's like that here in Alabama. We're currently running in the mid-90's with dewpoints in 80's. "Swamp coolers" just don't work well in this climate, so I don't know how useful this will be to us.
From the Wiki article on evaporative cooling: "When considering water evaporating into air, the wet-bulb temperature, as compared to the air's dry-bulb temperature, is a measure of the potential for evaporative cooling. The greater the difference between the two temperatures, the greater the evaporative cooling effect. When the temperatures are the same, no net evaporation of water in air occurs, thus there is no cooling effect."
This is simple physics.
In other words, it's a neat idea that'll probably work in Arizona and Utah, as others have mentioned, but where AC is used the most -- here in the humid Southern states -- evaporative cooling just doesn't work.
Not that I wouldn't like to see it, mind you, considering the electric bills at our studios and transmitter sites.:(
"the main reason why there's so little malware for OSS is because there's so little market..."
There's some truth to that. But speaking as someone who actively developed and consulted on anti-virus software back in the heyday of MS-DOS 5 and 6.22, I'll share my opinion. I freely admit that things have changed over the years, and that my knowledge is old. But I feel that the basic problems and principles are still the same.
1. Basic philosophies: Microsoft, and thus Windows, basically started on individual, personal computers. The system then "grew up" over the years. 'Nix, by contrast, has its roots in multi-user, multi-tasking environments that were more secure to start with. So... from bootup to desktop, Unix is more secure BY INHERENT DESIGN. Windows has to *add* security to an inherently *insecure,* wide-open system. That's a critical distinction that many people miss.
2. I argued back in the DOS era that it was possible to stop most malware. My partner and I wrote a three-tiered system: (1), an "innoculator" that did integrity checking on "injected" executables; (2) a behavior blocker that literally patched the DOS kernel (deep inside!), but which granted a pass to any executable that passed a CRC test of an injected file, thus preventing false alarms; (3), an MBR with self-checking boot code. At the time (mid-80's), I could not find a virus that could get around it and infect the system.
I don't say that to boast, but to make a point: if a couple of ordinary guys could write something that effective, why couldn't the Big Boys? It was an argument I made all the time back then, and I still make it now.
People want scanners, even though they are REACTIVE, and not PRO-active. They like the positive assurance of running the scanner and seeing the happy-face, "your system is clean!" dialog. Our system, by contrast, never said a word as long as the system was uninfected. No one wanted it.
I could say a lot more (and I may later, if this thread is still living), but I've got to head to work.
My wife just found out that AMC-11 carries QVC, too. The thought of 2-3 weeks without Lisa, "Today's Special Value" and all that other stuff has galvanized her. If Bruce Willis will pitch in, she's willing to do an Armageddon-style mission to G-15 and take care of matters herself.:)
The issue isn't firewall philosophy. You can bang out a very simple, or very complex (and secure), firewall at a prompt with iptables. Configuration should be firewall agnostic and my complaint is that it could be made a GREAT deal simpler.
I'm speaking of configuration tools, not philosophy. (A very critical distinction, I think.)
Again, the answers in this thread show me that there's some sort of mental block on the part of firewall administrators. I guess they think that firewall configuration *should* be arcane, that this somehow makes it more secure.
Off topic, but as an interesting aside (and warning to others!): the default firewall tool in CentOS 5 (and probably in RHEL, though I've never tried it) opens several ports (in particular, the mDNS crap) without even asking. I always do an NMAP scan on any publicly-exposed server once I'm finished setting it up. Imagine my joy when I discovered THAT one.
So... yes, ease in configuration can lead to unanticipated holes in your firewall. But I say it doesn't have to be this way. Configuration can (and should) be firewall/philosophy agnostic.
So the firewall should automatically allow access to any ports that a newly connected system says it has open? Right.....
.
Of course not. I never said that, and neither did the submitter. What I'm talking about is automatic discovery. Connect a machine, the firewall comes up and says, "here's a new machine, it wants to do this, this and that." I can then decide where to proceed from there. The default would be to permit nothing until *I* say so.:)
Don't see why this is so hard to understand, but maybe that's just me.
Again, don't miss the keys (and yeah, I probably used a bad example): automatic discovery. Point and click. Or, as the submitter said, even if it's a rigidly-defined network, why can't I just feed in a Visio (or equivalent) diagram and have a happy firewall, ready to go?
If nothing else, it's unbelievable to me that in 2010, I still have trouble identifying users on my internal network who've connected via DHCP.
Firewall Builder does most of what the submitter is looking for already.
.
Just browsing through here, but I'm surprised (and then again, I'm NOT surprised) at the answers thus far. I get the same replies when I ask a similar question.
What the submitter is talking about is a 21st Century Firewall (capitalized out of reverence). Why not have automatic host discovery? Why should I have to painstakingly come up with a list of all target machines with IP addresses? Is this not 2010?:)
Did everyone miss the question about "jdoe's" computer being connected, and then (and ONLY then) her needed ports being enabled in some other PC on the network? That would actually be a VERY nice capability.
For the record, I've looked at IPCop; Shorewall; SuSEFirewall2; the firewall tools built into Webmin; (and years ago) Mandrake's firewall package; you name it (this is just a partial list off the top of my head). All of them follow the same paradigm: YOU must come up with the list of IPs and ports. If anything moves or changes, YOU have to painstakingly re-enter all of the port/IP info (and hope you didn't miss something!).
So-called GUI interfaces and/or firewall "builder" tools still follow this same basic config paradigm. Just adding automatic discovery would be a HUGE help... simply put, someone connects a machine, the firewall says, "new PC added at 192.168.1.100, DHCP, it's exposing ports 100, 200 and 500."
Everything I've tried thus far can't even reliably list all PCs on the network! I have to run an NMAP discovery or (under Windoze) something like the Angry IP Scanner. It doesn't make sense.
Some of what the submitter is asking would most properly be done in a really smart firewall/network switch combination. You would probably have to install a small software package on each network machine, too, that could "talk" to the firewall. But the question remains, why isn't this kind of thing available? It *IS* a little surprising (and frustrating) the someone hasn't developed a point-and-click, self-discovering, self-cataloging firewall system by now.
I think the real problem is that true propeller-headed geeks actually *enjoy* poking in stuff with iptables rules at a prompt. They're the most likely to have the skills to develop something like a true GUI firewall, but they're the least likely to want to.
These discussions always devolve into pro- and anti-piracy rhetoric, but I have a question.
I actually agree in principle that piracy is wrong. But where I have a problem is with their method of determining guilt. I wish Ray Beckerman or one of the other attorneys here would explain to me how they can *prove* that I, and I alone, am the one responsible for an illegal download with an IP address???
Unless I'm the only one in the house and unless I have a static IP address, how can they *prove* that it's me? And even in that case, what if someone sneaks into my home during the day (maybe I gave the neighbor a key to watch my cats while I was on vacation one time). That's what worries me.
It would be the height of irony for ME to one day get thumped for this, when I AM opposed to piracy. But I could see it happening -- suppose I open a wireless access point at my house, taking reasonable care to secure it, but someone manages to hack in and download copyrighted material without my consent? Why am I liable for that? I'm a VICTIM, not a criminal!!!!
When someone is pulled for speeding, it's the *driver* who is ticketed, not the owner of the car. In fact, speeding tickets are routinely thrown out of court simply because the arresting officer couldn't prove that he/she had the vehicle under constant observation after clocking them at an illegal speed. There's always a chance that the car changed drivers while it was unobservable.
paying 40% more for the same service than our neighbors down the road whose condo board allowed satellite dishes.
.
Not strictly on topic, but I am endlessly amazed at the condo, apartment and rental unit operators who try to restrict satellite dishes. Except for some special cases (ex., you're in a historical district or putting up the dish would present a safety hazard), they CANNOT restrict satellite dishes that are less than 1 meter in size.
Practically speaking, you'll typically have to get the FCC involved (which takes time) and you'll have a real fight on your hands (a typical homeowner's association can be one of the most recalcitrant beasts on the planet), but the FCC takes your right to receive a satellite signal quite seriously.
Serious question: did you let him back to finish his internship, and if so, why?
.
Naw, because I'm soft-hearted. It's a weakness of mine. I guess I should have.:)
He worked on for a little while then got discouraged. I think he was disappointed that he was doing entry-level stuff, such as emptying trash and call screening. He thought he'd get to immediately jump into the Exciting High-Tech Stuff(tm) (at the time, we were making our transition to HD-R, as well as to all-digital, audio-over-IP delivery in our studios, so it's not like we weren't doing that sort of thing).
What we're talking about here, regardless of industry, is LAZINESS. I see from some of the other posts here that the original poster apparently hasn't updated his website in a while.
And to the OP: Dood... if you're still lurking here... you need to get on the stick. Don't take this the wrong way, but there's something else you need to consider: I've been doing my gig for 30 years. It includes high-tech electronics, radio, and contract programming. I'm self-taught (assembler, C/C++, and enough to plod around with Perl, BASH scripts and a few others things).
When you come in and assume that you can do my job, making my same salary, without my decades of experience, it's actually a little offensive to me. I know you haven't thought of that, but keep that in mind, too. You'd better accept that you WILL be emptying trash and checking code for obvious typos when you first get employed, especially in this economy. If you think you're gonna get hired, and get thrown right on the company's bread-and-butter, make-or-break code repository, you're dreaming. You'll have to earn some chops first.
I'm in broadcast engineering, which includes some programming, but is not programming-specific. I'll let some of those folks address your concerns directly. But speaking in general and in no particular order:
1. Maybe you should have gone to a different school, even if it meant relocating. An internship would have given you some valuable experience, and if you're really good, would probably have resulted in permanent employment afterward.
2. Look at small companies instead of the big ones. Offer to work for beans and rice until you can demonstrate that you know what you're doing. It'll pay off in the long run.
3. While you look for a job, work on an open-source project. Having a recommendation from a well-known F/OSS guru can't hurt.:)
4. Once you get the chance, I can't emphasize this strongly enough: PROVE TO ME THAT YOU REALLY WANT THE JOB. Think outside the box. Be willing to go the extra mile. Don't sit in your chair playing Solitaire waiting for me to tell you what to do next. Show initiative.
Back when I was a teenager, I got my first job in radio by hanging around the station constantly. I took out the trash. I annoyed the engineer and asked a thousand questions. I was willing to do anything to prove that I wanted the job.
I'm not boasting; that's just common sense. But contrast that with an intern who tried out with me a couple of years ago. Unless I stayed on him, he did indeed sit and play Solitaire. When the HVAC went out in the studios, he got up from his job as a call screener for one of our talk shows and said, "it's just too hot. I'll be back tomorrow" -- which left us scrambling for someone to cover his slot.
He still calls from time to time and is amazed that we won't hire him. No, I'm not kidding.
It would appear that Bing correlates results in real-time, re-scoring based on clicks. So... when someone searches, "Why Is Windows Expensive," Bing watches to see what the user *clicks* in the results and uses that to score *subsequent* queries. I'm just guessing, of course, but this could explain why some people get that Mac link as the first hit, while others get something else.
I dare to disagree. Programming is basically putting algorithms into a form a computer can understand. Nothing more. And where do these algos come from?
It baffles me to no end every time I see "programmers" apply who consider math as some sort of secondary skill. It's not. It is the primary skill for a good programmer.
.
Absolutely. And an old dog like me can even provide a classic example: older OS's like DOS and CPM had to cram a lot of functionality into a relatively small amount of memory. They also had to perform decently on small, slow (by today's standards) processors. The approach that they used was the vector table.
Simply put, the functions were numbered in order: get OS version was typically the first (function 0), and successive numbers were for all of the other important functions: open file, write file, get system time, and so on.
Now: can you imagine how inefficient that would be if the original programmer had used a "switch" statement (or the assembly equivalent, with a bunch of "compare and jumps")? Instead, the function number was left shifted (equivalent to multiplying by a factor of two), then used to find an index in a vector table that contained the addresses of all the functions. Neat, compact and lightning-fast.
This technique is still used today in small embedded processors that suffer from similar low speed and limited memory problems. I used it myself on a small controller in a contract job back in the 1990's. It allowed me to cram everything (read keyboard, activate relays, check temperatures, and more... even including a quick and dirty "config" option... in a PIC micro with 2048 bytes of memory.:)
I have never met a really good, really world-changing programmer who wasn't also good at math. Not necessarily with high-end math, but just good at the fundamentals of algebra, and with the ability to "think" in numerical calculations and offsets.
Hopefully the MPAA & RIAA can get a damn clue and start focusing on the real threat to their business - rampant, organized, professional international piracy.
...
Pardon the 2nd post, but I had to add that I agree with this 1,000 %. Well said.
Yes, but more likely than not many of the key parts (with the most valuable IP) - the processor/SoC, digital tuners, etc, are made by a US company.
...
I wish that was the case, but unfortunately, it's not. With a few discrete exceptions (Motorola and TI still provide a lot of the digital processing chips, for example), most of it is made overseas as well. This certainly includes the user interface processors, memory, A/D conversion, and most of the "glue" chips, which are made by NEC, Hitachi, Samsung, et. al.
Don't take my word for it, open up that box and look at the chips for yourself.
Not that I agree with draconian IP laws, and I'm no fan of the RIAA/MPAA, either. And I certainly believe that software patents go beyond dumb and descend into insanity.
There's a world of difference between protecting genuine innovation, and just granting "unlimited gouge rights" to the first guy who races to the Patent Office with something obvious (think: One Click Shopping, "Look And Feel" with a "Help" button to the right, etc., etc.).
Behold the only thing wrong with the mod system on Slashdot: those who mod posts up or down, not based on content or a well-made argument, but solely because they agree or disagree with the post.
There is nothing in the above post that warrants being called a "troll" or "flamebait" (hopefully, that will change in the next couple hours, but it's rated as "1, Flamebait" as I type this).
We're in a thread discussing the relative merits of distros when converting Windows users, people. By default, we will be discussing a lot of different distros, which means that we'll have a lot of opinions.
If you have mod points and you mod someone down just because you disagree, or are disappointed because they didn't vote for "your" distro, YOU are the one who is wrong, not the poster.
Back about a million years ago when I was studying for my FCC First Class Radiotelephone license, the book that I was using (emphatically) insisted that I draw the schematics out -- even though they were right there in front of me. When I got into the exam room, and the first schematic appeared on the test, I realized that I was ready. Yes, it DOES work.
Years later when I was teaching electronics, I would hand my students a sheet of paper with a simplified diagram on it. I required that they take notes from what I was saying. There was little or no text on the pages. And yes, they had to draw schematics, too.:)
They hated me, but the ones who followed my advice invariably did better on the tests.
But will anything really happen or will this just be another excuse for yet more surveillance of home computer usage?
Good question. Do we really need Yet Still Another Government Oversight, or draconian set of laws?
The real answer is "Loser Pay," whether in the UK, the US or elsewhere. We might word it something like, "the party prevailing shall be entitled to reasonable reimbursement of expenses incurred in obtaining relief." (And "reasonable" could be defined starting with, "the going rate in your area for quality legal representation.")
The problem in the US, of course, is that the Bar associations are (inexplicably, IMNHO) opposed to this.
(I say "inexplicably" because their favorite argument, that it would hurt poor clients, is specious; if anything, if the client had a decent case, the lawyers could help them even with small, currently "unprofitable" cases under the current system, while still receiving fair compensation. They could change their image overnight from sharks to champions, because they COULD afford to take the case of the little old lady whose landlord refuses to fix the heater.)
The Supreme Court ruled against reimbursement some years ago in a landmark healthcare case, as I recall... and there was a story posted here just the other day about an RIAA case being dismissed, but WITHOUT the defendant being able to recover expenses. That's just wrong.
Loser Pay would be the answer. We just need to educate everyone, whether liberal/progressive or conservative/traditionalist, about just why this would work.
Slashdot Mirror
> The author has no ownership and no rights.
Fine. When Linksys put that GPL'd code into their router without releasing the modified source, who had standing to sue? On what basis? And why even bother suing, if the author "has no ownership and no rights?"
For those who don't want to click the link to Glynn Moody's reply, the gist of it is this: the young girl in question argues that:
1. Yes, she downloads the sheet music (illegally).
2. But she then performs the song, exposing it to a lot of other people.
3. These other people then go out and buy the albums, or other sheet music by Mr. Brown, or buy tickets to Mr. Brown's shows.
Therefore, the argument is made that Mr. Brown should just ignore the trading/sharing (whatever you want to call it), because he comes out ahead in the long run. "Spot on," says Ms. Moody.
What she misses is that Mr. Brown owns the copyright, and it is HIS CHOICE whether to permit it or not. If he chooses to miss these sales, then maybe he's worse off for it, but that's his decision.
Copyright is copyright. The *reason* why the GPL has standing in court is because someone has copyrighted that code, and chooses to permit usage and distribution under the GPL. Copyright is copyright, and if I choose to distribute under some free and unencumbered license, or if I choose to make it so restrictive that only one copy will ever be sold at auction to the highest bidder, it's MY choice as the copyright holder.
One cannot consistently argue for one, but not the other. (And I say that as a full-fledged supporter of open standards, open software, and the elimination of so-called software "patents.")
> I am interested in subscribing to your "suicide magazine."
He does have a rather ... VIVID imagination, doesn't he?
Either that, or he lives in a very interesting family, where no one has died in their sleep since 1856 or thereabouts ...
> The places that have water to spare also have humidity ...
It's like that here in Alabama. We're currently running in the mid-90's with dewpoints in 80's. "Swamp coolers" just don't work well in this climate, so I don't know how useful this will be to us.
From the Wiki article on evaporative cooling: "When considering water evaporating into air, the wet-bulb temperature, as compared to the air's dry-bulb temperature, is a measure of the potential for evaporative cooling. The greater the difference between the two temperatures, the greater the evaporative cooling effect. When the temperatures are the same, no net evaporation of water in air occurs, thus there is no cooling effect."
This is simple physics.
In other words, it's a neat idea that'll probably work in Arizona and Utah, as others have mentioned, but where AC is used the most -- here in the humid Southern states -- evaporative cooling just doesn't work.
Not that I wouldn't like to see it, mind you, considering the electric bills at our studios and transmitter sites. :(
"the main reason why there's so little malware for OSS is because there's so little market ..."
There's some truth to that. But speaking as someone who actively developed and consulted on anti-virus software back in the heyday of MS-DOS 5 and 6.22, I'll share my opinion. I freely admit that things have changed over the years, and that my knowledge is old. But I feel that the basic problems and principles are still the same.
1. Basic philosophies: Microsoft, and thus Windows, basically started on individual, personal computers. The system then "grew up" over the years. 'Nix, by contrast, has its roots in multi-user, multi-tasking environments that were more secure to start with. So ... from bootup to desktop, Unix is more secure BY INHERENT DESIGN. Windows has to *add* security to an inherently *insecure,* wide-open system. That's a critical distinction that many people miss.
2. I argued back in the DOS era that it was possible to stop most malware. My partner and I wrote a three-tiered system: (1), an "innoculator" that did integrity checking on "injected" executables; (2) a behavior blocker that literally patched the DOS kernel (deep inside!), but which granted a pass to any executable that passed a CRC test of an injected file, thus preventing false alarms; (3), an MBR with self-checking boot code. At the time (mid-80's), I could not find a virus that could get around it and infect the system.
I don't say that to boast, but to make a point: if a couple of ordinary guys could write something that effective, why couldn't the Big Boys? It was an argument I made all the time back then, and I still make it now.
People want scanners, even though they are REACTIVE, and not PRO-active. They like the positive assurance of running the scanner and seeing the happy-face, "your system is clean!" dialog. Our system, by contrast, never said a word as long as the system was uninfected. No one wanted it.
I could say a lot more (and I may later, if this thread is still living), but I've got to head to work.
My wife just found out that AMC-11 carries QVC, too. The thought of 2-3 weeks without Lisa, "Today's Special Value" and all that other stuff has galvanized her. If Bruce Willis will pitch in, she's willing to do an Armageddon-style mission to G-15 and take care of matters herself. :)
Gee, if only the GGP was making a joke and not actually being serious...
.
Exactly. That's why GGP was modded "funny." But I guess they missed that. :)
The issue isn't firewall philosophy. You can bang out a very simple, or very complex (and secure), firewall at a prompt with iptables. Configuration should be firewall agnostic and my complaint is that it could be made a GREAT deal simpler.
I'm speaking of configuration tools, not philosophy. (A very critical distinction, I think.)
Again, the answers in this thread show me that there's some sort of mental block on the part of firewall administrators. I guess they think that firewall configuration *should* be arcane, that this somehow makes it more secure.
Off topic, but as an interesting aside (and warning to others!): the default firewall tool in CentOS 5 (and probably in RHEL, though I've never tried it) opens several ports (in particular, the mDNS crap) without even asking. I always do an NMAP scan on any publicly-exposed server once I'm finished setting it up. Imagine my joy when I discovered THAT one.
So ... yes, ease in configuration can lead to unanticipated holes in your firewall. But I say it doesn't have to be this way. Configuration can (and should) be firewall/philosophy agnostic.
So the firewall should automatically allow access to any ports that a newly connected system says it has open? Right.....
.
Of course not. I never said that, and neither did the submitter. What I'm talking about is automatic discovery. Connect a machine, the firewall comes up and says, "here's a new machine, it wants to do this, this and that." I can then decide where to proceed from there. The default would be to permit nothing until *I* say so. :)
Don't see why this is so hard to understand, but maybe that's just me.
Again, don't miss the keys (and yeah, I probably used a bad example): automatic discovery. Point and click. Or, as the submitter said, even if it's a rigidly-defined network, why can't I just feed in a Visio (or equivalent) diagram and have a happy firewall, ready to go?
If nothing else, it's unbelievable to me that in 2010, I still have trouble identifying users on my internal network who've connected via DHCP.
Firewall Builder does most of what the submitter is looking for already.
.
Just browsing through here, but I'm surprised (and then again, I'm NOT surprised) at the answers thus far. I get the same replies when I ask a similar question.
What the submitter is talking about is a 21st Century Firewall (capitalized out of reverence). Why not have automatic host discovery? Why should I have to painstakingly come up with a list of all target machines with IP addresses? Is this not 2010? :)
Did everyone miss the question about "jdoe's" computer being connected, and then (and ONLY then) her needed ports being enabled in some other PC on the network? That would actually be a VERY nice capability.
For the record, I've looked at IPCop; Shorewall; SuSEFirewall2; the firewall tools built into Webmin; (and years ago) Mandrake's firewall package; you name it (this is just a partial list off the top of my head). All of them follow the same paradigm: YOU must come up with the list of IPs and ports. If anything moves or changes, YOU have to painstakingly re-enter all of the port/IP info (and hope you didn't miss something!).
So-called GUI interfaces and/or firewall "builder" tools still follow this same basic config paradigm. Just adding automatic discovery would be a HUGE help ... simply put, someone connects a machine, the firewall says, "new PC added at 192.168.1.100, DHCP, it's exposing ports 100, 200 and 500."
Everything I've tried thus far can't even reliably list all PCs on the network! I have to run an NMAP discovery or (under Windoze) something like the Angry IP Scanner. It doesn't make sense.
Some of what the submitter is asking would most properly be done in a really smart firewall/network switch combination. You would probably have to install a small software package on each network machine, too, that could "talk" to the firewall. But the question remains, why isn't this kind of thing available? It *IS* a little surprising (and frustrating) the someone hasn't developed a point-and-click, self-discovering, self-cataloging firewall system by now.
I think the real problem is that true propeller-headed geeks actually *enjoy* poking in stuff with iptables rules at a prompt. They're the most likely to have the skills to develop something like a true GUI firewall, but they're the least likely to want to.
These discussions always devolve into pro- and anti-piracy rhetoric, but I have a question.
I actually agree in principle that piracy is wrong. But where I have a problem is with their method of determining guilt. I wish Ray Beckerman or one of the other attorneys here would explain to me how they can *prove* that I, and I alone, am the one responsible for an illegal download with an IP address???
Unless I'm the only one in the house and unless I have a static IP address, how can they *prove* that it's me? And even in that case, what if someone sneaks into my home during the day (maybe I gave the neighbor a key to watch my cats while I was on vacation one time). That's what worries me.
It would be the height of irony for ME to one day get thumped for this, when I AM opposed to piracy. But I could see it happening -- suppose I open a wireless access point at my house, taking reasonable care to secure it, but someone manages to hack in and download copyrighted material without my consent? Why am I liable for that? I'm a VICTIM, not a criminal!!!!
When someone is pulled for speeding, it's the *driver* who is ticketed, not the owner of the car. In fact, speeding tickets are routinely thrown out of court simply because the arresting officer couldn't prove that he/she had the vehicle under constant observation after clocking them at an illegal speed. There's always a chance that the car changed drivers while it was unobservable.
Why doesn't the same principle apply here?
paying 40% more for the same service than our neighbors down the road whose condo board allowed satellite dishes.
.
Not strictly on topic, but I am endlessly amazed at the condo, apartment and rental unit operators who try to restrict satellite dishes. Except for some special cases (ex., you're in a historical district or putting up the dish would present a safety hazard), they CANNOT restrict satellite dishes that are less than 1 meter in size.
See the FCC's policy on receiving antennas (including satellite dishes) here.
Practically speaking, you'll typically have to get the FCC involved (which takes time) and you'll have a real fight on your hands (a typical homeowner's association can be one of the most recalcitrant beasts on the planet), but the FCC takes your right to receive a satellite signal quite seriously.
Serious question: did you let him back to finish his internship, and if so, why?
.
Naw, because I'm soft-hearted. It's a weakness of mine. I guess I should have. :)
He worked on for a little while then got discouraged. I think he was disappointed that he was doing entry-level stuff, such as emptying trash and call screening. He thought he'd get to immediately jump into the Exciting High-Tech Stuff(tm) (at the time, we were making our transition to HD-R, as well as to all-digital, audio-over-IP delivery in our studios, so it's not like we weren't doing that sort of thing).
What we're talking about here, regardless of industry, is LAZINESS. I see from some of the other posts here that the original poster apparently hasn't updated his website in a while.
And to the OP: Dood ... if you're still lurking here ... you need to get on the stick. Don't take this the wrong way, but there's something else you need to consider: I've been doing my gig for 30 years. It includes high-tech electronics, radio, and contract programming. I'm self-taught (assembler, C/C++, and enough to plod around with Perl, BASH scripts and a few others things).
When you come in and assume that you can do my job, making my same salary, without my decades of experience, it's actually a little offensive to me. I know you haven't thought of that, but keep that in mind, too. You'd better accept that you WILL be emptying trash and checking code for obvious typos when you first get employed, especially in this economy. If you think you're gonna get hired, and get thrown right on the company's bread-and-butter, make-or-break code repository, you're dreaming. You'll have to earn some chops first.
I'm in broadcast engineering, which includes some programming, but is not programming-specific. I'll let some of those folks address your concerns directly. But speaking in general and in no particular order:
1. Maybe you should have gone to a different school, even if it meant relocating. An internship would have given you some valuable experience, and if you're really good, would probably have resulted in permanent employment afterward.
2. Look at small companies instead of the big ones. Offer to work for beans and rice until you can demonstrate that you know what you're doing. It'll pay off in the long run.
3. While you look for a job, work on an open-source project. Having a recommendation from a well-known F/OSS guru can't hurt. :)
4. Once you get the chance, I can't emphasize this strongly enough: PROVE TO ME THAT YOU REALLY WANT THE JOB. Think outside the box. Be willing to go the extra mile. Don't sit in your chair playing Solitaire waiting for me to tell you what to do next. Show initiative.
Back when I was a teenager, I got my first job in radio by hanging around the station constantly. I took out the trash. I annoyed the engineer and asked a thousand questions. I was willing to do anything to prove that I wanted the job.
I'm not boasting; that's just common sense. But contrast that with an intern who tried out with me a couple of years ago. Unless I stayed on him, he did indeed sit and play Solitaire. When the HVAC went out in the studios, he got up from his job as a call screener for one of our talk shows and said, "it's just too hot. I'll be back tomorrow" -- which left us scrambling for someone to cover his slot.
He still calls from time to time and is amazed that we won't hire him. No, I'm not kidding.
It would appear that Bing correlates results in real-time, re-scoring based on clicks. So ... when someone searches, "Why Is Windows Expensive," Bing watches to see what the user *clicks* in the results and uses that to score *subsequent* queries. I'm just guessing, of course, but this could explain why some people get that Mac link as the first hit, while others get something else.
I dare to disagree. Programming is basically putting algorithms into a form a computer can understand. Nothing more. And where do these algos come from?
It baffles me to no end every time I see "programmers" apply who consider math as some sort of secondary skill. It's not. It is the primary skill for a good programmer.
.
Absolutely. And an old dog like me can even provide a classic example: older OS's like DOS and CPM had to cram a lot of functionality into a relatively small amount of memory. They also had to perform decently on small, slow (by today's standards) processors. The approach that they used was the vector table.
Simply put, the functions were numbered in order: get OS version was typically the first (function 0), and successive numbers were for all of the other important functions: open file, write file, get system time, and so on.
Now: can you imagine how inefficient that would be if the original programmer had used a "switch" statement (or the assembly equivalent, with a bunch of "compare and jumps")? Instead, the function number was left shifted (equivalent to multiplying by a factor of two), then used to find an index in a vector table that contained the addresses of all the functions. Neat, compact and lightning-fast.
This technique is still used today in small embedded processors that suffer from similar low speed and limited memory problems. I used it myself on a small controller in a contract job back in the 1990's. It allowed me to cram everything (read keyboard, activate relays, check temperatures, and more ... even including a quick and dirty "config" option ... in a PIC micro with 2048 bytes of memory. :)
I have never met a really good, really world-changing programmer who wasn't also good at math. Not necessarily with high-end math, but just good at the fundamentals of algebra, and with the ability to "think" in numerical calculations and offsets.
Or, as Robert Heinlein once put it: once the Plebes discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses, it's all over.
Hopefully the MPAA & RIAA can get a damn clue and start focusing on the real threat to their business - rampant, organized, professional international piracy.
Pardon the 2nd post, but I had to add that I agree with this 1,000 %. Well said.
Yes, but more likely than not many of the key parts (with the most valuable IP) - the processor/SoC, digital tuners, etc, are made by a US company.
I wish that was the case, but unfortunately, it's not. With a few discrete exceptions (Motorola and TI still provide a lot of the digital processing chips, for example), most of it is made overseas as well. This certainly includes the user interface processors, memory, A/D conversion, and most of the "glue" chips, which are made by NEC, Hitachi, Samsung, et. al.
Don't take my word for it, open up that box and look at the chips for yourself.
Not that I agree with draconian IP laws, and I'm no fan of the RIAA/MPAA, either. And I certainly believe that software patents go beyond dumb and descend into insanity.
There's a world of difference between protecting genuine innovation, and just granting "unlimited gouge rights" to the first guy who races to the Patent Office with something obvious (think: One Click Shopping, "Look And Feel" with a "Help" button to the right, etc., etc.).
Mod this one up. Well said.
Behold the only thing wrong with the mod system on Slashdot: those who mod posts up or down, not based on content or a well-made argument, but solely because they agree or disagree with the post.
There is nothing in the above post that warrants being called a "troll" or "flamebait" (hopefully, that will change in the next couple hours, but it's rated as "1, Flamebait" as I type this).
We're in a thread discussing the relative merits of distros when converting Windows users, people. By default, we will be discussing a lot of different distros, which means that we'll have a lot of opinions.
If you have mod points and you mod someone down just because you disagree, or are disappointed because they didn't vote for "your" distro, YOU are the one who is wrong, not the poster.
And NOTHING ... I repeat, NOTHING ... is better than burning mosquito footage.
You don't have to "buy" it, it's true.
Yes, it is.
Back about a million years ago when I was studying for my FCC First Class Radiotelephone license, the book that I was using (emphatically) insisted that I draw the schematics out -- even though they were right there in front of me. When I got into the exam room, and the first schematic appeared on the test, I realized that I was ready. Yes, it DOES work.
Years later when I was teaching electronics, I would hand my students a sheet of paper with a simplified diagram on it. I required that they take notes from what I was saying. There was little or no text on the pages. And yes, they had to draw schematics, too. :)
They hated me, but the ones who followed my advice invariably did better on the tests.
The Final Boss Of The Internet?
But will anything really happen or will this just be another excuse for yet more surveillance of home computer usage?
Good question. Do we really need Yet Still Another Government Oversight, or draconian set of laws?
The real answer is "Loser Pay," whether in the UK, the US or elsewhere. We might word it something like, "the party prevailing shall be entitled to reasonable reimbursement of expenses incurred in obtaining relief." (And "reasonable" could be defined starting with, "the going rate in your area for quality legal representation.")
The problem in the US, of course, is that the Bar associations are (inexplicably, IMNHO) opposed to this.
(I say "inexplicably" because their favorite argument, that it would hurt poor clients, is specious; if anything, if the client had a decent case, the lawyers could help them even with small, currently "unprofitable" cases under the current system, while still receiving fair compensation. They could change their image overnight from sharks to champions, because they COULD afford to take the case of the little old lady whose landlord refuses to fix the heater.)
The Supreme Court ruled against reimbursement some years ago in a landmark healthcare case, as I recall ... and there was a story posted here just the other day about an RIAA case being dismissed, but WITHOUT the defendant being able to recover expenses. That's just wrong.
Loser Pay would be the answer. We just need to educate everyone, whether liberal/progressive or conservative/traditionalist, about just why this would work.