You're right; the numbers in the original article don't make sense if average is computed in any fashion that I would consider meaningful.
However, if you computed average salary for each of n groups (where n might be as small as 3), and then simply averaged together the group average numbers, you might come up with something like this. And, as dishonest as it may seem, (giving vastly more weight to upper management salaries) if you were under pressure to produce a certain result from editors who wanted to tell a "it's getting better" story, you might be tempted to do something that bad.
The end result remains the same: middle management and staff salaries went down, by a significant amount, despite the article summary.
I wonder how people are saying that this survey shows wages for IT workers increasing. It doesn't - in fact, it shows exactly the opposite.
I can see how you might believe this if you read only this paragraph:
The downward slide of salaries reported in
InfoWorld
Compensation Surveys in mid-2002 and mid-2003 ended in this year's
survey. The average salary reported this year was $83,651, down an
insignificant 0.8 percent from the $84,312 reported in mid-2003 and
down 4.3 percent from $87,385 in mid-2002.
But go ahead and read the next two paragraphs:
Interestingly,
the survey also uncovered a growing gap between upper management and
those on the lower rungs of IT. Senior IT managers' wages reported this
year averaged $117,185, up more than 6 percent from $110,458 reported
in last year's survey.
By
contrast, middle management wages dropped to $80,467 in this year's
poll, down more than 4 percent from $84,075 reported last year. IT
staff received an average salary of $66,547, a 7 percent decline from
$71,493 in the same period last year.
So the message is this: if you're not upper management - that is, if you're not part of the system that sets the salaries - the people who are part of upper management will continue to screw you. It's not going to get better on its own.
The salary of middle management and IT staff went down. It's just that the salaries of upper management went up by enough to raise the average.
Yet in a discussion of student standards, and particularly in response to a poster who seems to be advocating that we reduce the amount of education offered to one group of children, is it not relevant that the poster can't spell "incompetent"?
Ad Hominem is a perfectly valid debating tactic in response to a post which carries a subtext of "I am superior to the average joe".
Sorry, that's the other side of the pond. Over hear, we call them "taxpayers". Or actually, "people who pay property taxes". (Since "taxpayer" applies to those who pay federal, state, and local income taxes as well)
And while we're on that, E-Rate is a federal program, and so not funded by property taxes. (except by the circuitous route that some other federal program would have to be cut to pay for this, which might cause some local municipality to have to raise property taxes to pay for something on their own)
This could actually be a consequence of the hijacked machine doing the spam sending being on some corporate network that adds those disclaimers to every piece of outgoing email. If you track back the Received: headers as far as you trust them, you'll probably find that it went through some big corporation's outbound email server. They might even not mind a notice that one of their machines is sending spam. (Probably, they'll ignore it, unless you happen to contact the properly bearded network guru they have hidden in a basement somewhere)
Better than the rational plugin described in another reply, check out the open source Clearcase plugin on sourceforge: http://eclipse-ccase.sourceforge.net/.
We've been very happy with eclipse in my development group, and all our code is in clearcase. With this plugin, we can do all our clearcase work quickly and easily from inside eclipse.
There was such a ruling but it was overridden when the Copyright Act of 1977 explicity exempted copying neccesary for use (such as to a hard drive for installation or to RAM for running) from copyright protectin.
Right idea, wrong decade. That particular change to US copyright law happened in 1987.
There's a difference between saying "what that man said should put him in prison" and "someone saying these things should not be elected to high political office".
(Admittedly, the grandparent poster did say "put him in the nuthouse")
You're making the standard mistake of assuming that the labor pool of "people who work on linux" is of a fixed size, and that man hours are interchangeable.
Linux doesn't work like that. The vast majority of people who work to improve linux aren't doing it because they're getting paid, and instead work on or focus on what interests them. If someone is focusing on feature X, that's not necessarily taking any time or energy away from feature Y - if they weren't doing X, they might very possibly not be contributing to Linux at all.
Seriously, complaints like this remind me of a manager coming in and discovering that some developers were talking about the finer points of thread interactions in a specific application and saying: "Who cares how the threading works? I just want something the customers can use!"
If it makes you feel better, you should learn to simply ignore discussion of technical features that upset you - this discussion does not in fact take away from discussions of user friendliness nor does it imply that the user will be forced to follow this discussion in order to use the outcome. If the user wishes, anyway, to follow this discussion then they might glean something interesting from it, but supplying the users with extra optional information can't be a bad thing, can it?
And as for access time, I have to ask: making the computer as a whole more responsive to my actions won't make me like using it better? Maybe 10% isn't going to make much perceived difference most of the time, but when it means the difference between a stutter-free movie playback and the occasional dropped frame, I'm going to notice.
It's not that long, or hard to understand, and while I can conceive of some obscure edge-case scenarios that a simple reading of the license wouldn't be sufficient to explain, this isn't one of them.
As for the scenario presented, here's what the GPL says: When distributing something GPLed that you've modified, you must other provide the source at the same time, or provide a written offer to provide the source to any third party. (When I ordered Debian disks from LSL years ago, they printed their GPL compliance written offer in small print on the front of the CD) Note that this isn't "any third party who somehow gets a copy of the binary" or "any third party to whom I sold a copy of the binary". (sect. 3a and 3b) When redistributing binaries of something you haven't modified, you need to do the same - also provide the source too, or a written offer. There is a very narrow exception for noncommercial distribution in this case: you may pass along a written offer from someone else instead of extending your own offer, so long as you didn't modify the source. However, once you're making money selling the binary, you can't pass someone else's offer along. (sect. 3a, 3b, and 3c - see also this explanation of the "written offer valid for any third party" bit)
Note that because of the annoyance factor present in maintaining written offers, especially since now people will almost always make their GPL-licensed source available over the internet, many people will license their code under a variation of the GPL, which is still GPL-compatible: "GPL with unmodified binary distribution allowed". Basically, this means that anyone is allowed to dispense with the written offer stuff if they only distribute the same binary as the original author does.
Is that intended as a rebuttal? It shows that the Southern view was one of extreme fear of the North's "fanatical" abolitionism:
The pregnant, indisputable, momentous fact, which the South has now to deal with, is, that our enemies are about to
take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery; and that in Working out these plans for our ruin and degradation, we must expect just that sort of leniency which is shown by the conqueror over a subjugated and craven people, who are the objects of his contempt and disgust, because they have proved themselves too cowardly to defend their honor, their families, and their property. (emphasis in the original)
This tells me that the South feared that they were going to be on the pointy receiving end of an abolitionist jihad. This is just the other side of Northern volunteers earnestly desiring to stamp out immoral behavior. It comes back to a religious conflict over the morality or not of slavery.
Well, in their defense your question was "what was the major cause of the US civil war?" - this is a different question from "what caused the US civil war?", which seems to be the question you meant to ask, given the answer you would consider correct.
And given that question, I'd have to go with the teachers. The civil war was a cultural/religious war between two broad cultural groups that had grown up in the US, and the main issue dividing these groups was the morality (or not) of slavery. (Not that most northern volunteers necessarily wanted to help blacks so much as they wanted to stop what they saw as immoral behavior)
What were the Protestant/Catholic wars in Europe in the 1600s about? Sure, there were economic factors, and occasionally personal motives on the part of leaders on both sides, but the reason these factors led to actual wars was the religious difference. I don't think answering "religious differences" would be a big stretch for "the major cause" of the Thirty Years War.
Your instant "thumbs down" reaction to these schools makes me wonder if you have become a bit oversensitized to the anti-PC hype, believing that everything has been rewritten by some radical revisionist liberals. Sometimes, the common wisdom answer has more truth to it than might be readily apparent.
Well, sure, you can make the correct code be ugly, but you don't have to:
IF (YEAR % 4 <> 0) THEN RETURN FALSE REM YEAR now divisible by 4 IF (YEAR % 100 <> 0) THEN RETURN TRUE REM YEAR now divisible by 100 IF (YEAR % 400 <> 0) THEN RETURN FALSE REM YEAR now divisible by 400 RETURN TRUE
Even with the comments, it's shorter than the original. That being said, I find that this way of saying it in C seems very natural:
Contact your local bar association. Ask for their lawyer referral service.
This gets you lawyers that are reasonably reputable, and often the referral service will have a deal worked out so that the initial consultation isn't going to empty your bank account.
The only reference I find in the article is that an FBI estinmate says that "damages from these online pranks could total $3 million".
But, you know, that's damages as in overcharging manpower costs, estimating server downtime at some bizarre cost/hour basis, and multiplying it by everyone in every one of these affected companies who looked at the story on the company dime.
Nowhere have I seen any claim that these kids themselves actually bought or attempted to buy anything with these cards.
Even the geekiest UNIX geek has to admit that sh / ksh are disasters as programming languages.
I think to go that far you really need to be looking at scripts wriiten in csh. sh may not be what you write the next killer FPS in, but it's a great tool for what it's generally used for - invoking other programs. (Including setting everything up nicely for those programs, with their environment settings and proper command-line arguments, etc.)
I've never seen any of the official CDs get the dependency order wrong in the way you imply. I generously suspect that either you took some not-overly-careful shovelware site's rip of the Debian archives as "Debian CDs", or that you're getting Debian confused with some other system.
The ads are hosted on a different server (which actually, at this moment, seems to not be serving them with ads).
But in any case, since wget won't pull content from a different server unless you give it the -H flag, this will simply suck their bandwidth without giving them any ad revenue:
cd/tmp; while true; do wget -r -nd --delete-after -o/dev/null http://www.carorcar.com/; date | xargs echo "Again at"; done
(Don't forget to cd, or you might end up deleting files in the current directory named the same thing as files on that site)
They're also using IIS, so someone could conceivably pull out all the IIS hack attempts sitting in their access logs from the script kiddies and see how well patched they are.
Well, first off I wonder if the observed similarity isn't just coincidence - if you look at, for example, the two year or three month charts, you don't see the same thing.
That being said, I'd need to pull out the heavy statistical tools to tell you what's really going on, which I might do over lunch.
For as long as I can remember, ghostscript has supported Canon bubblejet printers with the bjc series of drivers. But hey, look at the table of linux-happy Canon printers yourself.
Note that this is at Adobe's explicit request - there used to be an acroread installer in Debian (for acrobat version 1.4), but Adobe requested that Debian pull it, and the license for Acrobat Reader 1.5 explicitly forbids creating your own installer. (no, really - go read the license - they explicitly forbid even an external package that manipulates a package a user downloads themselves from adobe.com)
Without taking a stand on whether such a license restriction is legal or not, it is abundantly clear that Adobe does not wish Debian to distribute acroread or allow its easy installation in any form. Therefore, Debian sees no reason to go against the express wishes of the copyright owner.
In general, if upstream objects, the Debian package is pulled.
oh and Vets (who Kerry is trying to portray himself as very much one of with his band `o brothers (kerry did serve though)) care VERY much about this. When a campaign is making a big deal about someone being a war hero, it's a bit suspect when that war hero became part of the faction that spit on soldiers when they got home...
It's good to finally see someone with actual evidence of Vietnam protestors having spit on returning vets. And I'm glad to see you put to rest the idea that a significant part of the Vietnam anti-war movement was composed of former Vietnam veterans. I also like how you've noticed the very strong emphasis that his campaign places on him being a decorated veteran, despite the fact that doing so wouldn't actually help him much among Democratic primary voters.</sarcasm>
For what it's worth, the one Vietnam vet. I actually know (my father-in-law) doesn't care one way or the other. Hamburger Hill taught him how those in power screw the enlisted man, and Watergate showed him how they screw everyone else. He hasn't voted since, so any political news is just that much noise on the TV before the game comes on.
Now, most of the non-Vietnam vets I've talked to at church do think it matters, but less so than Bush's apparent inability to know whether or not he's in the military. (Hint: the president is not military - that's part of the point, that the military is not in charge - even Eisenhower never wore the uniform while President) Of course, if you only listened to those vets who are active in the local American Legion outpost, you'd hear a different story.
Incidentally, you do know you're just being bizarre about the Saddam remark, right? I mean, there aren't actually people on the right who can't grasp the difference between not wanting to commit American forces to toppling a dictator (and the subsequent national rebuilding) and actively wanting that dictator to stay in power. Are there?
"Sorry, I must be an idiot, I didn't mean to infer (whatever)."
I believe you meant to say imply, not infer.
By telling me "I have no informed opinion" when I ask you about what you think of our new coworker, you imply that he is not obviously a good addition to the team. By listening to your speech, I am able to infer that you have thought carefully about how to avoid casual lies in the workplace.
The difference is similar to the difference between reaching a conclusion (infer) and stating one (imply).
Slashdot Mirror
You're right; the numbers in the original article don't make sense if average is computed in any fashion that I would consider meaningful.
However, if you computed average salary for each of n groups (where n might be as small as 3), and then simply averaged together the group average numbers, you might come up with something like this. And, as dishonest as it may seem, (giving vastly more weight to upper management salaries) if you were under pressure to produce a certain result from editors who wanted to tell a "it's getting better" story, you might be tempted to do something that bad.
The end result remains the same: middle management and staff salaries went down, by a significant amount, despite the article summary.
I wonder how people are saying that this survey shows wages for IT workers increasing. It doesn't - in fact, it shows exactly the opposite.
I can see how you might believe this if you read only this paragraph:
But go ahead and read the next two paragraphs:
So the message is this: if you're not upper management - that is, if you're not part of the system that sets the salaries - the people who are part of upper management will continue to screw you. It's not going to get better on its own.
The salary of middle management and IT staff went down. It's just that the salaries of upper management went up by enough to raise the average.
Yet in a discussion of student standards, and particularly in response to a poster who seems to be advocating that we reduce the amount of education offered to one group of children, is it not relevant that the poster can't spell "incompetent"?
Ad Hominem is a perfectly valid debating tactic in response to a post which carries a subtext of "I am superior to the average joe".
"Ratepayer"?
Sorry, that's the other side of the pond. Over hear, we call them "taxpayers". Or actually, "people who pay property taxes". (Since "taxpayer" applies to those who pay federal, state, and local income taxes as well)
And while we're on that, E-Rate is a federal program, and so not funded by property taxes. (except by the circuitous route that some other federal program would have to be cut to pay for this, which might cause some local municipality to have to raise property taxes to pay for something on their own)
This could actually be a consequence of the hijacked machine doing the spam sending being on some corporate network that adds those disclaimers to every piece of outgoing email. If you track back the Received: headers as far as you trust them, you'll probably find that it went through some big corporation's outbound email server. They might even not mind a notice that one of their machines is sending spam. (Probably, they'll ignore it, unless you happen to contact the properly bearded network guru they have hidden in a basement somewhere)
Better than the rational plugin described in another reply, check out the open source Clearcase plugin on sourceforge: http://eclipse-ccase.sourceforge.net/.
We've been very happy with eclipse in my development group, and all our code is in clearcase. With this plugin, we can do all our clearcase work quickly and easily from inside eclipse.
I could have sworn that when I took it in 1991 there were two versions, one in pascal and one in C...
But that was a long time ago
Right idea, wrong decade. That particular change to US copyright law happened in 1987.
There's a difference between saying "what that man said should put him in prison" and "someone saying these things should not be elected to high political office".
(Admittedly, the grandparent poster did say "put him in the nuthouse")
You're making the standard mistake of assuming that the labor pool of "people who work on linux" is of a fixed size, and that man hours are interchangeable.
Linux doesn't work like that. The vast majority of people who work to improve linux aren't doing it because they're getting paid, and instead work on or focus on what interests them. If someone is focusing on feature X, that's not necessarily taking any time or energy away from feature Y - if they weren't doing X, they might very possibly not be contributing to Linux at all.
Seriously, complaints like this remind me of a manager coming in and discovering that some developers were talking about the finer points of thread interactions in a specific application and saying: "Who cares how the threading works? I just want something the customers can use!"
If it makes you feel better, you should learn to simply ignore discussion of technical features that upset you - this discussion does not in fact take away from discussions of user friendliness nor does it imply that the user will be forced to follow this discussion in order to use the outcome. If the user wishes, anyway, to follow this discussion then they might glean something interesting from it, but supplying the users with extra optional information can't be a bad thing, can it?
And as for access time, I have to ask: making the computer as a whole more responsive to my actions won't make me like using it better? Maybe 10% isn't going to make much perceived difference most of the time, but when it means the difference between a stutter-free movie playback and the occasional dropped frame, I'm going to notice.
Why don't you actually go read the GPL?
It's not that long, or hard to understand, and while I can conceive of some obscure edge-case scenarios that a simple reading of the license wouldn't be sufficient to explain, this isn't one of them.
As for the scenario presented, here's what the GPL says:
When distributing something GPLed that you've modified, you must other provide the source at the same time, or provide a written offer to provide the source to any third party. (When I ordered Debian disks from LSL years ago, they printed their GPL compliance written offer in small print on the front of the CD) Note that this isn't "any third party who somehow gets a copy of the binary" or "any third party to whom I sold a copy of the binary". (sect. 3a and 3b)
When redistributing binaries of something you haven't modified, you need to do the same - also provide the source too, or a written offer. There is a very narrow exception for noncommercial distribution in this case: you may pass along a written offer from someone else instead of extending your own offer, so long as you didn't modify the source. However, once you're making money selling the binary, you can't pass someone else's offer along. (sect. 3a, 3b, and 3c - see also this explanation of the "written offer valid for any third party" bit)
Note that because of the annoyance factor present in maintaining written offers, especially since now people will almost always make their GPL-licensed source available over the internet, many people will license their code under a variation of the GPL, which is still GPL-compatible: "GPL with unmodified binary distribution allowed". Basically, this means that anyone is allowed to dispense with the written offer stuff if they only distribute the same binary as the original author does.
This tells me that the South feared that they were going to be on the pointy receiving end of an abolitionist jihad. This is just the other side of Northern volunteers earnestly desiring to stamp out immoral behavior. It comes back to a religious conflict over the morality or not of slavery.
Well, in their defense your question was "what was the major cause of the US civil war?" - this is a different question from "what caused the US civil war?", which seems to be the question you meant to ask, given the answer you would consider correct.
And given that question, I'd have to go with the teachers. The civil war was a cultural/religious war between two broad cultural groups that had grown up in the US, and the main issue dividing these groups was the morality (or not) of slavery. (Not that most northern volunteers necessarily wanted to help blacks so much as they wanted to stop what they saw as immoral behavior)
What were the Protestant/Catholic wars in Europe in the 1600s about? Sure, there were economic factors, and occasionally personal motives on the part of leaders on both sides, but the reason these factors led to actual wars was the religious difference. I don't think answering "religious differences" would be a big stretch for "the major cause" of the Thirty Years War.
Your instant "thumbs down" reaction to these schools makes me wonder if you have become a bit oversensitized to the anti-PC hype, believing that everything has been rewritten by some radical revisionist liberals. Sometimes, the common wisdom answer has more truth to it than might be readily apparent.
Contact your local bar association. Ask for their lawyer referral service.
This gets you lawyers that are reasonably reputable, and often the referral service will have a deal worked out so that the initial consultation isn't going to empty your bank account.
The only reference I find in the article is that an FBI estinmate says that "damages from these online pranks could total $3 million".
But, you know, that's damages as in overcharging manpower costs, estimating server downtime at some bizarre cost/hour basis, and multiplying it by everyone in every one of these affected companies who looked at the story on the company dime.
Nowhere have I seen any claim that these kids themselves actually bought or attempted to buy anything with these cards.
Perhaps you have a different source?
I think to go that far you really need to be looking at scripts wriiten in csh. sh may not be what you write the next killer FPS in, but it's a great tool for what it's generally used for - invoking other programs. (Including setting everything up nicely for those programs, with their environment settings and proper command-line arguments, etc.)
I'd like to see some evidence here.
I've never seen any of the official CDs get the dependency order wrong in the way you imply. I generously suspect that either you took some not-overly-careful shovelware site's rip of the Debian archives as "Debian CDs", or that you're getting Debian confused with some other system.
The ads are hosted on a different server (which actually, at this moment, seems to not be serving them with ads).
/tmp; while true; do wget -r -nd --delete-after -o /dev/null http://www.carorcar.com/; date | xargs echo "Again at"; done
But in any case, since wget won't pull content from a different server unless you give it the -H flag, this will simply suck their bandwidth without giving them any ad revenue:
cd
(Don't forget to cd, or you might end up deleting files in the current directory named the same thing as files on that site)
They're also using IIS, so someone could conceivably pull out all the IIS hack attempts sitting in their access logs from the script kiddies and see how well patched they are.
Well, first off I wonder if the observed similarity isn't just coincidence - if you look at, for example, the two year or three month charts, you don't see the same thing.
That being said, I'd need to pull out the heavy statistical tools to tell you what's really going on, which I might do over lunch.
For as long as I can remember, ghostscript has supported Canon bubblejet printers with the bjc series of drivers. But hey, look at the table of linux-happy Canon printers yourself.
Note that this is at Adobe's explicit request - there used to be an acroread installer in Debian (for acrobat version 1.4), but Adobe requested that Debian pull it, and the license for Acrobat Reader 1.5 explicitly forbids creating your own installer. (no, really - go read the license - they explicitly forbid even an external package that manipulates a package a user downloads themselves from adobe.com)
Without taking a stand on whether such a license restriction is legal or not, it is abundantly clear that Adobe does not wish Debian to distribute acroread or allow its easy installation in any form. Therefore, Debian sees no reason to go against the express wishes of the copyright owner.
In general, if upstream objects, the Debian package is pulled.
For what it's worth, the one Vietnam vet. I actually know (my father-in-law) doesn't care one way or the other. Hamburger Hill taught him how those in power screw the enlisted man, and Watergate showed him how they screw everyone else. He hasn't voted since, so any political news is just that much noise on the TV before the game comes on.
Now, most of the non-Vietnam vets I've talked to at church do think it matters, but less so than Bush's apparent inability to know whether or not he's in the military. (Hint: the president is not military - that's part of the point, that the military is not in charge - even Eisenhower never wore the uniform while President) Of course, if you only listened to those vets who are active in the local American Legion outpost, you'd hear a different story.
Incidentally, you do know you're just being bizarre about the Saddam remark, right? I mean, there aren't actually people on the right who can't grasp the difference between not wanting to commit American forces to toppling a dictator (and the subsequent national rebuilding) and actively wanting that dictator to stay in power. Are there?
By telling me "I have no informed opinion" when I ask you about what you think of our new coworker, you imply that he is not obviously a good addition to the team. By listening to your speech, I am able to infer that you have thought carefully about how to avoid casual lies in the workplace.
The difference is similar to the difference between reaching a conclusion (infer) and stating one (imply).