I don't see anywhere in that report where it clarifies on HuluPlus. Would like to see that specifically addressed, just to confirm (BTW:if so, I'll be cancelling my Hulu Plus -- already annoyed by ads, and lack of cable was only thing that drove me to them in the first place. I'm not going to have both.
Find the reporters who have covered similar stories and contact them directly via e-mail, twitter or phone. Targeting reporters who have covered something similar will greatly increase your chances of coverage.
Reporters have beats -- we all love scoops, but it has to fit in our limited scope or most won't touch it (even if we find it personally interesting). Also note we get hit with 100+ PR pitches per day, so don't make your pitch sound like it's coming from a PR person (If an e-mail, in the subject line put something like "I'm a reader and I thought you might be interested in this...." )
Copyright (by US definition, at least) does NOT cover facts or information but the "expression" of those facts or information (when it comes to news, this is how it applies -- can't copyright facts). So you can actually take any news story, take all the information out of it, write a new story based on those facts and you're fine -- no copyright violation.
With that, there's no reason to ask them to give up the copyright in that anyone that same day or anytime can take the information and share it with everyone -- its not restricting the information. Yes, a reporter can and will be pissed if not credited for any exclusive information they dug up, but you're not violating copyright by sharing what they reported, with or without credit.
We had another source who heard it completely Separately from this source. But after we went back to the source with that denial he pulled his confirmation. We have issued a correction and are working to get the story out there to everyone that the story is NOT true. We are extremly sorry for this.
The official statement we got from Microsoft was that the story was not confirmed -- it didn't deny it. Story has been updated with that. Invited Doug Seven to give official comment as well.
Our source on this is solid. Additional details were confirmed. We do stand by the story.
What it makes it worse is, that as an editor, knowing copyright law was part of her job (you have to understand this stuff to limit your company's exposure to any kind of liability, not to mention it's the right thing to do). And you're right -- her "apology" post makes it perfectly clear that she STILL doesn't understand it: if you're an professional editor looking to reprint something you ASSUME everything is copyrightable and get permission first, there's none of this "I didn't check" (just because the statement isn't there doesn't mean its not copyrightable). You don't just pull articles from books people send you (you have to get reprint permission if you want to publish a larger excerpt from it than what's covered by fair use, even if a publisher sent it to you for publicity). And you would NEVER, EVER start "typing up" an article you didn't get permission for (you get permission first -- if you're really so short staffed, you would never waste even a minute on an article you don't know you can actually use).
I've worked for years on small publications w/extremely small staffs and budgets and we'd never do anything like this, nor would any actual professional editor, because we all know it's wrong -- her excuses are bullsh*t. Add to that the complete lack of professionalism in her correspondence plus the fact that she simply CANNOT write (even content aside, that "apology" is awful), she's an embarrassment to the profession. I have no sympathy for her -- she brought this all on herself.
(Read down past the laptop stuff in that article). Definitely not saying not to learn the new, just FYI that your earlier skills might have some marketability that you might not be aware of.
...Actually, just realized that they *may* very well do it with another actor playing Malcom, and that *is* scary. Here's to hoping Joss' relationship with Universal is solid!
As a complete Firefly fanatic, the only way I can see that I won't like this movie (even if it truly sucks) is if the entire cast doesn't return. I just don't see it right now without all of them.
Thankfully, most of my favorite characters (Preacher -- Ron Glass just rocks, Jayne) are played by actors who don't seem to have their schedules *that* booked. (*VERY* happy for them that they'll have this work.) But the article I read this morning said that *most* of the cast will return...Is there someone that they *know* they can't get?
Figure that they wouldn't do it with a different Malcom, but what about Zoe? (The actress signed on to bigger and better things, but the way she played that character is one of my favorite things about the show.)
Is there anyone out there who wouldn't mind if a different actor stepped in to take over one of the roles? If so, which one? Who would you have play it?
To recertify your CCNP/CCDP (as well as your CCNA) you only need to pass one exam: 642-891 Composite. This will cost you $125 (or less, if you get a discount voucher online). Considering all the money you invested in the original certs, the price of this one exam plus (possibly) a book and your self-study time may make it worth holding onto them, even if you're not sure of the exact value of the titles to you right now.
Also, on the issue of a C/S degree, while I agree with others here that they're becoming more important, it all depends on the reality of where you are in life. It's not impossible to get an IT job without a degree, and you have work experience, which is *the* most important factor, so I wonder how much a degree could really do for you, esp. considering how much IT may change in the next four years.
One thing I noticed is that you have five certifications: A+, CCNA, CCDP, CCNP and Nortel. Do you list all of them on your resume? Part of the reality of certs today is that while HR staff love them because they're easy screeners for resumes, many actual hiring managers (IT dept. head, etc.) may frown on a long list of certificaitons, esp. if they're not matched up with experience -- just too much "paper" stigma going around. What you might want to try is to play with exactly what ones you list on a resume: For example, if it's a lower-level position, list only the A+ and the CCNA, or if it's mid-level, list only the CCNP and Nortel. You can still talk about the other titles in the interview (show that you're constantly learning). Also, make sure your experience comes first on the resume, and certs toward the bottom (if you haven't already) -- that way, they're still there for the HR manager who wants them, yet for HMs that are sensitive to them it doesn't look like you're trying to justify your qualifications via the certs.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see anywhere in that report where it clarifies on HuluPlus. Would like to see that specifically addressed, just to confirm (BTW:if so, I'll be cancelling my Hulu Plus -- already annoyed by ads, and lack of cable was only thing that drove me to them in the first place. I'm not going to have both.
I'd mod your reply to +6. Thank you for posting that.
Find the reporters who have covered similar stories and contact them directly via e-mail, twitter or phone. Targeting reporters who have covered something similar will greatly increase your chances of coverage.
Reporters have beats -- we all love scoops, but it has to fit in our limited scope or most won't touch it (even if we find it personally interesting). Also note we get hit with 100+ PR pitches per day, so don't make your pitch sound like it's coming from a PR person (If an e-mail, in the subject line put something like "I'm a reader and I thought you might be interested in this...." )
Copyright (by US definition, at least) does NOT cover facts or information but the "expression" of those facts or information (when it comes to news, this is how it applies -- can't copyright facts). So you can actually take any news story, take all the information out of it, write a new story based on those facts and you're fine -- no copyright violation.
With that, there's no reason to ask them to give up the copyright in that anyone that same day or anytime can take the information and share it with everyone -- its not restricting the information. Yes, a reporter can and will be pissed if not credited for any exclusive information they dug up, but you're not violating copyright by sharing what they reported, with or without credit.
We had another source who heard it completely Separately from this source. But after we went back to the source with that denial he pulled his confirmation. We have issued a correction and are working to get the story out there to everyone that the story is NOT true. We are extremly sorry for this.
The official statement we got from Microsoft was that the story was not confirmed -- it didn't deny it. Story has been updated with that. Invited Doug Seven to give official comment as well.
Our source on this is solid. Additional details were confirmed. We do stand by the story.
What it makes it worse is, that as an editor, knowing copyright law was part of her job (you have to understand this stuff to limit your company's exposure to any kind of liability, not to mention it's the right thing to do). And you're right -- her "apology" post makes it perfectly clear that she STILL doesn't understand it: if you're an professional editor looking to reprint something you ASSUME everything is copyrightable and get permission first, there's none of this "I didn't check" (just because the statement isn't there doesn't mean its not copyrightable). You don't just pull articles from books people send you (you have to get reprint permission if you want to publish a larger excerpt from it than what's covered by fair use, even if a publisher sent it to you for publicity). And you would NEVER, EVER start "typing up" an article you didn't get permission for (you get permission first -- if you're really so short staffed, you would never waste even a minute on an article you don't know you can actually use).
I've worked for years on small publications w/extremely small staffs and budgets and we'd never do anything like this, nor would any actual professional editor, because we all know it's wrong -- her excuses are bullsh*t. Add to that the complete lack of professionalism in her correspondence plus the fact that she simply CANNOT write (even content aside, that "apology" is awful), she's an embarrassment to the profession. I have no sympathy for her -- she brought this all on herself.
The site I work for just posted an article on how IBM is looking to train the next generation of COBOL programmers:
http://adtmag.com/blogs/watersworks/2010/07/ibm-mainframes-cobol-recruits.aspx
(Read down past the laptop stuff in that article). Definitely not saying not to learn the new, just FYI that your earlier skills might have some marketability that you might not be aware of.
...Actually, just realized that they *may* very well do it with another actor playing Malcom, and that *is* scary. Here's to hoping Joss' relationship with Universal is solid!
As a complete Firefly fanatic, the only way I can see that I won't like this movie (even if it truly sucks) is if the entire cast doesn't return. I just don't see it right now without all of them.
Thankfully, most of my favorite characters (Preacher -- Ron Glass just rocks, Jayne) are played by actors who don't seem to have their schedules *that* booked. (*VERY* happy for them that they'll have this work.) But the article I read this morning said that *most* of the cast will return...Is there someone that they *know* they can't get?
Figure that they wouldn't do it with a different Malcom, but what about Zoe? (The actress signed on to bigger and better things, but the way she played that character is one of my favorite things about the show.)
Is there anyone out there who wouldn't mind if a different actor stepped in to take over one of the roles? If so, which one? Who would you have play it?
Oops! Got the price of the exam wrong. it's actually $187.50 -- slightly more than a standard Cisco exam, but still might be worth it.
To recertify your CCNP/CCDP (as well as your CCNA) you only need to pass one exam: 642-891 Composite. This will cost you $125 (or less, if you get a discount voucher online). Considering all the money you invested in the original certs, the price of this one exam plus (possibly) a book and your self-study time may make it worth holding onto them, even if you're not sure of the exact value of the titles to you right now.
Also, on the issue of a C/S degree, while I agree with others here that they're becoming more important, it all depends on the reality of where you are in life. It's not impossible to get an IT job without a degree, and you have work experience, which is *the* most important factor, so I wonder how much a degree could really do for you, esp. considering how much IT may change in the next four years.
One thing I noticed is that you have five certifications: A+, CCNA, CCDP, CCNP and Nortel. Do you list all of them on your resume? Part of the reality of certs today is that while HR staff love them because they're easy screeners for resumes, many actual hiring managers (IT dept. head, etc.) may frown on a long list of certificaitons, esp. if they're not matched up with experience -- just too much "paper" stigma going around. What you might want to try is to play with exactly what ones you list on a resume: For example, if it's a lower-level position, list only the A+ and the CCNA, or if it's mid-level, list only the CCNP and Nortel. You can still talk about the other titles in the interview (show that you're constantly learning). Also, make sure your experience comes first on the resume, and certs toward the bottom (if you haven't already) -- that way, they're still there for the HR manager who wants them, yet for HMs that are sensitive to them it doesn't look like you're trying to justify your qualifications via the certs.