For example, consider the typical LAMP server (linux + apache + mysql + php) that hosts a web application. What does it need to protect ? It needs to protect the database with all the user data, the publicly accessible html documents and php scripts and possibly the log files.
You may also argue that it needs to protect the overall system from compromises involving using the system as a zombie or irc server etc. but in that situation a well managed server could simply have the software reinstalled. If the admins are competent and have access to spare servers they could configure the replacement machine and do a swap without incurring any downtime at all.
In this situation SE Linux might just be total overkill. The extra paranoid could have the publicly accessible html docs + php scripts on a read-only partition. This is a production environment we're talking about so the need to upload new documents will only be when upgrading software versions. If the web application allows users to upload data then that will need to be handled separately. A cron job could change file permissions on newly updated documents so apache no longer has write access. The log files can be moved to a separate location once per day when they're rotated where apache (or any other services) don't have access to them. MySQL can run chrooted, only bind to 127.0.0.1 and the database files can only have read/write access from the mysql user. Daily, or even hourly, backups of the database to read-only media can be implemented. This is on top of running an intrusion detection system, installing security updates asap, and doing all of your other post-install locking down before the network cable is even plugged in to the machine (setting up your ssh keys, firewalls, uninstalling unnecessary software - including compilers - and obviously unused daemons and anything else the paranoid admin does before the machine goes live etc.)
We're already talking about way more security than most LAMP based servers out there.
I agree that the setup could still benefit from SE Linux, particularly for the database since it's still the weakest link and one of the areas in the most need of protection. MySQL needs to read/write to the database on a regular basis and so you need to allow write access to the data files, trust your software, trust your mysql binaries (all binary files and static config files can be on read-only partitions) and nothing is preventing a root process from changing the file permissions or corrupting the data. However, for most people this setup would be more than adequate and SE Linux would be total overkill.
My wife and I take a slightly different approach with our children.
We teach our kids that words are tools. We don't tell them not to "cuss" around other adults. Instead, they have been taught that some people are offended by language and to be selective. Also that, more importantly, intention and message is equally as important as word selection. Every once in a while our children swear around us and whether or not they are punished is not based on their choice of language but on their intended message and effect. For example, I can recall one instance where my 7 year-old daughter called my 5 year-old daughter a bitch. She was punished, but we made it very clear to her that the reason she was punished was for deliberately insulting someone and hurting their feelings. Not because she swore. After her punishment was over we had a talk about how she could have resolved the matter without insulting the other person.
I would like to say that I rarely swear around adults, but that is not true. It is quite easy to be selective about your choice of words based on your company. I have drinking buddies with whom I swear with all the time, and yes I would agree that while I do that I come across as a completely uneducated baboon who is unable to control his language. On the other hand, when I sit down for supper with my in-laws I find it very easy to select different words. There is no reason to put general rules around choice of words. It's the process of understanding your audience, your intended message and how best to deliver it given those two criteria.
We both agree that words are simply tools. I think that we also both agree that when in doubt etiquette would dictate that you don't chose offensive language around strange company (unless your goal is to come across as offensive). However, there are certain adults around whom I would have no problems with my children swearing. I also do not have a problem with my children swearing around my wife or I so long as they're not intentionally trying to offend. Which, admittedly, makes it a very rare occasion when they swear around us since it's hard to be respectful of an authority figure while you're swearing around them. However, for example, if we're playing a video game and the odd "shit" comes out when they lose there's no harm done.
The trick is teaching is the child proper social skills and diplomacy. To be selective about their choice of words based on intended message, target audience and desired response.
I share your pet peeve and using that very same logic I was able to get my wife to see things our way and I had won. It was a victory not just for myself but for man kind.
Then we had kids and they are very groggy when they get up in the middle of the night and would sometimes sit in the bowl and get themselves completely drenched with toilet water. So we're back at leaving it down:(
But she hasn't heard the last from me. As soon as they're old enough to be given personal responsibility for keeping their asses dry...
Society pretends otherwise but woman also often have polygamy desires like men, they just exhibit them differently and more selectively. I wonder how many families would be broken up if everyone's children were suddenly forced to do paternity testing. Men, whether you're the pool guy or the rich guy, just make sure you know the score and are getting what you need out of the situation you're in. OTOH if you're happily hooked up with a decent woman, all the better.
Or you can really luck out find yourself in a relationship where both partners are emotionally mature and open minded enough to realize and accept that both will have polygamous urges and work to together to find ways to satisfy each other's needs without being insecure little babies who end the relationship at the first sign of infidelity.
Despite what Apple charges for a set of its replacement buds, the earphones that come with 90 percent of the digital media players on the market are throw-away items--they're only in the box so you'll have something to listen to when you bring the player home.
I'm a musician. I've recorded and released an album (sorry for the shameless plug but it's only to put my post in context - honest). I own expensive studio earphones, have experience mixing and mastering etc.
I don't own a 5th generation iPod but I do own an iPod Shuffle that has since stopped playing MP3s. It still works as a storage device and I still have the headphones. I kept on to the headphones because I prefer them over all other ear buds I have. They don't beat the studio headphones, but I would not consider them "throw aways". I found they're pretty good quality and I began using them with all of my portable devices. I would generally agree that most ear buds that come with cd players and probably many other mp3 players are of relatively low quality, but I was very impressed with the ones that came with the iPod Shuffle. I will never throw them away.
But as I said in point #1, at least they are taking steps even if it is too late.
For all the times I hit the preview button I didn't catch that one. I meant to word it as "even if it is a little late". It is never TOO late to step up security.
While I do agree that software manufacturers, as well as the manufacturers of any product, have a responsibility to their customers to correct problems with the products that they sold them, I would like to play devil's advocate a little and come to their defense on certain issues.
1) While it might be a little late, Microsoft really has stepped up their security practices. Automatic updates, all of the improvements in XP Service Pack 2 including the firewall, security center etc. Can things be better ? Of course. There's always room for improvement. Should Microsoft have acted sooner ? Probably, but they have smartened up and gone to great lengths to secure Windows. Also, keep in mind that while they've taken action to prevent newer features and software from being installed on "pirated" copies of Windows, they have not disabled security updates. So say whatever you want about their motives, they clearly decided that securing people's machines was in everyone's best interests and didn't follow through with their bully tactics to try and get people to pay money to secure their systems.
2) Windows was conceived, designed and implemented when the Internet was in it's infancy. That doesn't really excuse XP, but you should cut them at least some slack for 95/98/ME. Windows' purpose was to make computing easy for individual users. Networking and all of the security concerns that come with it were an afterthought. Though by the time XP was released there definitely should have been more of an emphasis on security IMO. I can't really excuse them for that one. But as I said in point #1, at least they are taking steps even if it is too late.
3) This one is getting really old but it's still a point that I feel needs to be taken into consideration. Windows has the market share and while I would agree with any argument to the fact that *nix is more secure by design, that doesn't mean that if everyone were running Mac or *nix that botnets would simply not exist. That would be a specious argument as no one can claim it with complete certainty. There's no doubt that virus writers would have to be smarter. There may be way less security issues. But so long as there is profit involved in compromising systems and turning them into zombies there will be people who find ways. I'm willing to argue that there will always be clueless users who will opt not to install security updates out of laziness and/or ignorance. In other words, the argument we've all heard countless times before: Microsoft gets a lot of attention because that's where the profit is. If you're going to compromise systems for profit would it make sense to target 10% of the desktop population or 90% (those numbers are purely figurative and pulled out of thin air but the point is clear I hope) ?
Specializing in one specific thing can be a very good career choice these days, though.
There are so many "generic" programmers and it's more and more common for companies to outsource. If you can find some specific niche that's in high demand and fill it then you'll have a much easier time finding work and you'll probably be paid more too.
But you do bring up a very good point, specialized fields are at the risk of going out the door. So the real trick is find something that's specialized but that has various applications, and always maintain interest in other related IT fields. You don't have to get too specific either, you can specialize in RDBMS systems, for example, without focusing entirely on one particular product like Oracle.
Yeah. While I've never set up a WiFi connection (haven't really had the need to yet since there's only two PC's in my house so running a bit of ethernet cable isn't that big of a deal and no one in the house owns a laptop yet), it's my understanding that you can password protect them fairly easily. If shops want to impose the "bathroom is only for paying customers" concept on their WiFi they could just set a new password each day at opening and tape it to the wall in the store or put it on the chalkboard next to the menu etc.
It wouldn't prevent people from coming in and grabbing the password and then sitting outside in their cars, but at least it would require people to actually enter the store and it would prevent random people outside picking up the connection in their cars.
I realize that was intended as a joke, and I am not an evolutionary biologist, but wouldn't this type of reproduction completely eliminate the possibility for evolution ?
I don't mean to imply that this is evidence contradicting the occurrence of evolution, just that if animals were to reproduce asexually, and thus essentially be clones of their parent, then evolution is not possible for that particular species ?
Sure, but that would have absolutely nothing to do with the school. The teacher him/her self would have to pursue legal action against the child(ren) who were involved.
From my limited understanding (I didn't read TFA), the school suspended him for 40 days for in-class misconduct and he's the one pursuing legal action against the school to get the suspension lifted, or at least reduced.
FWIW, IMO 40 days is ridiculously excessive unless the kid has a long history full of lesser suspensions for related incidents.
If the virus were to target a specific distro, like Ubuntu, then it could make assumptions. It could even check for both Evolution and Thunderbird in the OO user's home DIR and use either or if present.
If the virus creator were especially vigilant then they could test for all sorts of installed applications with existing and exploitable/profitable data under ~/
It's not just a cellphone. It's phones in general. And I wouldn't exactly call it bragging.
I just find phones to be intrusive. When someone calls you at the very least you need to look at your phone to see who it is so that you can screen it. If your phone is not nearby or it's a cordless then you need to go out of your way to locate it just so you can screen it and 9 times out of 10 you don't pick up because it's someone you don't want to talk to. No matter what you are inconvenienced. Call me lazy but I would rather not bother. Sure it's not a big inconvenience. But given the option I would do without it.
When someone needs to get in touch with me I strongly prefer that they use e-mail or IM so that I can respond at my convenience. It's extremely rare that a situation requires my immediate attention.
I realize that this is simply my own opinion and there are a lot of people who feel differently, but I would never want my spouse to be able to control an artistic creation of mine even after passing. Not because I'm not happy in my marriage, but because creating art is an extremely personal process. Even if your spouse supports you through your endeavours, your creations are ultimately "yours".
Also, a good example of why it can be a really bad idea is Courtney Love and how she's handled Kurt Cobain's art work. I've also heard that Yoko Ono isn't too popular among fans but I'm not sure if that has anything to do with how she's handled Lenon's creations or if it's mostly just because they blame her for breaking up the Beatles.
I also have pretty odd views on marriage. Marriage and I just really don't mix. I don't like the idea of shared or joint property at all. I know that probably makes me a selfish asshole and I would certainly voluntarily leave my wife with the world upon my passing if I could. I just don't like the idea of law forcing it on me.
I don't like the idea of the law granting someone exclusive rights over half of everything you own. For that reason, among others, I will never get married. I say that I am married for simplicity, but we're actually living common law. Unfortunately (for me) the laws are changing (in Canada) to grant common law partners closer rights to married couples:(
Anyway this is getting off topic.
In regards to the elderly I can understand wanting to be remembered after you die. I can even empathize with it. However, I just don't see how anyone can lay claims to anything when they're dead.
If I am not mistaken, isn't plagiarism a violation of copyright law ?
IANAL so I honestly don't know. I was just always under the assumption that it was. Do away with copyright law, make everything public domain and plagiarism becomes legal.
What I don't support is someone taking something that I created, putting their name on it without changing it in any significant way. For the purpose of this argument, if the average person can't tell the original from the altered version the change isn't significant enough.
Copying and distribution is an entirely different subject and is an extremely tricky one. I certainly don't mind people distributing my work without paying royalties. I'm not even sure how I feel about them charging. If they're not profiting then I don't have a problem. But my album cost me money and a significant part of my life to produce. The idea of someone else profiting from my hard work and expense rubs me the wrong way. It's easy to say it wouldn't bother you but go and take 4 years to write an album's worth of material and then a year and 5 grand to produce and record it and see if you'd be comfortable with other people making money from it and not paying you a cent.
There's a lot of issues involved and no easy answers.
There's no inherent moral right to prevent others from profitting off your work.
Morals are ALWAYS opinions.
The simple fact that copyright was introduced for the reason you stated proves that people were of the opinion that people should be allowed to control the distribution of their work.
There is no "inherent moral right" to anything. I mean, murder was legal until people decided to outlaw it. Morals always vary from person to person. You can't talk about them as if they're fixed.
You're still making it about money. It's not about monetary compensation. It's about the fact that I don't want other people to take something that I worked hard to create and exploit it for personal gain without taking my efforts or desires into consideration.
To me that is the only thing that copyright has to offer. I can find ways to make money off of my work even if copyright did not exist. It's the fact that I would like to control what happens to something that I created. The way I see it, my work is a part of me. You can not own one of my arms unless I sell it to you. Nor should you be able to own something that I created unless I feel like handing it over.
And I realize that the argument introduces an ambiguity. As a musician I would love people to listen to my music. In fact, I encourage people to share and redistribute my music and to play it for people without demanding royalties. When I use the word "own" I really mean "own the rights to". It is the moment that someone starts selling copies without giving me a cut that we have a problem. The moment someone takes credit for creating something that I created we have a problem.
It has absolutely nothing to do with money or profit.
My wife's bill this month was over $200 and it's usually around $30. It was mostly from texts and receiving local calls from her pregnant friend (I say she's pregnant because that's apparently why she's been calling so much).
I hate phones to begin with. I've been begging her to let us disconnect our land line. Not so that we can migrate to wireless-only (I don't own a cellphone and never plan to) but so she can also ditch her cell phone and we can enjoy the peace of never having someone make a ringing noise (or worse - a cheesy song) in our home or pocket.
So yeah... considering a land line costs $20 and she can make all the texts she wants via MSN/ICQ/etc. for FREE that $200 bill almost spelled divorce.
Thanks to the Internet there are so many un-intrusive forms of instant communication. I realize that cell phones provide a certain level of convenience for a lot of people (being able to phone home while you're shopping or for teenagers to communicate to their parents while they're hanging out with friends etc.) but for me I can not see the purpose of a phone. To spend $200 in one month for one is absolutely mind-boggling. I can't imagine what I'd do if my child ran up an $1100 bill. To say they'd never be allowed near a phone again is just the tip of the ice berg.
20 years' copyright protection is enough. I'm not an author or an artist, and like most people I get paid for today's work once rather than getting paid over and over and over for the rest of my life. The position that someone should work once and get paid perpetually for doing so is not workable.
It's not always about money though. And when it is, it's not always about the creator directly compensating.
Personally, as an artist and software developer, I don't like the idea of other people being able to profit from something that I worked hard to create when I have no say in the matter. I have released things into the public domain before and will surely do so again in the future. But I was the one who chose to do so. I don't like the idea that some of my work could be forcibly placed in the public domain while I'm still alive.
When an artist creates something they create something that is very much a part of them. They should be able to chose what happens to it. It's not about money. Artists rarely create for the sole intent of profit. Without copyright anyone could do whatever they wanted with someone's work without the artist having a say in the matter. Including profit from it. That's a scary thought.
I don't support perpetual copyright, however. I think that once the creator has deceased they no longer have a vested interest in their work and it should become public domain.
As a webmaster who runs sites that make money via ad revenue, I've often wondered why authors don't exploit the Internet, and the whole "piracy" thing for that matter, more.
You could write a novel or an instructional booklet and release the entire thing online for free in HTML format and use adwords on the site that hosts it. You don't need to "sell a single copy". Just put it up, set up an adwords account and then spend a bit of time promoting / advertising it. If it's any good and people like it then the Internet's very nature will kick in and drive traffic.
To combat "piracy" you could even get creative and include the URL to your site that hosts it throughout the story. If your "book-site" offers more content than just the story/novel/whatever then any type-in traffic generated would probably result in some bookmarks and then more traffic via word of mouth etc.
Also since the "book-site" is going to be extremely keyword dense you should get some very broad yet targeted ads which could generate clicks and sales that you wouldn't really think about. This could actually create problems on the other hand but you don't have to go with a PPC system. You could advertise other books in a similar genre through affiliate programs etc.
Heck I might just try this myself. I've always wanted to write a book.
However, to say that for example, John Lennon and Paul McCartney "own" forever the exact combination of musical pitches played at a certain rythmn which we recognize when played as "Let it Be," is taking things too far.
I don't really see how. At least in McCartney's case. Lennon can't "own" anything at the moment.
I think that copyright should end when the creator expires. When they can no longer benefit from their work then the work should enter the public domain.
However, as an artist and software developer I like the idea of being able to control what happens to something that I worked hard on. It has nothing to do with incentive or profit, specifically. I would still create if I were unable to profit from it (I've written tons of songs that I couldn't pay people to listen to let alone get them to pay me lol). It's more about control and freedom. My work is a part of me. Just as you wouldn't want someone to cut you open and remove a redundant organ and profit from it on the black market I wouldn't want someone to take something that I worked hard on and profit from it without my permission.
I'm all for open licenses and public domain. I've released a lot of my work in open licenses. But the idea that I could some day see other people profiting from my work while I'm still alive and have absolutely no say in the matter what-so-ever bothers me greatly.
Conversely, the idea of certain work being under copyright long after the creator has deceased bothers me too. When I die my body becomes the property of "mother earth" and any work that I created society can have to do whatever they want with since I'm not going to be around to care.
Slashdot Mirror
But it all really boils down to your needs.
For example, consider the typical LAMP server (linux + apache + mysql + php) that hosts a web application. What does it need to protect ? It needs to protect the database with all the user data, the publicly accessible html documents and php scripts and possibly the log files.
You may also argue that it needs to protect the overall system from compromises involving using the system as a zombie or irc server etc. but in that situation a well managed server could simply have the software reinstalled. If the admins are competent and have access to spare servers they could configure the replacement machine and do a swap without incurring any downtime at all.
In this situation SE Linux might just be total overkill. The extra paranoid could have the publicly accessible html docs + php scripts on a read-only partition. This is a production environment we're talking about so the need to upload new documents will only be when upgrading software versions. If the web application allows users to upload data then that will need to be handled separately. A cron job could change file permissions on newly updated documents so apache no longer has write access. The log files can be moved to a separate location once per day when they're rotated where apache (or any other services) don't have access to them. MySQL can run chrooted, only bind to 127.0.0.1 and the database files can only have read/write access from the mysql user. Daily, or even hourly, backups of the database to read-only media can be implemented. This is on top of running an intrusion detection system, installing security updates asap, and doing all of your other post-install locking down before the network cable is even plugged in to the machine (setting up your ssh keys, firewalls, uninstalling unnecessary software - including compilers - and obviously unused daemons and anything else the paranoid admin does before the machine goes live etc.)
We're already talking about way more security than most LAMP based servers out there.
I agree that the setup could still benefit from SE Linux, particularly for the database since it's still the weakest link and one of the areas in the most need of protection. MySQL needs to read/write to the database on a regular basis and so you need to allow write access to the data files, trust your software, trust your mysql binaries (all binary files and static config files can be on read-only partitions) and nothing is preventing a root process from changing the file permissions or corrupting the data. However, for most people this setup would be more than adequate and SE Linux would be total overkill.
My wife and I take a slightly different approach with our children.
We teach our kids that words are tools. We don't tell them not to "cuss" around other adults. Instead, they have been taught that some people are offended by language and to be selective. Also that, more importantly, intention and message is equally as important as word selection. Every once in a while our children swear around us and whether or not they are punished is not based on their choice of language but on their intended message and effect. For example, I can recall one instance where my 7 year-old daughter called my 5 year-old daughter a bitch. She was punished, but we made it very clear to her that the reason she was punished was for deliberately insulting someone and hurting their feelings. Not because she swore. After her punishment was over we had a talk about how she could have resolved the matter without insulting the other person.
I would like to say that I rarely swear around adults, but that is not true. It is quite easy to be selective about your choice of words based on your company. I have drinking buddies with whom I swear with all the time, and yes I would agree that while I do that I come across as a completely uneducated baboon who is unable to control his language. On the other hand, when I sit down for supper with my in-laws I find it very easy to select different words. There is no reason to put general rules around choice of words. It's the process of understanding your audience, your intended message and how best to deliver it given those two criteria.
We both agree that words are simply tools. I think that we also both agree that when in doubt etiquette would dictate that you don't chose offensive language around strange company (unless your goal is to come across as offensive). However, there are certain adults around whom I would have no problems with my children swearing. I also do not have a problem with my children swearing around my wife or I so long as they're not intentionally trying to offend. Which, admittedly, makes it a very rare occasion when they swear around us since it's hard to be respectful of an authority figure while you're swearing around them. However, for example, if we're playing a video game and the odd "shit" comes out when they lose there's no harm done.
The trick is teaching is the child proper social skills and diplomacy. To be selective about their choice of words based on intended message, target audience and desired response.
I share your pet peeve and using that very same logic I was able to get my wife to see things our way and I had won. It was a victory not just for myself but for man kind.
:(
...
Then we had kids and they are very groggy when they get up in the middle of the night and would sometimes sit in the bowl and get themselves completely drenched with toilet water. So we're back at leaving it down
But she hasn't heard the last from me. As soon as they're old enough to be given personal responsibility for keeping their asses dry
Society pretends otherwise but woman also often have polygamy desires like men, they just exhibit them differently and more selectively. I wonder how many families would be broken up if everyone's children were suddenly forced to do paternity testing. Men, whether you're the pool guy or the rich guy, just make sure you know the score and are getting what you need out of the situation you're in. OTOH if you're happily hooked up with a decent woman, all the better.
Or you can really luck out find yourself in a relationship where both partners are emotionally mature and open minded enough to realize and accept that both will have polygamous urges and work to together to find ways to satisfy each other's needs without being insecure little babies who end the relationship at the first sign of infidelity.
Despite what Apple charges for a set of its replacement buds, the earphones that come with 90 percent of the digital media players on the market are throw-away items--they're only in the box so you'll have something to listen to when you bring the player home.
I'm a musician. I've recorded and released an album (sorry for the shameless plug but it's only to put my post in context - honest). I own expensive studio earphones, have experience mixing and mastering etc.
I don't own a 5th generation iPod but I do own an iPod Shuffle that has since stopped playing MP3s. It still works as a storage device and I still have the headphones. I kept on to the headphones because I prefer them over all other ear buds I have. They don't beat the studio headphones, but I would not consider them "throw aways". I found they're pretty good quality and I began using them with all of my portable devices. I would generally agree that most ear buds that come with cd players and probably many other mp3 players are of relatively low quality, but I was very impressed with the ones that came with the iPod Shuffle. I will never throw them away.
But as I said in point #1, at least they are taking steps even if it is too late.
For all the times I hit the preview button I didn't catch that one. I meant to word it as "even if it is a little late". It is never TOO late to step up security.
While I do agree that software manufacturers, as well as the manufacturers of any product, have a responsibility to their customers to correct problems with the products that they sold them, I would like to play devil's advocate a little and come to their defense on certain issues.
1) While it might be a little late, Microsoft really has stepped up their security practices. Automatic updates, all of the improvements in XP Service Pack 2 including the firewall, security center etc. Can things be better ? Of course. There's always room for improvement. Should Microsoft have acted sooner ? Probably, but they have smartened up and gone to great lengths to secure Windows. Also, keep in mind that while they've taken action to prevent newer features and software from being installed on "pirated" copies of Windows, they have not disabled security updates. So say whatever you want about their motives, they clearly decided that securing people's machines was in everyone's best interests and didn't follow through with their bully tactics to try and get people to pay money to secure their systems.
2) Windows was conceived, designed and implemented when the Internet was in it's infancy. That doesn't really excuse XP, but you should cut them at least some slack for 95/98/ME. Windows' purpose was to make computing easy for individual users. Networking and all of the security concerns that come with it were an afterthought. Though by the time XP was released there definitely should have been more of an emphasis on security IMO. I can't really excuse them for that one. But as I said in point #1, at least they are taking steps even if it is too late.
3) This one is getting really old but it's still a point that I feel needs to be taken into consideration. Windows has the market share and while I would agree with any argument to the fact that *nix is more secure by design, that doesn't mean that if everyone were running Mac or *nix that botnets would simply not exist. That would be a specious argument as no one can claim it with complete certainty. There's no doubt that virus writers would have to be smarter. There may be way less security issues. But so long as there is profit involved in compromising systems and turning them into zombies there will be people who find ways. I'm willing to argue that there will always be clueless users who will opt not to install security updates out of laziness and/or ignorance. In other words, the argument we've all heard countless times before: Microsoft gets a lot of attention because that's where the profit is. If you're going to compromise systems for profit would it make sense to target 10% of the desktop population or 90% (those numbers are purely figurative and pulled out of thin air but the point is clear I hope) ?
BTW - I'm typing this on a Linux box.
Specializing in one specific thing can be a very good career choice these days, though.
There are so many "generic" programmers and it's more and more common for companies to outsource. If you can find some specific niche that's in high demand and fill it then you'll have a much easier time finding work and you'll probably be paid more too.
But you do bring up a very good point, specialized fields are at the risk of going out the door. So the real trick is find something that's specialized but that has various applications, and always maintain interest in other related IT fields. You don't have to get too specific either, you can specialize in RDBMS systems, for example, without focusing entirely on one particular product like Oracle.
Usually I don't get uptight about moderations but it WAS A JOKE... Hence the ":P" at the end.
:\
I guess I should have put a disclaimer
-1 Redundant @ this post
Yeah. While I've never set up a WiFi connection (haven't really had the need to yet since there's only two PC's in my house so running a bit of ethernet cable isn't that big of a deal and no one in the house owns a laptop yet), it's my understanding that you can password protect them fairly easily. If shops want to impose the "bathroom is only for paying customers" concept on their WiFi they could just set a new password each day at opening and tape it to the wall in the store or put it on the chalkboard next to the menu etc.
It wouldn't prevent people from coming in and grabbing the password and then sitting outside in their cars, but at least it would require people to actually enter the store and it would prevent random people outside picking up the connection in their cars.
Yes, it's called MIDI guitar + MIDI usb interface (or equivalent) + Cubase. :P
I realize that was intended as a joke, and I am not an evolutionary biologist, but wouldn't this type of reproduction completely eliminate the possibility for evolution ?
I don't mean to imply that this is evidence contradicting the occurrence of evolution, just that if animals were to reproduce asexually, and thus essentially be clones of their parent, then evolution is not possible for that particular species ?
So what are the benefits ?
IANAL
Sure, but that would have absolutely nothing to do with the school. The teacher him/her self would have to pursue legal action against the child(ren) who were involved.
From my limited understanding (I didn't read TFA), the school suspended him for 40 days for in-class misconduct and he's the one pursuing legal action against the school to get the suspension lifted, or at least reduced.
FWIW, IMO 40 days is ridiculously excessive unless the kid has a long history full of lesser suspensions for related incidents.
If the virus were to target a specific distro, like Ubuntu, then it could make assumptions. It could even check for both Evolution and Thunderbird in the OO user's home DIR and use either or if present.
If the virus creator were especially vigilant then they could test for all sorts of installed applications with existing and exploitable/profitable data under ~/
It's not just a cellphone. It's phones in general. And I wouldn't exactly call it bragging.
I just find phones to be intrusive. When someone calls you at the very least you need to look at your phone to see who it is so that you can screen it. If your phone is not nearby or it's a cordless then you need to go out of your way to locate it just so you can screen it and 9 times out of 10 you don't pick up because it's someone you don't want to talk to. No matter what you are inconvenienced. Call me lazy but I would rather not bother. Sure it's not a big inconvenience. But given the option I would do without it.
When someone needs to get in touch with me I strongly prefer that they use e-mail or IM so that I can respond at my convenience. It's extremely rare that a situation requires my immediate attention.
I realize that this is simply my own opinion and there are a lot of people who feel differently, but I would never want my spouse to be able to control an artistic creation of mine even after passing. Not because I'm not happy in my marriage, but because creating art is an extremely personal process. Even if your spouse supports you through your endeavours, your creations are ultimately "yours".
:(
Also, a good example of why it can be a really bad idea is Courtney Love and how she's handled Kurt Cobain's art work. I've also heard that Yoko Ono isn't too popular among fans but I'm not sure if that has anything to do with how she's handled Lenon's creations or if it's mostly just because they blame her for breaking up the Beatles.
I also have pretty odd views on marriage. Marriage and I just really don't mix. I don't like the idea of shared or joint property at all. I know that probably makes me a selfish asshole and I would certainly voluntarily leave my wife with the world upon my passing if I could. I just don't like the idea of law forcing it on me.
I don't like the idea of the law granting someone exclusive rights over half of everything you own. For that reason, among others, I will never get married. I say that I am married for simplicity, but we're actually living common law. Unfortunately (for me) the laws are changing (in Canada) to grant common law partners closer rights to married couples
Anyway this is getting off topic.
In regards to the elderly I can understand wanting to be remembered after you die. I can even empathize with it. However, I just don't see how anyone can lay claims to anything when they're dead.
If I am not mistaken, isn't plagiarism a violation of copyright law ?
IANAL so I honestly don't know. I was just always under the assumption that it was. Do away with copyright law, make everything public domain and plagiarism becomes legal.
I support parodies and derivative works.
What I don't support is someone taking something that I created, putting their name on it without changing it in any significant way. For the purpose of this argument, if the average person can't tell the original from the altered version the change isn't significant enough.
Copying and distribution is an entirely different subject and is an extremely tricky one. I certainly don't mind people distributing my work without paying royalties. I'm not even sure how I feel about them charging. If they're not profiting then I don't have a problem. But my album cost me money and a significant part of my life to produce. The idea of someone else profiting from my hard work and expense rubs me the wrong way. It's easy to say it wouldn't bother you but go and take 4 years to write an album's worth of material and then a year and 5 grand to produce and record it and see if you'd be comfortable with other people making money from it and not paying you a cent.
There's a lot of issues involved and no easy answers.
So you want the right to control the actions of anyone who (reads your book, looks at your painting, listens to your song) forever?
No, just until I die. And only the actions concerning my work. Everything else they do I couldn't care less about.
There's no inherent moral right to prevent others from profitting off your work.
Morals are ALWAYS opinions.
The simple fact that copyright was introduced for the reason you stated proves that people were of the opinion that people should be allowed to control the distribution of their work.
There is no "inherent moral right" to anything. I mean, murder was legal until people decided to outlaw it. Morals always vary from person to person. You can't talk about them as if they're fixed.
You're still making it about money. It's not about monetary compensation. It's about the fact that I don't want other people to take something that I worked hard to create and exploit it for personal gain without taking my efforts or desires into consideration.
To me that is the only thing that copyright has to offer. I can find ways to make money off of my work even if copyright did not exist. It's the fact that I would like to control what happens to something that I created. The way I see it, my work is a part of me. You can not own one of my arms unless I sell it to you. Nor should you be able to own something that I created unless I feel like handing it over.
And I realize that the argument introduces an ambiguity. As a musician I would love people to listen to my music. In fact, I encourage people to share and redistribute my music and to play it for people without demanding royalties. When I use the word "own" I really mean "own the rights to". It is the moment that someone starts selling copies without giving me a cut that we have a problem. The moment someone takes credit for creating something that I created we have a problem.
It has absolutely nothing to do with money or profit.
My wife's bill this month was over $200 and it's usually around $30. It was mostly from texts and receiving local calls from her pregnant friend (I say she's pregnant because that's apparently why she's been calling so much).
... considering a land line costs $20 and she can make all the texts she wants via MSN/ICQ/etc. for FREE that $200 bill almost spelled divorce.
I hate phones to begin with. I've been begging her to let us disconnect our land line. Not so that we can migrate to wireless-only (I don't own a cellphone and never plan to) but so she can also ditch her cell phone and we can enjoy the peace of never having someone make a ringing noise (or worse - a cheesy song) in our home or pocket.
So yeah
Thanks to the Internet there are so many un-intrusive forms of instant communication. I realize that cell phones provide a certain level of convenience for a lot of people (being able to phone home while you're shopping or for teenagers to communicate to their parents while they're hanging out with friends etc.) but for me I can not see the purpose of a phone. To spend $200 in one month for one is absolutely mind-boggling. I can't imagine what I'd do if my child ran up an $1100 bill. To say they'd never be allowed near a phone again is just the tip of the ice berg.
20 years' copyright protection is enough. I'm not an author or an artist, and like most people I get paid for today's work once rather than getting paid over and over and over for the rest of my life. The position that someone should work once and get paid perpetually for doing so is not workable.
It's not always about money though. And when it is, it's not always about the creator directly compensating.
Personally, as an artist and software developer, I don't like the idea of other people being able to profit from something that I worked hard to create when I have no say in the matter. I have released things into the public domain before and will surely do so again in the future. But I was the one who chose to do so. I don't like the idea that some of my work could be forcibly placed in the public domain while I'm still alive.
When an artist creates something they create something that is very much a part of them. They should be able to chose what happens to it. It's not about money. Artists rarely create for the sole intent of profit. Without copyright anyone could do whatever they wanted with someone's work without the artist having a say in the matter. Including profit from it. That's a scary thought.
I don't support perpetual copyright, however. I think that once the creator has deceased they no longer have a vested interest in their work and it should become public domain.
As a webmaster who runs sites that make money via ad revenue, I've often wondered why authors don't exploit the Internet, and the whole "piracy" thing for that matter, more.
You could write a novel or an instructional booklet and release the entire thing online for free in HTML format and use adwords on the site that hosts it. You don't need to "sell a single copy". Just put it up, set up an adwords account and then spend a bit of time promoting / advertising it. If it's any good and people like it then the Internet's very nature will kick in and drive traffic.
To combat "piracy" you could even get creative and include the URL to your site that hosts it throughout the story. If your "book-site" offers more content than just the story/novel/whatever then any type-in traffic generated would probably result in some bookmarks and then more traffic via word of mouth etc.
Also since the "book-site" is going to be extremely keyword dense you should get some very broad yet targeted ads which could generate clicks and sales that you wouldn't really think about. This could actually create problems on the other hand but you don't have to go with a PPC system. You could advertise other books in a similar genre through affiliate programs etc.
Heck I might just try this myself. I've always wanted to write a book.
However, to say that for example, John Lennon and Paul McCartney "own" forever the exact combination of musical pitches played at a certain rythmn which we recognize when played as "Let it Be," is taking things too far.
I don't really see how. At least in McCartney's case. Lennon can't "own" anything at the moment.
I think that copyright should end when the creator expires. When they can no longer benefit from their work then the work should enter the public domain.
However, as an artist and software developer I like the idea of being able to control what happens to something that I worked hard on. It has nothing to do with incentive or profit, specifically. I would still create if I were unable to profit from it (I've written tons of songs that I couldn't pay people to listen to let alone get them to pay me lol). It's more about control and freedom. My work is a part of me. Just as you wouldn't want someone to cut you open and remove a redundant organ and profit from it on the black market I wouldn't want someone to take something that I worked hard on and profit from it without my permission.
I'm all for open licenses and public domain. I've released a lot of my work in open licenses. But the idea that I could some day see other people profiting from my work while I'm still alive and have absolutely no say in the matter what-so-ever bothers me greatly.
Conversely, the idea of certain work being under copyright long after the creator has deceased bothers me too. When I die my body becomes the property of "mother earth" and any work that I created society can have to do whatever they want with since I'm not going to be around to care.