I believe these are also referred to as interface managers. They act as a buffer between say, the customer and the techs, or marketing and IT. They take the non-tech things that make us smirk and say them in ways we can understand and respect.
Congradulations! You have just won the "Jumping to foolish conclusions" award!
You assumed that the last company the poster worked was both large and had a large IT department. I have worked in 2 and 3 man IT departments. I worked for a group of non-profit health centers that catered to the poor. There were over 100 people working for the company and I was the entire IT department.
The orignal poster's last IT department might have been 5 guys, and then they hired 2 women. That would not be an unreasonable thing.
Half my co-workers live in other states. Of those that work here, one is an ass, one I have nothing in common with, one is a lesbian who is busy with her partner and kids, one is busy with his sick elderly father, and the last one is my female boss. I work in a cube farm, and our teas cubes are far from each other. I have almost no interaction with anyone else in my building. Most of the people I interact with are in other states.
At least you can interact face to face with other people.
Oh, really? Making a song is the same as painting a house or fixing a car?
How long would a mechanic stay in business if one customer could take the repair done to his car and give it to anyone else with the same car problem with little more than a couple of clicks?
How long would a painter be in business if the work done on a single customers house could be spread to any or all houses with a few mouse clicks?
The different is that completed tax forms, a painted houses, car repairs are all one off custom work on physical items. They can not be shared. Creative works such as songs and movies are not physical items, they are experiences, coded information, distributed on physical items. The money is made by selling the same experience to many different people. Your tax forms are not the same as my tax forms, but the Star Wars you watch is the same as the Star Wars I watch.
You speak of pooling money to make music or movies. How will that work? Remember, people contribute to political campaigns because they feel the will get something in return. Will the contributors be given free copies? Who will be the contributors? If it costs $50,000 to make an album, that is $5 from 10,000 people, but what if a band only has a fan base of 1,000 people willing to donate for an album. That makes it $50.00 per person. Are you willing to pay $50.00 for an album?
Will muscians campaign for funds? "Hi, we are Giant Pudding. We are a band are looking to make an album. Will you contribute?" If they are going to campaign, how will they do it? Begging on street corners? Commercials on TV? Where will the money for the campaign come from? The money from the live gigs go to supporting the groups members.
If you contribute to the album fund what do you get in return? Will the contributors get a free copy of the album, or will they have to buy the album as well as pay to produce it? Will they get a share of the profits from the albums? If so, how much?
I like the way you completely side-step his perfectly valid question by saying it's biased. You own bias is showing quite well.
Creating music requires spending money. It takes money to buy the equipment and media. It takes money to rent the space to record. It takes money to hire engineers and crew. It takes money for the computer and internet connection. You say "Music is cheap to make" Tell me, how long have you worked in the music industry? How long have you been a professional musician? How much does it cost to "make music"?
Making movies requires spending money. Money for cameras, media, location fees, permits, actors, crew, special effects, sets, etc. You speak of an "end of $200M productions". Many movies that don't make enough money to cover production cost at the box office end up making that money from DVD sales. If one could just download the movie for free from the internet, why would anyone buy the DVD? The result will be less movies with questionable popular appeal being made.
You speak of people doing what they love. Yet, how often will you do it if you have to work a full time job to be able to pay the rent? And, what about people who aren't "doing what they love"? What about the stuntmen, the gaffers, the riggers, the sound engineers, the electricians? Do you think they will work for little or no money?
You look at the stars making $20 million a movie and ignore the rest of the crew, many of whom make less than $50K a year. You see the group making $100 million and ignore the roadies, drivers, riggers, and recording engineers.
No. The exclusive right is transferable. The members of the *AA require artists to transfer the rights to the member. The member then transfers the right to enforce to the *AA. This is encapsulated in the "Work for Hire" clauses of the copyright laws establisted by Congress under the auspices of Article 1 section 8.
Mere existance of the P2P software is not proof of guilt. If the software is there, but no evidence of infringing files can be found, then the plaintif has a problem of explaining where the infringing information went.
Granted my method works best if one downloads non-infringing items, but it will work none the less.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
I notice that it says nothing about earning money. It says one has an exclusive right to the discovery. One may give it away, portion it out to a few, sell it, or hoard it as one sees fit.
Also, the post I was responding to made earning money off of a copy a prerequisit to violating copyright law. It isn't.
I think copyright infridgement should be just that: I infringed someone's copy rights. I think it should apply when I'm trying to earn money using someone's work without their authorization, or when I'm trying to claim the copyright on something ilegitimately.
Where in the phrase "copyright" does it mention earning money? Copyright is litteraly about who has the right to copy a work. When you make, or allow someone else to make, an unauthorized copy of a work you are illegitimately claiming the copyright to said work.
Copyright is about who has the right to make and authorize copying.
Are you really that much of a dumbass that you can't understand that?
Here, let me make it simple for you:
You do not have a right to copy a work created by someone else the creator of that work, or the law, give you permission to do so. Whether you are making money on the copying is irrelevant.
These NDAs, uncompensated non-competes, and overly-broad created-works clauses are a big concern to me.
To me they boil down to:
"Tell us everything you are working on so we can take it if we want" "We can control your work even after you leave our company and we are not going to pay you for it." "Anything you think of or build belongs to us"
Last I checked I was a free American, not a slave. I would rather work for myself and be poor that have to deal with that crap.
Two years ago, Apple tracked and sued three people it claimed had uploaded copies of the developer release of the now-current Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) to popular BitTorrent file sharing services.
Had they not admitted it, and were found to have lied, they would probably have been sued.
As for their firing, one does not keep an employee who admits to stealing from one's company. Downloading an illegal copy of the software is stealing from the company. It is as simple as that.
And, before anyone says "But, no one lost anything", Apple lost a sale. Also, answer these two questions: Did you get something? Did you pay for it? Did the legal owner give it to you?
If the answer to both is "No." then it is stealing.
First, you get copies of the papers that talk about the "Mosquito" noise. Second, you get a microphone and an oscilloscope. You can show the signal on generated on the o-scope. Third, get a frequency shifter. You can drop the frequency down to something audible. Forth, Record the sound. Fifth, go to the police and/or D.A. and do a little demo. Convince them to see it live in the neighborhood.
And you people call yourselves techies, geeks, and hackers.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me or has every single post that started out similar to "I am a female working in IT..." posted by an anonymous coward.
It would be much funnier if it weren't so true.
I believe these are also referred to as interface managers. They act as a buffer between say, the customer and the techs, or marketing and IT. They take the non-tech things that make us smirk and say them in ways we can understand and respect.
Congradulations! You have just won the "Jumping to foolish conclusions" award!
You assumed that the last company the poster worked was both large and had a large IT department. I have worked in 2 and 3 man IT departments. I worked for a group of non-profit health centers that catered to the poor. There were over 100 people working for the company and I was the entire IT department.
The orignal poster's last IT department might have been 5 guys, and then they hired 2 women. That would not be an unreasonable thing.
Here's your sign
I will trade ya.
Half my co-workers live in other states. Of those that work here, one is an ass, one I have nothing in common with, one is a lesbian who is busy with her partner and kids, one is busy with his sick elderly father, and the last one is my female boss. I work in a cube farm, and our teas cubes are far from each other. I have almost no interaction with anyone else in my building. Most of the people I interact with are in other states.
At least you can interact face to face with other people.
Oh, really? Making a song is the same as painting a house or fixing a car?
How long would a mechanic stay in business if one customer could take the repair done to his car and give it to anyone else with the same car problem with little more than a couple of clicks?
How long would a painter be in business if the work done on a single customers house could be spread to any or all houses with a few mouse clicks?
The different is that completed tax forms, a painted houses, car repairs are all one off custom work on physical items. They can not be shared. Creative works such as songs and movies are not physical items, they are experiences, coded information, distributed on physical items. The money is made by selling the same experience to many different people. Your tax forms are not the same as my tax forms, but the Star Wars you watch is the same as the Star Wars I watch.
You speak of pooling money to make music or movies. How will that work? Remember, people contribute to political campaigns because they feel the will get something in return. Will the contributors be given free copies? Who will be the contributors? If it costs $50,000 to make an album, that is $5 from 10,000 people, but what if a band only has a fan base of 1,000 people willing to donate for an album. That makes it $50.00 per person. Are you willing to pay $50.00 for an album?
Will muscians campaign for funds? "Hi, we are Giant Pudding. We are a band are looking to make an album. Will you contribute?" If they are going to campaign, how will they do it? Begging on street corners? Commercials on TV? Where will the money for the campaign come from? The money from the live gigs go to supporting the groups members.
If you contribute to the album fund what do you get in return? Will the contributors get a free copy of the album, or will they have to buy the album as well as pay to produce it? Will they get a share of the profits from the albums? If so, how much?
I like the way you completely side-step his perfectly valid question by saying it's biased. You own bias is showing quite well.
Creating music requires spending money. It takes money to buy the equipment and media. It takes money to rent the space to record. It takes money to hire engineers and crew. It takes money for the computer and internet connection. You say "Music is cheap to make" Tell me, how long have you worked in the music industry? How long have you been a professional musician? How much does it cost to "make music"?
Making movies requires spending money. Money for cameras, media, location fees, permits, actors, crew, special effects, sets, etc. You speak of an "end of $200M productions". Many movies that don't make enough money to cover production cost at the box office end up making that money from DVD sales. If one could just download the movie for free from the internet, why would anyone buy the DVD? The result will be less movies with questionable popular appeal being made.
You speak of people doing what they love. Yet, how often will you do it if you have to work a full time job to be able to pay the rent? And, what about people who aren't "doing what they love"? What about the stuntmen, the gaffers, the riggers, the sound engineers, the electricians? Do you think they will work for little or no money?
You look at the stars making $20 million a movie and ignore the rest of the crew, many of whom make less than $50K a year. You see the group making $100 million and ignore the roadies, drivers, riggers, and recording engineers.
You are ignorant and short-sighted.
You mean boundless abuses like firebombing people?
The difference is we are Humans and they are not. If you don't think there is a difference, you can always volunteer to take a turn.
Now, either take one of those chimpanzee's place or STFU.
Remind me to fight your fire by setting fire to your house while you (nd/or your family is home. Then you can tell me how necessary it is.
As they think burning people is fine, I think they should be set on fire.
No. The exclusive right is transferable. The members of the *AA require artists to transfer the rights to the member. The member then transfers the right to enforce to the *AA. This is encapsulated in the "Work for Hire" clauses of the copyright laws establisted by Congress under the auspices of Article 1 section 8.
Perhaps you should try reading the law, dumbass.
Because patents exist to provide the creator of a work with an "exclusive right" to their creation.
Here, see the source of the law Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
You are right, it was a stupid question, but only because you failed to do any research to learn about copyright and patent law.
Mere existance of the P2P software is not proof of guilt. If the software is there, but no evidence of infringing files can be found, then the plaintif has a problem of explaining where the infringing information went.
Granted my method works best if one downloads non-infringing items, but it will work none the less.
I notice that it says nothing about earning money. It says one has an exclusive right to the discovery. One may give it away, portion it out to a few, sell it, or hoard it as one sees fit.
Also, the post I was responding to made earning money off of a copy a prerequisit to violating copyright law. It isn't.
Where in the phrase "copyright" does it mention earning money? Copyright is litteraly about who has the right to copy a work. When you make, or allow someone else to make, an unauthorized copy of a work you are illegitimately claiming the copyright to said work.
Copyright is about who has the right to make and authorize copying.
Are you really that much of a dumbass that you can't understand that?
Here, let me make it simple for you:
You do not have a right to copy a work created by someone else the creator of that work, or the law, give you permission to do so. Whether you are making money on the copying is irrelevant.
These NDAs, uncompensated non-competes, and overly-broad created-works clauses are a big concern to me.
To me they boil down to:
"Tell us everything you are working on so we can take it if we want"
"We can control your work even after you leave our company and we are not going to pay you for it."
"Anything you think of or build belongs to us"
Last I checked I was a free American, not a slave. I would rather work for myself and be poor that have to deal with that crap.
Did they get something? Yes
Is it something that is sold? Yes
Did they pay for it? No
What it given to them by the legal owner? No
Obtaining something of value from the legal owner without said owners permission and without paying for it sounds like theft to me.
Had they not admitted it, and were found to have lied, they would probably have been sued.
As for their firing, one does not keep an employee who admits to stealing from one's company. Downloading an illegal copy of the software is stealing from the company. It is as simple as that.
And, before anyone says "But, no one lost anything", Apple lost a sale.
Also, answer these two questions: Did you get something? Did you pay for it? Did the legal owner give it to you?
If the answer to both is "No." then it is stealing.
Perhaps your last question is why they will not be preloading laptops. Too many distros to deal with. Better to let the user make up his mind.
As for supporting only one distro, given that there can be major differences between distros, they probably decided to just pick one.
Ok thanks.
I just wanted something I could look at because I have not been paying attention to such things.
Show me the proof!
The only problem with idea is that they may like the spanking.
First, you get copies of the papers that talk about the "Mosquito" noise.
Second, you get a microphone and an oscilloscope. You can show the signal on generated on the o-scope.
Third, get a frequency shifter. You can drop the frequency down to something audible.
Forth, Record the sound.
Fifth, go to the police and/or D.A. and do a little demo. Convince them to see it live in the neighborhood.
And you people call yourselves techies, geeks, and hackers.