IATSE (the union for theater and screen technical employees - stagehands, lighting, sound, etc.) is a great union to work for. As a stringer working with them, I was getting $14.65/hr for quasi-unskilled labor (stagehand) with 4 hour minimum callouts, at age 18. On the rare calls when I'd work over 8, I got overtime, always. I was treated well, got as much work as I could handle, and generally had no complaints. My paycheck after union dues was still better than what I would have made doing the same work at non-union shops.
Union shops are *always* union-only. The reason they maintain that is because if they allow non-union people to work there, then management will just hire non-union people to bust the union. As a result, union shops make sure that employees are union members. By extension, union members often try to support union businesses, because the more successful unionized companies are, the more likely it is that their union will remain strong. It isn't primitive. It's supporting companies with business practices of which you approve.
Unions are still necessary because minimum wage, OSHA, work week laws... are minimal. If you want to do better than the bare minimum, and most people do (or did you want to try to support yourself on your 40 hour per week minimum wage $10,700 per year job?) then a union is a very useful bargaining tool.
Most unions aren't the Teamsters or the UAW. Some unions abuse their positions, and those two are tops on that list. But there are other unions that operate quietly, protect their employees interests, and generally improve their employees lives.
You can comply with the GPL requirements by distributing the source when you distribute the binary to your customers. There is no GPL requirement for public distribution of source if the binary is not publicly distributed; however, you're enjoined from preventing a customer from redistributing publicly.
The point I am making is that if the scientists in charge are going to selectively edit, what makes you think they can't do it 'in transit' before you see your 'realtime' data?
The entire raw data set will be released. Scientists are a fractious bunch devoted to infighting; the kind of collusion you're alluding to is pretty much impossible in modern scientific research projects. Because as invested as a PI might be into a theory, even to the point of altering data... there's always a hungry grad student who thinks "Hey, the person who *disproves* this theory will never want for an academic job again" and reveals the alteration.
I would actually be happier if the iPod was polycarbonate all the way around; the chrome gets fingerprints and scratches that show, whereas they don't show on the white plastic. That said, the iPod doesn't mix the white and the chrome on the same face of the player, so most of the time you see one or the other.
But really, I like the iPod for not having any projections, for not having moving parts (on my generation at least), for having a user interface that matches how I think about music libraries, for fitting comfortably in a front pants pocket, and most of all for having an extremely clean, simple design. I use it with a PC, so iTunes was never the draw (although I wound up moving to itunes when they released the PC version just because its a little bit better integration).
Their reasoning is bunk. It's not my responsibility to maintain the meters; its the city's. Under Seattle's scheme, as the city fails to live up to its responsibility, people have less and less parking. Under my scheme, people have equal or greater parking. If someone is breaking a meter to get free parking, then they can, should, and will be prosecuted for it. (I actually watched someone get arrested for this). To outlaw parking at broken meters as a result is a bankrupt way to reason.
Ann Arbor and Chicago both work the way I described; Seattle is obviously just populated by silly people.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
There is no GPL requirement to publicly post source code *if* the source code is included with the distribution of the object code. They also can't restrict anyone buying one of their meters from redistributing it.
But they are not required to distribute source to anyone other than those whom they distribute object code to.
Now, since much of the value of their system is in their userland parking applications and their hardware, neither of which are required to be GPLed, it'd behoove them to release any kernel/toolchain mods they might have made to all and sundry, but they are only *required* to release it to those who have the object code.
So, if you really want to build a better, competitive parking meter... buy one of theirs, and redistribute it yourself. The GPL allows that.
Is there a reason why a parking meter application wouldn't be userland, not tightly linked to anything GPL, and therefore have no requirement to be GPLed?
In every city I've lived in, if a meter isn't working and you are parked there, if you get ticketed you can successfully fight the ticket if they have a city record that the meter wasn't working.
So, your best bet is to park, then check the number on the meter and call to tell them its broken. Free parking, and if they ticket you, they have a record that it was in fact not working at the time your ticket was given.
I'm sorry that your sense of 'good design' requires black and chrome, but the nicest part of the iPod's design is the fact that it's so simple. Over-ornamentation is the worst crime in design, and Apple has done a good job of avoiding it.
Really, this is the war between case modders ("Must... have... shiny multi color metal case with black rubber bumpers and many colors of LEDs inside and a window in the side and UV-flourescing cables and custom shaped fan grills and and and...") and Apple's designs (seamless metal or polycarbonate shell, single logo on the outside - maybe, and minimal ports/openings/buttons).
If you think iRiver's player looks cool, that's fine. But design has been moving steadily away from over-ornamentation for the last 400-500 years for a reason.
MP3 is an open format. It is not a free format. Yes, that is possible.
It's not free as in beer, but it is an openly available standard with compulsory, non-discriminatory licensing. No one (not Fraunhoefer, not anyone) can unilaterally change the MP3 standard. Anyone can write an encoder, and after the patents cease to apply (looks like the last of them will run out in the 2010-2015 time frame) anyone can write and freely distribute a codec.
If a corporation hired the scientists, they would have a right to dictate, just as the public should have some right.
I invite you to think, though: what scientist would be willing to work under the "everyone gets to see my data at the same time as I do" plan you propose? Like it or not, part of their paycheck is that initial exclusive access. I know people who do NASA-sponsored research; their payoff is the ability to publish, far more than the money. If the data is released openly, their ability to publish is harmed significantly, and for most of these people, you couldn't pay them enough money to make up for that.
The data will be released in a year. How is the public harmed by this delay?
They got paid, but most of them do it because they genuinely love to do the research. You don't get a Ph.D. in astrophysics in order to make loads of cash, you do it because you're interested in the subject.
The public will get less benefit if the data is immediately publicly released than if there is a limited-time embargo to allow the experimenters first access. This is because without that limited embargo, scientists are less likely to be willing to dedicate long periods of time to the experimental setup, knowing full well that some other scientist who hasn't done that work could get equal data access and 'scoop' them.
The reality is, in academic circles first publication is vital. Without priority access to the data, these scientists might lose first publication, which would eliminate much of the reason they do the preliminary work in the first place.
The public has a right to the data, but their right to the data is balanced against the need to provide an incentive to the scientist to act. The proper balance is a limited time exclusive right to the data, followed by open public release.
What the hell is the problem with letting them have the data embargoed for a year?
I'm not saying the raw data should never be released, but these people put a lot of time and effort into getting these projects to work. The real payoff, for most of these scientists, is the chance to make a new discovery. If they aren't given limited-time exclusive access, their incentive to do the initial work is much reduced.
Maybe before people suggest 'I wanna see the pretty pictures NOW' they think about the fact that, while you may just be interested, this is these people's lives?
I refuse to do any work on someone else's behalf, but I read at 0, so what do I care about someone's karma bonus? The irritated AC, however, could do exactly that - turn off karma bonuses.
Just because it is standard procedure doesn't make it right. When I wrote out my check for taxes this last week, some of that money goes to fund NASA. The public funds NASA in its entirety. So, they should have access to the data at the same time as anyone else, IMNSHO.
The scientists are also taxpayers.
They paid for the Hubble/GPB/whatever in roughly equal proportion to you.
They also paid for it in investment of time and effort. Which, I think it's safe to say, you did not.
So why shouldn't they get the data for a year before you do?
Those scientists paid just as much for their toy as you did. And they spent years of their life working on it.
You didn't. So get off your taxpayer high-horse and let them get on with the job they enjoy. They did the work to get this thing launched, they pay their taxes, let them get first crack at the data.
Then, once they've published their papers, the data can be openly released.
Slashdot Mirror
IATSE (the union for theater and screen technical employees - stagehands, lighting, sound, etc.) is a great union to work for. As a stringer working with them, I was getting $14.65/hr for quasi-unskilled labor (stagehand) with 4 hour minimum callouts, at age 18. On the rare calls when I'd work over 8, I got overtime, always. I was treated well, got as much work as I could handle, and generally had no complaints. My paycheck after union dues was still better than what I would have made doing the same work at non-union shops.
Unions aren't all bad.
Better the companies than their employees.
If you make less than 23,660, the rules guarantee that you WILL get overtime, to my understanding.
They also guarantee overtime to practical nurses, police, and firefighters.
No, your salaried hourly rate is determined as follows:
Weekly salary/scheduled workweek
For instance, I have a 40 hour scheduled workweek. Some weeks I work 35. Some 45. Rarely 30 or 50. But my hourly rate never changes.
Unfortunately (on those 50 hour weeks) neither does my paycheck.
Union shops are *always* union-only. The reason they maintain that is because if they allow non-union people to work there, then management will just hire non-union people to bust the union. As a result, union shops make sure that employees are union members. By extension, union members often try to support union businesses, because the more successful unionized companies are, the more likely it is that their union will remain strong. It isn't primitive. It's supporting companies with business practices of which you approve.
Unions are still necessary because minimum wage, OSHA, work week laws... are minimal. If you want to do better than the bare minimum, and most people do (or did you want to try to support yourself on your 40 hour per week minimum wage $10,700 per year job?) then a union is a very useful bargaining tool.
Most unions aren't the Teamsters or the UAW. Some unions abuse their positions, and those two are tops on that list. But there are other unions that operate quietly, protect their employees interests, and generally improve their employees lives.
You can comply with the GPL requirements by distributing the source when you distribute the binary to your customers. There is no GPL requirement for public distribution of source if the binary is not publicly distributed; however, you're enjoined from preventing a customer from redistributing publicly.
"Advanced degrees" *usually* means graduate study.
The point I am making is that if the scientists in charge are going to selectively edit, what makes you think they can't do it 'in transit' before you see your 'realtime' data?
The entire raw data set will be released. Scientists are a fractious bunch devoted to infighting; the kind of collusion you're alluding to is pretty much impossible in modern scientific research projects. Because as invested as a PI might be into a theory, even to the point of altering data... there's always a hungry grad student who thinks "Hey, the person who *disproves* this theory will never want for an academic job again" and reveals the alteration.
I would actually be happier if the iPod was polycarbonate all the way around; the chrome gets fingerprints and scratches that show, whereas they don't show on the white plastic. That said, the iPod doesn't mix the white and the chrome on the same face of the player, so most of the time you see one or the other.
But really, I like the iPod for not having any projections, for not having moving parts (on my generation at least), for having a user interface that matches how I think about music libraries, for fitting comfortably in a front pants pocket, and most of all for having an extremely clean, simple design. I use it with a PC, so iTunes was never the draw (although I wound up moving to itunes when they released the PC version just because its a little bit better integration).
Their reasoning is bunk. It's not my responsibility to maintain the meters; its the city's. Under Seattle's scheme, as the city fails to live up to its responsibility, people have less and less parking. Under my scheme, people have equal or greater parking. If someone is breaking a meter to get free parking, then they can, should, and will be prosecuted for it. (I actually watched someone get arrested for this). To outlaw parking at broken meters as a result is a bankrupt way to reason.
Ann Arbor and Chicago both work the way I described; Seattle is obviously just populated by silly people.
It's the little-known "dead clock" technique.
As little as is meaningless - the upper bound has meaning. He *could* guess a valid number first try, after all.
He raised about $33,000 in around 10 days, from the linked page.
That compares pretty favorably with small public radio stations, non-profit golf outings, and many other forms of public fundraising.
Use Linux, sure, but only if I can kill all the frothing Linux zealots.
GPRS, not wifi.
So... bring your cellular base station with you and it shouldn't be too hard?
There is no GPL requirement to publicly post source code *if* the source code is included with the distribution of the object code. They also can't restrict anyone buying one of their meters from redistributing it.
But they are not required to distribute source to anyone other than those whom they distribute object code to.
Now, since much of the value of their system is in their userland parking applications and their hardware, neither of which are required to be GPLed, it'd behoove them to release any kernel/toolchain mods they might have made to all and sundry, but they are only *required* to release it to those who have the object code.
So, if you really want to build a better, competitive parking meter... buy one of theirs, and redistribute it yourself. The GPL allows that.
Is there a reason why a parking meter application wouldn't be userland, not tightly linked to anything GPL, and therefore have no requirement to be GPLed?
In every city I've lived in, if a meter isn't working and you are parked there, if you get ticketed you can successfully fight the ticket if they have a city record that the meter wasn't working.
So, your best bet is to park, then check the number on the meter and call to tell them its broken. Free parking, and if they ticket you, they have a record that it was in fact not working at the time your ticket was given.
Hell, let them see 50s design. The mono-color Bakelite shelled radios from that period have charm too.
Just drill it into their head that ornamentation is the devil when it comes to design, and that the simpler, generally the better.
Nonetheless, the iRiver player is kinda ugly.
I'm sorry that your sense of 'good design' requires black and chrome, but the nicest part of the iPod's design is the fact that it's so simple. Over-ornamentation is the worst crime in design, and Apple has done a good job of avoiding it.
Really, this is the war between case modders ("Must... have... shiny multi color metal case with black rubber bumpers and many colors of LEDs inside and a window in the side and UV-flourescing cables and custom shaped fan grills and and and...") and Apple's designs (seamless metal or polycarbonate shell, single logo on the outside - maybe, and minimal ports/openings/buttons).
If you think iRiver's player looks cool, that's fine. But design has been moving steadily away from over-ornamentation for the last 400-500 years for a reason.
MP3 is an open format. It is not a free format. Yes, that is possible.
It's not free as in beer, but it is an openly available standard with compulsory, non-discriminatory licensing. No one (not Fraunhoefer, not anyone) can unilaterally change the MP3 standard. Anyone can write an encoder, and after the patents cease to apply (looks like the last of them will run out in the 2010-2015 time frame) anyone can write and freely distribute a codec.
Open != GPL. In fact, open != free.
If a corporation hired the scientists, they would have a right to dictate, just as the public should have some right.
I invite you to think, though: what scientist would be willing to work under the "everyone gets to see my data at the same time as I do" plan you propose? Like it or not, part of their paycheck is that initial exclusive access. I know people who do NASA-sponsored research; their payoff is the ability to publish, far more than the money. If the data is released openly, their ability to publish is harmed significantly, and for most of these people, you couldn't pay them enough money to make up for that.
The data will be released in a year. How is the public harmed by this delay?
They got paid, but most of them do it because they genuinely love to do the research. You don't get a Ph.D. in astrophysics in order to make loads of cash, you do it because you're interested in the subject.
The public will get less benefit if the data is immediately publicly released than if there is a limited-time embargo to allow the experimenters first access. This is because without that limited embargo, scientists are less likely to be willing to dedicate long periods of time to the experimental setup, knowing full well that some other scientist who hasn't done that work could get equal data access and 'scoop' them.
The reality is, in academic circles first publication is vital. Without priority access to the data, these scientists might lose first publication, which would eliminate much of the reason they do the preliminary work in the first place.
The public has a right to the data, but their right to the data is balanced against the need to provide an incentive to the scientist to act. The proper balance is a limited time exclusive right to the data, followed by open public release.
Why?
What the hell is the problem with letting them have the data embargoed for a year?
I'm not saying the raw data should never be released, but these people put a lot of time and effort into getting these projects to work. The real payoff, for most of these scientists, is the chance to make a new discovery. If they aren't given limited-time exclusive access, their incentive to do the initial work is much reduced.
Maybe before people suggest 'I wanna see the pretty pictures NOW' they think about the fact that, while you may just be interested, this is these people's lives?
I think he was referring to the irritated reader.
I refuse to do any work on someone else's behalf, but I read at 0, so what do I care about someone's karma bonus? The irritated AC, however, could do exactly that - turn off karma bonuses.
Not my problem, either way.
Just because it is standard procedure doesn't make it right. When I wrote out my check for taxes this last week, some of that money goes to fund NASA. The public funds NASA in its entirety. So, they should have access to the data at the same time as anyone else, IMNSHO.
The scientists are also taxpayers.
They paid for the Hubble/GPB/whatever in roughly equal proportion to you.
They also paid for it in investment of time and effort. Which, I think it's safe to say, you did not.
So why shouldn't they get the data for a year before you do?
Those scientists paid just as much for their toy as you did. And they spent years of their life working on it.
You didn't. So get off your taxpayer high-horse and let them get on with the job they enjoy. They did the work to get this thing launched, they pay their taxes, let them get first crack at the data.
Then, once they've published their papers, the data can be openly released.