Ten years is middle level in my book and not anywhere close to lead material. At my conpany, less than 3 years is entry level, 3-8 is junior, 8-20 is middle, 20+ is senior and all team leads have to come from this pool. I am an old timer; I remember when you could start as a computer operator changing data tapes and the like, slowly moving up the career ladder much like it is in other skilled trades. Now, young adults come out of college and expect $100k (in the SF Bay Area).
I do not know which are worse, the folks that know they don't know or don't know they don't know.
I usually give them a general knowldge test (and they have to get 100%) before we start on the technical skills, with questions such as 1) name five state capitols in the U.S., 2) name five countries in North America, 3) explain the theory of evolution as it applies to biology, 4) give an example of circular resasoning. Most people fail the test. The number one area folks need to work on is geography. I guess we need more maps in the U.S.
It is not so much ISPs as the ILECs. And somebody (as AC) came up with a comment about ISPs were common carriers before 2005 because the FCC reclassified DSL as an information service. What the FCC did was reclassify the underlying transport not the ISP. This allowed the ILECs not to share their DSL network with competitive ISPs via their wholesale companies (such as SBC's ASI) and ultimately not renew contracts when they expire. ILECs pushed for this because it put them on equal footing with the physical plant of the cable companies.
I don't complain about a bug in Neko, I complain about the general lack of testing before commit in FreeBSD.
This has nothing to do with FreeBSD. Your beef is with the port maintainer. The FreeBSD core team does not have the responsilbility to test every single port.
So, upgrading from 7.0 to 7.0-STABLE
If you choose to upgrade from RELENG_7.0 to RELENG_7 you may catch the codeline in a state of instability. STABLE does not mean what you think it means. It is your responsibility to make sure whatever checkpoint of the code line you are using is ready for your environment. This means staging before production.
From the Handbook (with my emphasis):
24.5.2.1 What Is FreeBSD-STABLE?
FreeBSD-STABLE is our development branch from which major releases are made. Changes go into this branch at a different pace, and with the general assumption that they have first gone into FreeBSD-CURRENT for testing. This is still a development branch, however, and this means that at any given time, the sources for FreeBSD-STABLE may or may not be suitable for any particular purpose. It is simply another engineering development track, not a resource for end-users .
24.5.2.2 Who Needs FreeBSD-STABLE?
If you are interested in tracking or contributing to the FreeBSD development process, especially as it relates to the next "point" release of FreeBSD, then you should consider following FreeBSD-STABLE.
While it is true that security fixes also go into the FreeBSD-STABLE branch, you do not need to track FreeBSD-STABLE to do this. Every security advisory for FreeBSD explains how to fix the problem for the releases it affects [1], and tracking an entire development branch just for security reasons is likely to bring in a lot of unwanted changes as well.
Although we endeavor to ensure that the FreeBSD-STABLE branch compiles and runs at all times, this cannot be guaranteed. In addition, while code is developed in FreeBSD-CURRENT before including it in FreeBSD-STABLE, more people run FreeBSD-STABLE than FreeBSD-CURRENT, so it is inevitable that bugs and corner cases will sometimes be found in FreeBSD-STABLE that were not apparent in FreeBSD-CURRENT.
For these reasons, we do not recommend that you blindly track FreeBSD-STABLE, and it is particularly important that you do not update any production servers to FreeBSD-STABLE without first thoroughly testing the code in your development environment.
If you do not have the resources to do this then we recommend that you run the most recent release of FreeBSD, and use the binary update mechanism to move from release to release.
Ports are not part of the base distribution. Do not complain about FreeBSD proper because of a broken port. If the port is broken, contact the port maintainer. Step up to the plate and offer a resolution.
Yes, STABLE may break things. I highly recommend you read the meaning of STABLE. If you feel that strongly, stay on the RELEASE branch.
Not if you only use the CF card for / and ZFS for/home,/local,/var, and swap. The CF card is mounted with noatime and all directories are schg flagged. Our FreeBSD servers that do not remote boot use this type of arrangement.
Stop getting your information from Wikipedia. Common carrier law for telephone networks comes from the Communications Act of 1934. ISP were never included nor was the law amended to include them. The 2005 FCC rule change was not about Internet service rather the underlying transport technology of DSL. It is an important point to make.
An example of this is SBC's ASI that provides DSL wholesale to ISPs. When DSL was regulated (much like frame relay) ISPs were getting the DSL for the same price as ASI was charging SBC (on paper but not in practice). Now, AT&T/ASI can charge ISPs any price they want or refuse to do business with them. The only counter to this would be for an ISP to become a CLEC.
Re:Man pages are not a quality control technique!
on
FreeBSD 7.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Berend's comment that was civil. If you want something changed in FreeBSD, either step up to the plate and do the work, or pay somebody to do it. Adoption is another matter.
Common carrier status is shaped by over a hundred years of case and common law. Common carriers are regulated entities. ISPs and Internet content providers are not common carriers. Although, they are protected from liability for third party actions via the Communications Decency Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Stop pullinig that information out of your ass. The Internet network, no matter what it runs on (dial-up, ADSL, ISDN, frame relay) has never had common carrier status.
Common carrier law establishes, among other things, that the carrier is not liable for the contents of the goods carried. Common carriers have historically come in many flavors: roadhouses (hotels), trucks, trains, telegraph networks, postal services, and telephone networks.
In recent history, common carrier law has had a focus on communications networks. Communications common carriers (aka telephone networks or historically Ma Bell) are regulated under the Communications Act of 1934. [Title 47 United States Code] In the communications context, Internet networks are not common carriers and are therefore not regulate by the FCC. This created a tension. Internet networks looked, tasted, and smelled like classic common carriers, transporting goods without ownership of or responsibility for the goods transported. But Internet networks did not wish to be considered common carriers in the communications context. This has led to a schizophrenic legal approach that has addressed the liability of networks on a case by case basis, avoiding any classification of common carriage. Congress has consistently concluded that Internet networks should not be liable for the third party content that they carry. The Communications Decency Act created a defense to liability for third party content in the context of liable and defamation. Legislative proposals with regard to Internet gambling generally provide a defense to prosecution for networks that merely provide access to content including Internet gambling without being responsible for that content. And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act created defenses to liability for third party content where ISPs comply with certain provisions of the DMCA.
This has created an interesting dichotomy where, with regard to the content transmitted, ISPs are essentially common carriers; with regard to the communications networks underneath the Internet ISPs are not common carriers.
That clause means what SCOTUS says it means, and it means anything that affects interstate commerce. Unrelated to the commerce clause is the power of the purse. If you want federal money, you have to follow federal rules. Nothing obligates states to follow No Child Left Behind. The same was true of the old national speed limit.
was in fact most of the way down the street before they noticed
Which is prefectly acceptable. You do not have to defend every trvial use of the mark. And it is difficult to defend the mark if you do not know of its use by others. The trademark holder has to be aware of the infringement and they believe it will lead to market confusion. If the holder has no idea of the infringement and it has been going on for several years, the mark is still valid and can be defended.
With their growth stagnating in networking gear, especially with all the competion from such companies as Juniper and HP, they decided into move to servers. It is going to be difficult for them to maintain their 70% profit margins.
A division of the same company. The Psion of old is no more. They sold or closed most of their assests and bought Teklogix. Their netbook was EOLed in 2003 but it looks like they are still providing service for the device. That means the mark is still being used in trade.
Try picking a technology made by multiple vendors or a vendor with a proven track record. OnStream was too new of a company; they should have licensed the technology instead of being the sole manufacturer.
I recommend LTO, cheapest GB per tape. The initial drive unit will cost about $3500. If that is too expensive for you, try DAT which offers lower initial investment but the GB per tape is much higher.
I have a DDS1 drive from 1993 that works, and you can still buy tapes.
Well, since GD has nothing to do with animation, it is not nonsense. You can use 3-D tools but that does not equate GD to animation. The field has nothing to do with animation. You could take electives on photography and scultpure, but you cannot say photography is the same as graphic design. Animation and GD are two distinct fields in the the realm of visual arts.
I do not use Wikipedia; I cannot trust the data it contains. I copied what my wife said.
A graphic designer may indeed use 3-D tools to create stills, which are not animation. Look at the design of a stamp, the stop sign, your car manual, frozen food packaging, posters in a bus terminal, and corporate logos. Those are items of graphic design. Animated demos are not graphic design. Animated anything is not graphic design. You can call a chair a fork but it is still a chair.
If your friend does animation then she got a BFA in something else other than GD. Although, you may indeed take animation electives, GD is not about animation. Never has been. If she indeed majored in GD, she wasted her education.
How about I ask my wife? She works as an artist. Honey, is computer animation a form of graphic design. She says no. You would get no animation training in a BFA or MFA graphics design program. The field is about typography, print and editorial design, branding, information design, and packaging.
It does when you are a citizen of France and Canada. Let me repeat this because it seems you cannot read. My wife is French-Candian, her father from Canada and mother from France. Both my wife (Jules) and her brother (Jolie) were born in Nice. Her father is from Ontario, not Quebec.
The reality is that people will name their children whatever they damn please. I do realize that the language cabal in France (and to a lesser extent in Quebec) frown upon such things, but most people these days do not care.
All those names I mentioned have been given to both males and females that I have known personally. My wife is French-Candian, her father from Canada and mother from France . Jolie is my brother in-laws name, while my wife is named Jules.
Slashdot Mirror
Ten years is middle level in my book and not anywhere close to lead material. At my conpany, less than 3 years is entry level, 3-8 is junior, 8-20 is middle, 20+ is senior and all team leads have to come from this pool. I am an old timer; I remember when you could start as a computer operator changing data tapes and the like, slowly moving up the career ladder much like it is in other skilled trades. Now, young adults come out of college and expect $100k (in the SF Bay Area).
I do not know which are worse, the folks that know they don't know or don't know they don't know.
I usually give them a general knowldge test (and they have to get 100%) before we start on the technical skills, with questions such as 1) name five state capitols in the U.S., 2) name five countries in North America, 3) explain the theory of evolution as it applies to biology, 4) give an example of circular resasoning. Most people fail the test. The number one area folks need to work on is geography. I guess we need more maps in the U.S.
It is not so much ISPs as the ILECs. And somebody (as AC) came up with a comment about ISPs were common carriers before 2005 because the FCC reclassified DSL as an information service. What the FCC did was reclassify the underlying transport not the ISP. This allowed the ILECs not to share their DSL network with competitive ISPs via their wholesale companies (such as SBC's ASI) and ultimately not renew contracts when they expire. ILECs pushed for this because it put them on equal footing with the physical plant of the cable companies.
I don't complain about a bug in Neko, I complain about the general lack of testing before commit in FreeBSD.
This has nothing to do with FreeBSD. Your beef is with the port maintainer. The FreeBSD core team does not have the responsilbility to test every single port.
So, upgrading from 7.0 to 7.0-STABLE
If you choose to upgrade from RELENG_7.0 to RELENG_7 you may catch the codeline in a state of instability. STABLE does not mean what you think it means. It is your responsibility to make sure whatever checkpoint of the code line you are using is ready for your environment. This means staging before production.
From the Handbook (with my emphasis):
24.5.2.1 What Is FreeBSD-STABLE?
FreeBSD-STABLE is our development branch from which major releases are made. Changes go into this branch at a different pace, and with the general assumption that they have first gone into FreeBSD-CURRENT for testing. This is still a development branch , however, and this means that at any given time, the sources for FreeBSD-STABLE may or may not be suitable for any particular purpose. It is simply another engineering development track, not a resource for end-users .
24.5.2.2 Who Needs FreeBSD-STABLE?
If you are interested in tracking or contributing to the FreeBSD development process, especially as it relates to the next "point" release of FreeBSD, then you should consider following FreeBSD-STABLE.
While it is true that security fixes also go into the FreeBSD-STABLE branch, you do not need to track FreeBSD-STABLE to do this. Every security advisory for FreeBSD explains how to fix the problem for the releases it affects [1], and tracking an entire development branch just for security reasons is likely to bring in a lot of unwanted changes as well.
Although we endeavor to ensure that the FreeBSD-STABLE branch compiles and runs at all times, this cannot be guaranteed. In addition, while code is developed in FreeBSD-CURRENT before including it in FreeBSD-STABLE, more people run FreeBSD-STABLE than FreeBSD-CURRENT, so it is inevitable that bugs and corner cases will sometimes be found in FreeBSD-STABLE that were not apparent in FreeBSD-CURRENT.
For these reasons, we do not recommend that you blindly track FreeBSD-STABLE , and it is particularly important that you do not update any production servers to FreeBSD-STABLE without first thoroughly testing the code in your development environment .
If you do not have the resources to do this then we recommend that you run the most recent release of FreeBSD, and use the binary update mechanism to move from release to release.
Ports are not part of the base distribution. Do not complain about FreeBSD proper because of a broken port. If the port is broken, contact the port maintainer. Step up to the plate and offer a resolution.
Yes, STABLE may break things. I highly recommend you read the meaning of STABLE. If you feel that strongly, stay on the RELEASE branch.
Not if you only use the CF card for / and ZFS for /home, /local, /var, and swap. The CF card is mounted with noatime and all directories are schg flagged. Our FreeBSD servers that do not remote boot use this type of arrangement.
Stop getting your information from Wikipedia. Common carrier law for telephone networks comes from the Communications Act of 1934. ISP were never included nor was the law amended to include them. The 2005 FCC rule change was not about Internet service rather the underlying transport technology of DSL. It is an important point to make.
An example of this is SBC's ASI that provides DSL wholesale to ISPs. When DSL was regulated (much like frame relay) ISPs were getting the DSL for the same price as ASI was charging SBC (on paper but not in practice). Now, AT&T/ASI can charge ISPs any price they want or refuse to do business with them. The only counter to this would be for an ISP to become a CLEC.
Berend's comment that was civil. If you want something changed in FreeBSD, either step up to the plate and do the work, or pay somebody to do it. Adoption is another matter.
Common carrier status is shaped by over a hundred years of case and common law. Common carriers are regulated entities. ISPs and Internet content providers are not common carriers. Although, they are protected from liability for third party actions via the Communications Decency Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Stop pullinig that information out of your ass. The Internet network, no matter what it runs on (dial-up, ADSL, ISDN, frame relay) has never had common carrier status.
From http://www.cybertelecom.org/ip/dmca.htm:
Common carrier law establishes, among other things, that the carrier is not liable for the contents of the goods carried. Common carriers have historically come in many flavors: roadhouses (hotels), trucks, trains, telegraph networks, postal services, and telephone networks.
In recent history, common carrier law has had a focus on communications networks. Communications common carriers (aka telephone networks or historically Ma Bell) are regulated under the Communications Act of 1934. [Title 47 United States Code] In the communications context, Internet networks are not common carriers and are therefore not regulate by the FCC. This created a tension. Internet networks looked, tasted, and smelled like classic common carriers, transporting goods without ownership of or responsibility for the goods transported. But Internet networks did not wish to be considered common carriers in the communications context. This has led to a schizophrenic legal approach that has addressed the liability of networks on a case by case basis, avoiding any classification of common carriage. Congress has consistently concluded that Internet networks should not be liable for the third party content that they carry. The Communications Decency Act created a defense to liability for third party content in the context of liable and defamation. Legislative proposals with regard to Internet gambling generally provide a defense to prosecution for networks that merely provide access to content including Internet gambling without being responsible for that content. And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act created defenses to liability for third party content where ISPs comply with certain provisions of the DMCA.
This has created an interesting dichotomy where, with regard to the content transmitted, ISPs are essentially common carriers; with regard to the communications networks underneath the Internet ISPs are not common carriers.
That clause means what SCOTUS says it means, and it means anything that affects interstate commerce. Unrelated to the commerce clause is the power of the purse. If you want federal money, you have to follow federal rules. Nothing obligates states to follow No Child Left Behind. The same was true of the old national speed limit.
was in fact most of the way down the street before they noticed
Which is prefectly acceptable. You do not have to defend every trvial use of the mark. And it is difficult to defend the mark if you do not know of its use by others. The trademark holder has to be aware of the infringement and they believe it will lead to market confusion. If the holder has no idea of the infringement and it has been going on for several years, the mark is still valid and can be defended.
Psion has nothing to do with Symbian. They closed their PDA business in the early 2000s and sold the remaining interest in Symbian to Nokia years ago.
With their growth stagnating in networking gear, especially with all the competion from such companies as Juniper and HP, they decided into move to servers. It is going to be difficult for them to maintain their 70% profit margins.
A division of the same company. The Psion of old is no more. They sold or closed most of their assests and bought Teklogix. Their netbook was EOLed in 2003 but it looks like they are still providing service for the device. That means the mark is still being used in trade.
I think Psion has not used netbook in trade for over five years. If true, the mark is considered abandoned.
Try picking a technology made by multiple vendors or a vendor with a proven track record. OnStream was too new of a company; they should have licensed the technology instead of being the sole manufacturer.
I recommend LTO, cheapest GB per tape. The initial drive unit will cost about $3500. If that is too expensive for you, try DAT which offers lower initial investment but the GB per tape is much higher.
I have a DDS1 drive from 1993 that works, and you can still buy tapes.
Well, since GD has nothing to do with animation, it is not nonsense. You can use 3-D tools but that does not equate GD to animation. The field has nothing to do with animation. You could take electives on photography and scultpure, but you cannot say photography is the same as graphic design. Animation and GD are two distinct fields in the the realm of visual arts.
I do not use Wikipedia; I cannot trust the data it contains. I copied what my wife said.
A graphic designer may indeed use 3-D tools to create stills, which are not animation. Look at the design of a stamp, the stop sign, your car manual, frozen food packaging, posters in a bus terminal, and corporate logos. Those are items of graphic design. Animated demos are not graphic design. Animated anything is not graphic design. You can call a chair a fork but it is still a chair.
If your friend does animation then she got a BFA in something else other than GD. Although, you may indeed take animation electives, GD is not about animation. Never has been. If she indeed majored in GD, she wasted her education.
How about I ask my wife? She works as an artist. Honey, is computer animation a form of graphic design. She says no. You would get no animation training in a BFA or MFA graphics design program. The field is about typography, print and editorial design, branding, information design, and packaging.
Umm, Linux does quite a bit better for graphic design. Especially bigtime movie producers (pixar, etc) don't run Mac. They run linux.
Graphic design is not computer animation.
Jeez, when will people (like you) get a clue before posting comments?
french canadian doesn't equal french
It does when you are a citizen of France and Canada. Let me repeat this because it seems you cannot read. My wife is French-Candian, her father from Canada and mother from France. Both my wife (Jules) and her brother (Jolie) were born in Nice. Her father is from Ontario, not Quebec.
Cabal meant La Francophonie.
I never understood they outrage people have over what other's name their children.
But back to my original point, there are other unisex names used in countries (or regions) that speak French as their primary language.
The reality is that people will name their children whatever they damn please. I do realize that the language cabal in France (and to a lesser extent in Quebec) frown upon such things, but most people these days do not care.
All those names I mentioned have been given to both males and females that I have known personally. My wife is French-Candian, her father from Canada and mother from France . Jolie is my brother in-laws name, while my wife is named Jules.