Companies are willing to hire programmers without degrees for a combination of two reasons: (1) they can be just as good, if not better than, a software engineer (in some cases); and (2) they work cheaply.
I know many programmers that, despite having no 'formal' training, can run rings around the Software Engineers I know. IMO, formal training often reduces the ability to think creatively -- once you are taught "the right way", it's hard to break new ground.
All of that said, I do agree that companies hire people without checking thier abilities. When I interview a potential candidate, I ask them to design code for a small, arbitrary problem. If the design is solid and the code functions smoothly, it goes a long way.
It seems to me that these techniques, while sound, are one of two things -- either simply common sense, or needless rules.
The problem with too much structure in a process is this: either you are making rules for things that are done intuitively, or you are confining the creative process. I have used a lot of free and open-source software, and I would guess that 80% of projects that are in the 'stable beta' stage are of higher quality that the average commercial application.
If the subscription fee were being payed into a general fund that is payed directly to the artists whose music is being
downloaded?
...
If so much as a penny of the subscription fee goes into the coffers of the RIAA/metallica?
(emphasis mine): So, am I to understand you'll pay for music you download, as long as you don't have to pay for Metallica songs you download?
Metallica may naive in going after Napster, but they at least have a more legitimate claim - they actually made the music that has their copyright on it.
Wow, you worked with Cold Fusion while you were at the DoE? I knew the government was covering up efficient engergy production so that they could starve the public into submission!
[for the humor-impaired: I'm joking, I know Cold Fusion is an application]
What will you do when Napster/Gnutella becomes a trading ground for those who decide the GPL is obsolete and distribute programs that purposely violate it? You'll go ape shit and you know it.
Though I doubt such a circumstance is likely to occur, I doubt even more that the OpenSource community would respond with legal action against the provider.
Legal action against certain high-profile individuals actually violating the GPL may be warranted, and might be persued. However, if it was a large problem, a boycott of the involved service would probably be the course of action chosen.
Which leads to an interesting aside: if the RIAA had not filed a lawsuit against anyone for Napster-related things, and instead had sent a polite letter to larger orgs like the Universites saying "We believe that Napster and similar services create a danger to the copyrights we hold to various musical works. We would like ta ask your support in boycotting this service until such time as Napster et al make reasonable effort to help us police copyright violations on thier service." if they would have had some success...
I suspect that, if Napster is shut down because it has no substantial non-infringing use - as Judge Patel has ruled - the
universities will have a much tougher time justifying their stand.
If Napster is shut down, the Universities won't have to justify thier stand -- no sense in blocking something that no longer exists!:P
Simply put, time spent using non-company resources is your "free time." For instance, if you go home and use a PC that you own to do anything, you own that work (unless the company has a claim to it otherwise [i.e. copyright, it started as a work project, etc]).
Also, depending on the terms of your employment, there are "work hours" for which you get paid (even on salary). If you do non-work-related things outside of "work hours", that would be free time.
Although I bet that some employers would see it differently.
I too prefer PC gaming to console gaming -- but I do make one exception. For large, time-consuming RPG's (ala anything Squaresoft), consoles allow me to:
Sit on the couch for hours, instead of a chair
Use the single surround sound system I have (I can't afford two decent ones)
Take a memory card (nice n' small) to a friend's dwelling and play there as well.
There are "solutions" to these, but most of them are quite pricey, so I'd rather just have the console. Besides, I hate waiting for PC ports of console games to arrive!
Aside from those advantages for RPG's, I must point out that multiplayer with people I know is easier -- I know several people who don't own toasty-enough boxen to play most modern games, and who wouldn't want to lug it around if they did! For this, an N64 is schweet!
I think OSX is what sold me (and will a lot of other people) on UNIX as a consumer OS.
Well, I know Apple hasn't exactly hidden the UNIX origins of thier new OS, but they also haven't made a secret of building a lot more on top of it. I guess I'm skeptical that OS-X will convince people that UNIX is consumer-ready.
In fact, I predict the opposite - the corporate world will, IMHO, see the OS-X story as "well, UNIX seems to be a good foundation, but look how much work Apple had to do to make it useful." Now, I'm not saying that's an accurate conclusion, but it does seem a likely one.
Besides, I would wager the majority of (non-geek) computer users, at least outside the Mac Users' domain, probably couldn't care less about OS-X. And I'd wager that most of the folks who care about OS-X as end-users don't care that it is based on a UNIX-like OS: they just want thier Mac to run. The credit for the stability of OS-X will go to Apple, not to BSD, for the most part (even if that is inaccurate).
At the risk of being marked Troll or Flamebait (despite my intentions), I do have to point out something. I don't like what RAMBUS is doing, but the fact that so many companies are reaching settlements seems to indicate that they have some reasonably strong legal footing for these suits.
That being said, the comment "beat 'em in the courtroom, not in the market" is uncalled for. These laws are often abused, but they do have a valid purpose -- if someone makes money froms something you invent, you deserve to get a piece of the action. The patent laws are designed to ensure this.
I don't know all the details of RAMBUS' claim, but if they were granted a reasonable and valid patent, then a whole lot of very smart lawyers are settling for a reason: RAMBUS just might be in the right here.
Most laws aren't really fleshed out until there's a legal precedent, and Kaplan couldn't
have reached his decision in this civil case without the existence of the DMCA.
If nongovernment organisations are forced to restrict third-party expression because it's illegal for them to do otherwise (as with the DMCA), it's censorship - legislative government censorship.
I would agree, if it weren't that this is not a response to a law (directly, bear with me) as much as it is a response to an organization -- in this case the MPAA -- abusing that law. Even if fear of lawsuit was the reason, as I suspect (remember, we don't know that for certain), it isn't because the drafters of the DMCA intended to restrict artistic expression. That may be the result because a private organization (i.e. not the gov't) is abusing the letter of the law, but it is not censorship in the political sense.
Actually, the problem isn't the free market economy; it's government manipulation.
My apologies if my comment sounded anti-Free Market, that's quite the opposite of my position. However, there is no perfect system. In the Free Market economy (at least in theory), there are few rules that govern how companies can turn profit. Past the realm of consumer protection, and in the US, environmental protection, the government is supposed to have very little control. However, a drawback of this is that instead of government controlling business, business controls the government.
actually, MP3.com is a public company. (see ticker 'MPPP')
This used to confuse the hell out of me, so I'll explain it - MP3.com is a publicly held company, meaning anyone can own stock. It is a private organization, meaning that it is not funded by public money (i.e. government subsidy), but by private individuals and organizations.
While I tend to agree with the basic premise herein (namely, business has too much power in the US), I find this article unusually vapid.
In a society where everyone is happy as long as they are doing better than the neighbors, it should come as no suprise that individuals are nervous about any successful organization. Hate to break it to all of them, but the treasured Free Market economy does have this exact drawback -- companies will gain power. The most important point Katz mentioned is that the abuse of this power is dangerous.
However, the flip side of this is a simple question: would you rather have the government regulate business, or have powerful businesses? I would hope that most answers would fall in between -- we need sensible rules: most importantly, I think that profitable organizations need to be kept out of government, and then vice-versa will be sane.
I won't cry 'censorship' -- that's not what this is. MP3.com is a private organization, and can make whatever rules they wish within the bracket of established law.
That said, I am a bit disappointed to see this kind of subjective judgement used when deciding what to host or not. I'd rather they said "Damn, we don't want to get sued over this." Then we could call them paranoid and get on with our lives.:)
I guess this is what frivolous lawsuits bring about -- we don't need censorship, because companies will censor themselves out of fear of legislation.
There are applications out there (i.e. GnomeCard) that could easily be adapted to this purpose. Think about it: Catalogue cards are basically "book business cards" -- they tell you how to get a hold of a particular book. So why not adapt a contact manager to this purpose? It surely would be easy.
Please don't take this as flame -- I remember all too well being a 16-18 range hacker, and I agree it isn't easy. Hell, I'm 20 and I still get that kind of flak.
That said, you need to calm down and take a deep breath, my friend. It's exactly that kind of paranoid and angry reaction that gets your age group stereotyped. And the point I was making had everything to do with the age -- people have this sterotype of "malicious coders" as being 15-year-old kids without "proper supervision." I've even seen security ads pitching this point of view.
The fact is, the young script-kiddie (yes, I do mean sub-18) is a reality, but the point you missed is that I say "though a minority." You even quoted that bit.:P
My advice to you is not to get offended so easily, it's that kind of response that will get you in trouble. A 30-year-old who gets upset at stereotypes will be taken much more seriously than a 16-year-old: it sucks, but it's a fact of life. Try and use some of that obvious intelligence for education, not defence.
I'm glad to see that 2600 et al are not terribly shocked at the bias they recieved. Society does have a tendency to fear -- and thus discriminate against -- "hackers" or anyone with a reasonable amount of technical knowledge. Why? People fear what they don't understand -- and even mor, they fear people who do understand what they cannot.
This is especially the case in the computing world, since the Information Age is rapidly progressing and computers are becoming a greater part of our life on a daily basis. The hope that such a bias would not find its way into a courtroom, where sits an elected judge, is naive at best and very likely dangerous.
The important thing is that the script-kiddies and 15-year-old "cracker/hacker" stereotypes do exist -- the unfortunate part is that, though a minority, they have a loud voice. Why? Because we limit our distaste for them, and our education about what tech folk are really like to forums like Slashdot. Not that Slashdot is not a wonderful forum for such discussions, but it must be taken to the world.
The linked 2600 Mag article made an interesting comment (I paraphrase): "The Internet allows you to become the media, with the whole world as your audience." (again, that's a paraphrase)
What I would like to see, and would in fact be willing to help build and support, is an organization dedicated to educating the public and the mass media of what being tech-savvy is really about -- not destroying systems, but learning about them (even if that means sometimes breaking apart encryption ala DeCSS).
Please feel free to contact me at my e-mail (remove the whitespace) above if you are interested in helping to organize something like this, or reply if something like it exists!
Such as WinNT for "mission critical appliacations"?
I didn't say I would deploy NT for anything mission-critical, just that NT is probably the current "OS of choice" in the industry.
However, it is hard to find (and keep, unless you have lots of cash) good Linux people, so I can understand why many companies are still choosing NT in mission critical situations -- Linux has less 3rd party support than they would like to see, while MSCE's and MS-based consulting firms are plentiful.
I think that the main point that can be gleaned from this survey is that many, many ISP's choose Linux as thier hosting OS. This makes sense because of low TCO (especially since ISP sysadmins usually have UNIX experience), and very short bugfix release timeframes.
However, a survey like this cannot answer the question that PHB's and corporate Sysadmins everywhere want answered: What are successful companies using for mission-critical appliacations?
At the moment, I don't think anyone can answer that directly, but I would like to see tech magazines survey businesses to see what they are using, and in what capacity. I would suspect that, at least for now, MS has the lead in medium-to-large corporations for mission-critical applications -- but the fact remains there is no data to back this up.
#disclaimer -- I don't like MS, but I believe in every OS having a place.
There is an AC post which explains it, but I lack moderator points at the moment...
205.540 is read in Europe like 205,504 would be read here. The '.' is a clarity-delimiter separating thousands, millions, etc. while the ',' is a radix. (Decimal point in base10, for those not familiar with multiple-base math).
Hope that helps... and hope someone mods that AC up -- [s]he was first...
Why is this such a foreign concept? Why are so many/.-ers looking for an ulterior motive? It's right there, in front of your faces.
I think you misunderstood my original post -- I know that MS is in business to make money: that's why this seems a little wierd. If these rumors are in fact true, then I question MS' logic in moving to support a strongly competing platform. A move like this would seem to suggest that MS has given up hope of Windows maintaining market share: something that I strongly doubt is really happening.
I don't suggest ulterior motives, I just worry that this will not be a good thing for us all in the end...
Slashdot Mirror
Companies are willing to hire programmers without degrees for a combination of two reasons: (1) they can be just as good, if not better than, a software engineer (in some cases); and (2) they work cheaply.
I know many programmers that, despite having no 'formal' training, can run rings around the Software Engineers I know. IMO, formal training often reduces the ability to think creatively -- once you are taught "the right way", it's hard to break new ground.
All of that said, I do agree that companies hire people without checking thier abilities. When I interview a potential candidate, I ask them to design code for a small, arbitrary problem. If the design is solid and the code functions smoothly, it goes a long way.
--
It seems to me that these techniques, while sound, are one of two things -- either simply common sense, or needless rules.
The problem with too much structure in a process is this: either you are making rules for things that are done intuitively, or you are confining the creative process. I have used a lot of free and open-source software, and I would guess that 80% of projects that are in the 'stable beta' stage are of higher quality that the average commercial application.
YMMV, of course.
--
Metallica may naive in going after Napster, but they at least have a more legitimate claim - they actually made the music that has their copyright on it.
--
[for the humor-impaired: I'm joking, I know Cold Fusion is an application]
--
According to the FAQ on that site, it is pronounced "corrosion" - so chosen because the site owner/editor is "rusty". Kinda inventive, actually.
--
Though I doubt such a circumstance is likely to occur, I doubt even more that the OpenSource community would respond with legal action against the provider.
Legal action against certain high-profile individuals actually violating the GPL may be warranted, and might be persued. However, if it was a large problem, a boycott of the involved service would probably be the course of action chosen.
Which leads to an interesting aside: if the RIAA had not filed a lawsuit against anyone for Napster-related things, and instead had sent a polite letter to larger orgs like the Universites saying "We believe that Napster and similar services create a danger to the copyrights we hold to various musical works. We would like ta ask your support in boycotting this service until such time as Napster et al make reasonable effort to help us police copyright violations on thier service." if they would have had some success...
--
If Napster is shut down, the Universities won't have to justify thier stand -- no sense in blocking something that no longer exists! :P
--
Simply put, time spent using non-company resources is your "free time." For instance, if you go home and use a PC that you own to do anything, you own that work (unless the company has a claim to it otherwise [i.e. copyright, it started as a work project, etc]).
Also, depending on the terms of your employment, there are "work hours" for which you get paid (even on salary). If you do non-work-related things outside of "work hours", that would be free time.
Although I bet that some employers would see it differently.
--
- Sit on the couch for hours, instead of a chair
- Use the single surround sound system I have (I can't afford two decent ones)
- Take a memory card (nice n' small) to a friend's dwelling and play there as well.
There are "solutions" to these, but most of them are quite pricey, so I'd rather just have the console. Besides, I hate waiting for PC ports of console games to arrive!Aside from those advantages for RPG's, I must point out that multiplayer with people I know is easier -- I know several people who don't own toasty-enough boxen to play most modern games, and who wouldn't want to lug it around if they did! For this, an N64 is schweet!
--
Well, I know Apple hasn't exactly hidden the UNIX origins of thier new OS, but they also haven't made a secret of building a lot more on top of it. I guess I'm skeptical that OS-X will convince people that UNIX is consumer-ready.
In fact, I predict the opposite - the corporate world will, IMHO, see the OS-X story as "well, UNIX seems to be a good foundation, but look how much work Apple had to do to make it useful." Now, I'm not saying that's an accurate conclusion, but it does seem a likely one.
Besides, I would wager the majority of (non-geek) computer users, at least outside the Mac Users' domain, probably couldn't care less about OS-X. And I'd wager that most of the folks who care about OS-X as end-users don't care that it is based on a UNIX-like OS: they just want thier Mac to run. The credit for the stability of OS-X will go to Apple, not to BSD, for the most part (even if that is inaccurate).
--
That being said, the comment "beat 'em in the courtroom, not in the market" is uncalled for. These laws are often abused, but they do have a valid purpose -- if someone makes money froms something you invent, you deserve to get a piece of the action. The patent laws are designed to ensure this.
I don't know all the details of RAMBUS' claim, but if they were granted a reasonable and valid patent, then a whole lot of very smart lawyers are settling for a reason: RAMBUS just might be in the right here.
--
Most laws aren't really fleshed out until there's a legal precedent, and Kaplan couldn't have reached his decision in this civil case without the existence of the DMCA.
Excellent point. And precicely why I hate legislation like that. I suggest writing your representative or senator about it as I have.
--
If nongovernment organisations are forced to restrict third-party expression because it's illegal for them to do otherwise (as with the DMCA), it's censorship - legislative government censorship.
I would agree, if it weren't that this is not a response to a law (directly, bear with me) as much as it is a response to an organization -- in this case the MPAA -- abusing that law. Even if fear of lawsuit was the reason, as I suspect (remember, we don't know that for certain), it isn't because the drafters of the DMCA intended to restrict artistic expression. That may be the result because a private organization (i.e. not the gov't) is abusing the letter of the law, but it is not censorship in the political sense.
--
My apologies if my comment sounded anti-Free Market, that's quite the opposite of my position. However, there is no perfect system. In the Free Market economy (at least in theory), there are few rules that govern how companies can turn profit. Past the realm of consumer protection, and in the US, environmental protection, the government is supposed to have very little control. However, a drawback of this is that instead of government controlling business, business controls the government.
--
This used to confuse the hell out of me, so I'll explain it - MP3.com is a publicly held company, meaning anyone can own stock. It is a private organization, meaning that it is not funded by public money (i.e. government subsidy), but by private individuals and organizations.
--
In a society where everyone is happy as long as they are doing better than the neighbors, it should come as no suprise that individuals are nervous about any successful organization. Hate to break it to all of them, but the treasured Free Market economy does have this exact drawback -- companies will gain power. The most important point Katz mentioned is that the abuse of this power is dangerous.
However, the flip side of this is a simple question: would you rather have the government regulate business, or have powerful businesses? I would hope that most answers would fall in between -- we need sensible rules: most importantly, I think that profitable organizations need to be kept out of government, and then vice-versa will be sane.
--
That said, I am a bit disappointed to see this kind of subjective judgement used when deciding what to host or not. I'd rather they said "Damn, we don't want to get sued over this." Then we could call them paranoid and get on with our lives. :)
I guess this is what frivolous lawsuits bring about -- we don't need censorship, because companies will censor themselves out of fear of legislation.
--
So use another translator site, like translator.go.com instead!
--
There are applications out there (i.e. GnomeCard) that could easily be adapted to this purpose. Think about it: Catalogue cards are basically "book business cards" -- they tell you how to get a hold of a particular book. So why not adapt a contact manager to this purpose? It surely would be easy.
--
That said, you need to calm down and take a deep breath, my friend. It's exactly that kind of paranoid and angry reaction that gets your age group stereotyped. And the point I was making had everything to do with the age -- people have this sterotype of "malicious coders" as being 15-year-old kids without "proper supervision." I've even seen security ads pitching this point of view.
The fact is, the young script-kiddie (yes, I do mean sub-18) is a reality, but the point you missed is that I say "though a minority." You even quoted that bit. :P
My advice to you is not to get offended so easily, it's that kind of response that will get you in trouble. A 30-year-old who gets upset at stereotypes will be taken much more seriously than a 16-year-old: it sucks, but it's a fact of life. Try and use some of that obvious intelligence for education, not defence.
--
This is especially the case in the computing world, since the Information Age is rapidly progressing and computers are becoming a greater part of our life on a daily basis. The hope that such a bias would not find its way into a courtroom, where sits an elected judge, is naive at best and very likely dangerous.
The important thing is that the script-kiddies and 15-year-old "cracker/hacker" stereotypes do exist -- the unfortunate part is that, though a minority, they have a loud voice. Why? Because we limit our distaste for them, and our education about what tech folk are really like to forums like Slashdot. Not that Slashdot is not a wonderful forum for such discussions, but it must be taken to the world.
The linked 2600 Mag article made an interesting comment (I paraphrase): "The Internet allows you to become the media, with the whole world as your audience." (again, that's a paraphrase)
What I would like to see, and would in fact be willing to help build and support, is an organization dedicated to educating the public and the mass media of what being tech-savvy is really about -- not destroying systems, but learning about them (even if that means sometimes breaking apart encryption ala DeCSS).
Please feel free to contact me at my e-mail (remove the whitespace) above if you are interested in helping to organize something like this, or reply if something like it exists!
--
I didn't say I would deploy NT for anything mission-critical, just that NT is probably the current "OS of choice" in the industry.
However, it is hard to find (and keep, unless you have lots of cash) good Linux people, so I can understand why many companies are still choosing NT in mission critical situations -- Linux has less 3rd party support than they would like to see, while MSCE's and MS-based consulting firms are plentiful.
--
However, a survey like this cannot answer the question that PHB's and corporate Sysadmins everywhere want answered: What are successful companies using for mission-critical appliacations?
At the moment, I don't think anyone can answer that directly, but I would like to see tech magazines survey businesses to see what they are using, and in what capacity. I would suspect that, at least for now, MS has the lead in medium-to-large corporations for mission-critical applications -- but the fact remains there is no data to back this up.
#disclaimer -- I don't like MS, but I believe in every OS having a place.
--
There is an AC post which explains it, but I lack moderator points at the moment... 205.540 is read in Europe like 205,504 would be read here. The '.' is a clarity-delimiter separating thousands, millions, etc. while the ',' is a radix. (Decimal point in base10, for those not familiar with multiple-base math). Hope that helps... and hope someone mods that AC up -- [s]he was first...
--
Why is this such a foreign concept? Why are so many /.-ers looking for an ulterior motive? It's right there, in front of your faces.
I think you misunderstood my original post -- I know that MS is in business to make money: that's why this seems a little wierd. If these rumors are in fact true, then I question MS' logic in moving to support a strongly competing platform. A move like this would seem to suggest that MS has given up hope of Windows maintaining market share: something that I strongly doubt is really happening.
I don't suggest ulterior motives, I just worry that this will not be a good thing for us all in the end...
--