No, you didn't. All you did was agree to be breath-tested (depending on what state you're in) at an officer's discretion. You can still refuse the breath test, but you've agreed that refusal to take a breath test has the same consequences as a DUI conviction.
That's exactly my point. The government, in whatever form, effectively licenses things to you in exchange for giving up your rights. You cannot drive a car without consenting to a blood-alcohol test. You cannot enter an airport without consenting to being searched. You cannot, excluding private sales, purchase a gun without a background check. You cannot vote unless you register. All of these things can now be "licensed" to give up any related rights.
As a sidenote, I'm curious as to how blood-alcohol tests, or any tests involving your body,relate to the Fifth Amendment. It seems convictions will only occur because of your body's testimony.
I'll disagree with you here -- you voluntarily give up your Fourth Amendment right against search as a condition of entering the secured area of the airport.
Should I voluntarily give up my Fourth Amendment right when I drive my car? I guess I did give that up when I got my license and titled my car. What about when I walk down the street? After all, if I don't want to be searched I could voluntarily return to my home never to leave again.
I'm surprised that the industry changed from copper to aluminum, considering the electronics/microchip manufacturers are just switching from aluminum to copper. I thought the conductivity benefits of copper outweighed the cost drawbacks. I guess not...
How can you claim You can't compare what it costs to do business in one country with what it costs in another? This is the whole reason companies relocate factories or build parts in different locations throughout the world. Parts cost less, labor costs less. If you can launch your equipment cheaper in Russia, then you launch your equipment in Russia. Saying you can't compare costs because the economies are different is idiotic. If $12 million US in Russia gets your stuff into orbit that is by definition cheaper than the $600 million US it costs NASA, no matter how much NASA's subcontractors may charge. The cost, in the end once everything is up in space, is what you compare. Last time I checked, 12 million was indeed less than 600 million.
Who else is AMD going to ask for help on building low power devices? Motorola? I doubt it. Motorola wants that market to themselves. I'm sure there are others, but who needs outside help more than transmeta? They're in a tough situation and AMD knows it. What better way to get what you want for cheap?
When source is released under the GPL I'm assuming that it's been released under an implied version of the GPL, correct? If I release code under GPL 1.2, can somebody later release code based on mine under GPL 1.0? I suppose then it would be possible for any company to steal code from another GPL'd source if that source was released under a "faulty" license.
But if there are no versions, then there is no harm done. The license needs to be rewritten.
But if all licenses are unenforcable, then I guess we can start copying Windows and publishing benchmarks about Oracle, right?
If you've ever watched a Philadelphia Phillies game on the local channel you'll see digital ads for various companies placed on the outfield walls. Often times these ads cover existing ads or banners of some sort.
I can't wait for the day when Prominent Company A sues Prominent Company B because Company B paid to have Company A's paid advertising overwritten with their own ads during a rebroadcasting.
Most of the problem with net congestion is because there aren't enough streets. No company wants to foot the bill of laying new pipes or connecting their equipment with anybody elses. Just imagine if you wanted to drive to visit your friend across town in Philly. Instead of driving down the street to his house, you have to go through New York or Chicago. That's not too smart now, is it? That's what happens with your net traffic. It's too bad the various goverments don't pay for new pipes like they do for streets.
My traffic from work here in Philly got sent down through Washington, DC before coming back up to Philly to go to the local university.
When my system has been up for a lengthy amount of time I usually reboot it. What with the kernel making strange, abnormal, irrational, or incorrect decisions, my system will just degrade itself until something catastrophically breaks. That's bad. It's always nice to get a fresh, clean start to things before I lose important files.
With an uptime approaching 225 years and a system acting in such a brain-dead manner, wouldn't a reboot make sense right about now?
For those of you who didn't quite get it, this is a metaphor.
The work isn't actually lessened, the power is. Power being work/time. The work(force through a distance) is always the same whether you move it straight up or on an incline. Excluding friction of course.
This argument for python white-spacing could also be applied to any/all of the languages that required statments to begin at a certain column. We all know how productive that requirement was.
I think that is where a majority of the criticism lies. Why should I be forced to seperate my code like that? Is it intuitively obvious to a reader that whitespace denotes scope context? Crazy requirements like this manifest themselves in other places, make files being a prime example. (It's whitespace, why does the make file require tabs?)
The problem is that there are 2 distinct problems. The first is when you choose 1 of 3. The second is when you choose from 1 of 2. The probability of choosing the right answer from 2 choices is.5. Once an incorrect choice is removed from the 3, there are only 2 left. The probability of picking the correct outcome is the number of correct outcomes divided by the total number of outcomes. So after the incorrect choice is removed, how many possible outcomes are there? 2. How many correct outcomes are there? 1. 1/2=.5. It does not benefit you to switch from your initial guess.
The problem with your statement
Staying with your original guess X doesn't change the fact that there was only a 1/3 chance of X being right in the first place
is that your initial guess X is guaranteed to have a probability of being correct %50 of the time. The 3rd incorrect choice is always thrown out regardless of what you initially pick. The choice thrown out can never be the correct choice. Forget about the 3rd choice. Nobody in their right mind would PICK the incorrect choice that was thrown out because it was incorrect. Once the incorrect choice has been thrown out, the problem devolves into 1 correct choice out of 2, every time.
What's the probability of picking a number I'm thinking of between 1 and 10 if I tell you it's not 5? Since I just told you it's not 5, and you're not stupid enough to pick 5, that leaves the numbers 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10. That's 9 choices, of which 1 is correct. So that's 1/9. The same is true for the doors. What's the probability of choosing the correct door out of 3 if I tell you that one of them is wrong? Since I just told you 1 was wrong, and that you're not stupid enough to pick that wrong door, your possible choices are 2, and the correct number of doors is 1. So that's 1/2. The 3rd door is NOT part of the problem. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of your initial guess. How can the probability of picking the correct choice from 2 choices be 1/3 if you don't switch? Where are the 3 possible choices? There aren't 3. There are only 2.
Perhaps somebody could enlighten me about the Monty Hall problem, aside from it being offtopic.
According to my understanding of the problem, you have 3 choices with only one correct choice. After you choose, one of the 3 choices(not yours) is shown to be incorrect and removed. You now have the option of changing your guess. The option of changing your guess completely redefines the problem! The probability of you picking the correct answer is no longer based out of 3 choices, but out of 2! Since an incorrect choice was removed from the 3, that leaves a correct choice and an incorrect choice. The 3rd choice is now completely and utterly irrelevant and devoid of the problem. It never existed! It is not a possible choice! The problem, once an incorrect choice is removed, is now based on 2 possible choices. One is right, one is wrong. The probability of you having originally picked the correct door is.5. Switching your guess does not benefit you. What am I missing here people?
I suppose this would be a neat trick to look at 50 pages of Windows source. Not that you'd want to, but the possibility is there. And if you can't get those 50 pages, start giving out copies of the latest Windows release.
Slashdot is not an advertisting resource for large companies
So now Apple is a large company? But according to the slashdot crowd, Linux has more marketshare than Apple. And if slashdot is not an advertisting resource, what's this article doing on there?
This all fits into the RIAA's master plan, though I didn't think they'd make it so obvious this early. The real threat to the RIAA from Napster is not losing money from pirating, it's losing money from the artist when the artist realizes they DON'T need the RIAA to distribute their music anymore. What the RIAA is attempting to do is prevent ANY artist from throwing off the shackles and distributing music themselves. With the RIAA-approved list, this won't happen. Or it won't happen as easily. This is scary. The RIAA would now seem to have the power to restrict peoples free speech.
If bands release their music for free on Napster, and radio stations play that music for free on the air, the artists will still get exposure, and they'll still go on tour, and they'll still make money from concerts, and they'll still have fans. What they won't have is the RIAA Albatross around their necks. That's what the RIAA is afraid of. That's why they're doing this.
Apple has realized that they'll never beat Microsoft marketshare-wise. What you buy when you buy Apple hardware is an experience that is guaranteed to work. Everytime. Out of the box. People pay for that. *That* is why Apple has a small list of supported platforms.
If Apple had to support x86 hardware, they would be in the EXACT same situation the Linux distros are in. It's the whole "jack of all trades, master of none" expression. Apple *could* run on x86, but the experience would not be guaranteed to work. Everytime. Apple IS the best user-oriented *nix we'll ever see BECAUSE it doesn't have the marketshare of the x86 hardware based Linux distros. Apple would not be able to provide the same experience over that great range of hardware. It would be impossible for them to do. If Apple can't provide the experience, then Apple software/hardware doesn't sell. And if Apple's software/hardware doesn't sell, that's the end of the story.
Apple being in control of its hardware is no different than Linus being in control of his kernel. Somebody has to guarantee that it will work (hardware/kernel) the same time, all the time. Apple accomplishes this through restricting the hardware, Linus accomplishes this by controlling what goes in the kernel. But "Linux" is more than just the kernel. And that's correct. That's why there are so many Linux distros. Not one distro can support every usage on every piece of hardware the same way, each time, every time. They specialize. And in doing so, they restrict the hardware, although subtly and not as profoundly as Apple. And that's the difference between user experiences.
If my parents want a user experience that will work the same, every time, without any fiddling, they'll buy Apple hardware. If they want to buy cheaper hardware, they'll buy x86 equipment and hope they can install some version of Linux. But which one? Not one is guaranteed to work on their hardware. That's what they get when they buy Apple. A guarantee. This software WILL work on these computers.
Apple's business practice is not punitive in the least. They could not provide the greatest experience if they didn't control the hardware. And if they can't provide the greatest experience, then they can't survive.
Basing someone's skill as a programmer based on their grammatical abilities is idiotic. It's similar to basing physicist's ability on their physical appearance. Or a girl's personality on her looks.
And yes I've hired people. And yes they're not perfect, nor would I have wanted them to be perfect. If I sat around waiting for those types of people, I wouldn't have anybody working for me. I'd have drones. Can the people that make grammatical mistakes work well? Yes. Do they have personalities? Yes. Can they do the job? Yes. Will they fit the job? The only way to find out is to meet them. Are cover letters a good indicator into an employee's ability? No. To make as rash a judgement as that based on a cover letter is moronic. I know what a coverletter is. It's a BS statement filled with buzzwords and action verbs. They're a complete waste. You might as well believe Marketing material. In order to get a true understanding, you must meet the person. Ask them questions. Look at their examples. Give them problems to solve on the spot. Converse with them. So what if it wastes 30 minutes of your day. That's part of your job when you're responsible for hiring people. Where is the meticulousness you mentioned now?
Of course you could also just be a jerk and exercise your little bit of power over some nameless, faceless prospect. Crush his hopes. How dare he waste your time. Those idiots who end sentences with propositions. Sanitational Engineering is too good of a job for them!
I'm happy I do not work for someone as close-minded as you.
Apparently you've never driven faster than the posted speed limit. Or never spilled milk. Or never tripped. Or never miscalculated an expression. Or never received less than perfect on a test.
Maybe the individual whose resume you summarily disgarded made that mistake intentionally. Maybe he put errors in his resume so jerk bosses like you would throw his resume out before hiring him. Behavior like this is childish. I'm sure the programmer is doubly happy now that he wasn't hired by you.
I'm sure you also weed out applicants from inferior universities. If they were any good, they would have gone to a better school, right? Nevermind the fact that they might not have been able to afford better.
Have any of the programmers whose resumes contained no mistakes ever made a mistake programming? I doubt the answer to that question is "no." Mistakes do not equate to sloppiness. Otherwise you can kiss about half of the inventions that make our lives better goodbye.
Lastly, try not to take your shortcomings out on others. You are far from perfect. Try showing some mercy next time.
It would seem to me, that after reading this article, and the comments made about copying copyrighted material:
Copyright law applies to virtually every form of expression that can be captured (or, to use the copyright term of art, "fixed") in a tangible medium, such as on paper, film, magnetic tape, hard drive, optical media, or even merely in RAM
All of those webpages you've ever viewed? You directly infringed their copyrighted material each and every time, since your computer/browser stores a copy in RAM, and possibly on disk if it's cached.
To a copyright lawyer, every reproduction, distribution, and public performance requires an explanation, and thus file-sharing systems seem suspicious from the outset.
This would seem to implicate Apache/IIS/any webserver that is serving webpages, since the material is (usually) copyrighted.
So can Slashdot now file suit against Microsoft as a direct infringer? Microsoft gains direct financial benefit by having people download Internet Explorer, and their software directly infringes copyrights when viewing webpages. Must Microsoft incorporate code into IE to block users that view copyrighted material?
This brings up the topic of authorized distribution and reproduction. Is the act of serving your copyrighted material through a webserver an implied/implicit permission to distribute/reproduce said content? Or is it implied that you may only store 1 copy? What then about caching? What about proxy servers that cache popular websites? Would I have to name Google since they cache my copyrighted material? Would I have to name Verizon/@Home for caching my material in their proxies? If Slashdot changed their copyright policy to deny ANY reproduction/storage/distribution could they then go after each and every one of us for viewing their webpage?
What about photography? If I take a picture of a work, am I infringing? If I record a concert, am I infringing? Can I not distribute my photograph? What if I'm in the picture with the copyrighted work? Can I not distribute that either? Suppose I consider MP3's an art, similar to photography. I don't copy a song exactly, I merely take a lossy image of it. How does that differ from photography exactly? What if I include extraneous non-copyrighted material inside the lossy, "MP3-photograph" of the song? Somebody please enlighten me.
As it goes without saying, IANAL, or rather, IA-Damn-glad-IANAL.
I think I'm getting the idea of this, with the encryption and all, but one thing isn't quite clear to me. Is the reason the DMCA defense seems plausible is because each Aimster account is essentially a closed system?
The reason this works is because Aimster has legitimate, legal, fair uses as a service. And using the DMCA, it's illegal to intercept/decrypt/decipher what is in those transmissions. So somebody like the RIAA can't snoop the traffic to see if Aimster users are sending MP3s. They also can't get a court to bypass the DMCA because the RIAA does not ( and cannot without breaking the DMCA) know whether Aimster users are engaging in illegal activity or not, since Aimster does have legitimate uses.
I suppose it's somewhat equivalent to the police entering your home without probable cause, finding drugs/illegal material/criminal activity, and THEN arresting you. The police can't unlawfully search your home due to the 4th Amendment (DMCA) to find illegal material (MP3s) since your home does (hopefully) have legitimate fair, non-infringing uses.
Because they don't even know that other options exist, for the most part.
Why? Because MS is a monopoly.
And thats Microsofts fault? No, its the fault of the ignorant consumer. If you don't research your options you're going to have to put up with what you're given. For the 'average' user at home Windows is the best operating system.
It IS Microsoft's fault because (back before the DOJ investigation) Microsoft would not let a computer supplier sell Windows if they sold another OS. They did the same thing with IE. They told manufacturers "you cannot sell windows if Netscape is on the desktop." So because of Microsoft using its monopoly, consumers could not buy a computer with an alternative OS. Nor could they buy a computer with an alternative browser. That is why it's harmful.
Secondly, what good is research if you can't buy an alternative product preinstalled anyway? This is where the Microsoft tax came from. You couldn't buy a computer for use with Linux/FreeBSD/*NIX without also buying a copy of Windows, regardless of whether you actually USE Windows or not. Now do you still want to talk about fair?
Slashdot Mirror
No, you didn't. All you did was agree to be breath-tested (depending on what state you're in) at an officer's discretion. You can still refuse the breath test, but you've agreed that refusal to take a breath test has the same consequences as a DUI conviction.
That's exactly my point. The government, in whatever form, effectively licenses things to you in exchange for giving up your rights. You cannot drive a car without consenting to a blood-alcohol test. You cannot enter an airport without consenting to being searched. You cannot, excluding private sales, purchase a gun without a background check. You cannot vote unless you register. All of these things can now be "licensed" to give up any related rights.
As a sidenote, I'm curious as to how blood-alcohol tests, or any tests involving your body,relate to the Fifth Amendment. It seems convictions will only occur because of your body's testimony.
I'll disagree with you here -- you voluntarily give up your Fourth Amendment right against search as a condition of entering the secured area of the airport.
Should I voluntarily give up my Fourth Amendment right when I drive my car? I guess I did give that up when I got my license and titled my car. What about when I walk down the street? After all, if I don't want to be searched I could voluntarily return to my home never to leave again.
I'm surprised that the industry changed from copper to aluminum, considering the electronics/microchip manufacturers are just switching from aluminum to copper. I thought the conductivity benefits of copper outweighed the cost drawbacks. I guess not...
How can you claim You can't compare what it costs to do business in one country with what it costs in another? This is the whole reason companies relocate factories or build parts in different locations throughout the world. Parts cost less, labor costs less. If you can launch your equipment cheaper in Russia, then you launch your equipment in Russia. Saying you can't compare costs because the economies are different is idiotic. If $12 million US in Russia gets your stuff into orbit that is by definition cheaper than the $600 million US it costs NASA, no matter how much NASA's subcontractors may charge. The cost, in the end once everything is up in space, is what you compare. Last time I checked, 12 million was indeed less than 600 million.
Who else is AMD going to ask for help on building low power devices? Motorola? I doubt it. Motorola wants that market to themselves. I'm sure there are others, but who needs outside help more than transmeta? They're in a tough situation and AMD knows it. What better way to get what you want for cheap?
When source is released under the GPL I'm assuming that it's been released under an implied version of the GPL, correct? If I release code under GPL 1.2, can somebody later release code based on mine under GPL 1.0? I suppose then it would be possible for any company to steal code from another GPL'd source if that source was released under a "faulty" license.
But if there are no versions, then there is no harm done. The license needs to be rewritten.
But if all licenses are unenforcable, then I guess we can start copying Windows and publishing benchmarks about Oracle, right?
If you've ever watched a Philadelphia Phillies game on the local channel you'll see digital ads for various companies placed on the outfield walls. Often times these ads cover existing ads or banners of some sort.
I can't wait for the day when Prominent Company A sues Prominent Company B because Company B paid to have Company A's paid advertising overwritten with their own ads during a rebroadcasting.
When did Cooba become a member of the United States? I slept a lot in history class, but I didn't think I slept that much.
Most of the problem with net congestion is because there aren't enough streets. No company wants to foot the bill of laying new pipes or connecting their equipment with anybody elses. Just imagine if you wanted to drive to visit your friend across town in Philly. Instead of driving down the street to his house, you have to go through New York or Chicago. That's not too smart now, is it? That's what happens with your net traffic. It's too bad the various goverments don't pay for new pipes like they do for streets.
My traffic from work here in Philly got sent down through Washington, DC before coming back up to Philly to go to the local university.
When my system has been up for a lengthy amount of time I usually reboot it. What with the kernel making strange, abnormal, irrational, or incorrect decisions, my system will just degrade itself until something catastrophically breaks. That's bad. It's always nice to get a fresh, clean start to things before I lose important files.
With an uptime approaching 225 years and a system acting in such a brain-dead manner, wouldn't a reboot make sense right about now?
For those of you who didn't quite get it, this is a metaphor.
The work isn't actually lessened, the power is. Power being work/time. The work(force through a distance) is always the same whether you move it straight up or on an incline. Excluding friction of course.
This argument for python white-spacing could also be applied to any/all of the languages that required statments to begin at a certain column. We all know how productive that requirement was.
I think that is where a majority of the criticism lies. Why should I be forced to seperate my code like that? Is it intuitively obvious to a reader that whitespace denotes scope context? Crazy requirements like this manifest themselves in other places, make files being a prime example. (It's whitespace, why does the make file require tabs?)
After going crazy I decided for myself you guys are right. Thanks for the discussion and help.
The problem with your statement is that your initial guess X is guaranteed to have a probability of being correct %50 of the time. The 3rd incorrect choice is always thrown out regardless of what you initially pick. The choice thrown out can never be the correct choice. Forget about the 3rd choice. Nobody in their right mind would PICK the incorrect choice that was thrown out because it was incorrect. Once the incorrect choice has been thrown out, the problem devolves into 1 correct choice out of 2, every time.
What's the probability of picking a number I'm thinking of between 1 and 10 if I tell you it's not 5? Since I just told you it's not 5, and you're not stupid enough to pick 5, that leaves the numbers 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10. That's 9 choices, of which 1 is correct. So that's 1/9. The same is true for the doors. What's the probability of choosing the correct door out of 3 if I tell you that one of them is wrong? Since I just told you 1 was wrong, and that you're not stupid enough to pick that wrong door, your possible choices are 2, and the correct number of doors is 1. So that's 1/2. The 3rd door is NOT part of the problem. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of your initial guess. How can the probability of picking the correct choice from 2 choices be 1/3 if you don't switch? Where are the 3 possible choices? There aren't 3. There are only 2.
Perhaps somebody could enlighten me about the Monty Hall problem, aside from it being offtopic.
.5. Switching your guess does not benefit you. What am I missing here people?
According to my understanding of the problem, you have 3 choices with only one correct choice. After you choose, one of the 3 choices(not yours) is shown to be incorrect and removed. You now have the option of changing your guess. The option of changing your guess completely redefines the problem! The probability of you picking the correct answer is no longer based out of 3 choices, but out of 2! Since an incorrect choice was removed from the 3, that leaves a correct choice and an incorrect choice. The 3rd choice is now completely and utterly irrelevant and devoid of the problem. It never existed! It is not a possible choice! The problem, once an incorrect choice is removed, is now based on 2 possible choices. One is right, one is wrong. The probability of you having originally picked the correct door is
According to this it's probable that you know about double your initial guess of 30,000.
I suppose this would be a neat trick to look at 50 pages of Windows source. Not that you'd want to, but the possibility is there. And if you can't get those 50 pages, start giving out copies of the latest Windows release.
Slashdot is not an advertisting resource for large companies
So now Apple is a large company? But according to the slashdot crowd, Linux has more marketshare than Apple. And if slashdot is not an advertisting resource, what's this article doing on there?
This all fits into the RIAA's master plan, though I didn't think they'd make it so obvious this early. The real threat to the RIAA from Napster is not losing money from pirating, it's losing money from the artist when the artist realizes they DON'T need the RIAA to distribute their music anymore. What the RIAA is attempting to do is prevent ANY artist from throwing off the shackles and distributing music themselves. With the RIAA-approved list, this won't happen. Or it won't happen as easily. This is scary. The RIAA would now seem to have the power to restrict peoples free speech.
If bands release their music for free on Napster, and radio stations play that music for free on the air, the artists will still get exposure, and they'll still go on tour, and they'll still make money from concerts, and they'll still have fans. What they won't have is the RIAA Albatross around their necks. That's what the RIAA is afraid of. That's why they're doing this.
Apple has realized that they'll never beat Microsoft marketshare-wise. What you buy when you buy Apple hardware is an experience that is guaranteed to work. Everytime. Out of the box. People pay for that. *That* is why Apple has a small list of supported platforms.
If Apple had to support x86 hardware, they would be in the EXACT same situation the Linux distros are in. It's the whole "jack of all trades, master of none" expression. Apple *could* run on x86, but the experience would not be guaranteed to work. Everytime. Apple IS the best user-oriented *nix we'll ever see BECAUSE it doesn't have the marketshare of the x86 hardware based Linux distros. Apple would not be able to provide the same experience over that great range of hardware. It would be impossible for them to do. If Apple can't provide the experience, then Apple software/hardware doesn't sell. And if Apple's software/hardware doesn't sell, that's the end of the story.
Apple being in control of its hardware is no different than Linus being in control of his kernel. Somebody has to guarantee that it will work (hardware/kernel) the same time, all the time. Apple accomplishes this through restricting the hardware, Linus accomplishes this by controlling what goes in the kernel. But "Linux" is more than just the kernel. And that's correct. That's why there are so many Linux distros. Not one distro can support every usage on every piece of hardware the same way, each time, every time. They specialize. And in doing so, they restrict the hardware, although subtly and not as profoundly as Apple. And that's the difference between user experiences.
If my parents want a user experience that will work the same, every time, without any fiddling, they'll buy Apple hardware. If they want to buy cheaper hardware, they'll buy x86 equipment and hope they can install some version of Linux. But which one? Not one is guaranteed to work on their hardware. That's what they get when they buy Apple. A guarantee. This software WILL work on these computers.
Apple's business practice is not punitive in the least. They could not provide the greatest experience if they didn't control the hardware. And if they can't provide the greatest experience, then they can't survive.
Basing someone's skill as a programmer based on their grammatical abilities is idiotic. It's similar to basing physicist's ability on their physical appearance. Or a girl's personality on her looks.
And yes I've hired people. And yes they're not perfect, nor would I have wanted them to be perfect. If I sat around waiting for those types of people, I wouldn't have anybody working for me. I'd have drones. Can the people that make grammatical mistakes work well? Yes. Do they have personalities? Yes. Can they do the job? Yes. Will they fit the job? The only way to find out is to meet them. Are cover letters a good indicator into an employee's ability? No. To make as rash a judgement as that based on a cover letter is moronic. I know what a coverletter is. It's a BS statement filled with buzzwords and action verbs. They're a complete waste. You might as well believe Marketing material. In order to get a true understanding, you must meet the person. Ask them questions. Look at their examples. Give them problems to solve on the spot. Converse with them. So what if it wastes 30 minutes of your day. That's part of your job when you're responsible for hiring people. Where is the meticulousness you mentioned now?
Of course you could also just be a jerk and exercise your little bit of power over some nameless, faceless prospect. Crush his hopes. How dare he waste your time. Those idiots who end sentences with propositions. Sanitational Engineering is too good of a job for them!
I'm happy I do not work for someone as close-minded as you.
Apparently you've never driven faster than the posted speed limit. Or never spilled milk. Or never tripped. Or never miscalculated an expression. Or never received less than perfect on a test.
Maybe the individual whose resume you summarily disgarded made that mistake intentionally. Maybe he put errors in his resume so jerk bosses like you would throw his resume out before hiring him. Behavior like this is childish. I'm sure the programmer is doubly happy now that he wasn't hired by you.
I'm sure you also weed out applicants from inferior universities. If they were any good, they would have gone to a better school, right? Nevermind the fact that they might not have been able to afford better.
Have any of the programmers whose resumes contained no mistakes ever made a mistake programming? I doubt the answer to that question is "no." Mistakes do not equate to sloppiness. Otherwise you can kiss about half of the inventions that make our lives better goodbye.
Lastly, try not to take your shortcomings out on others. You are far from perfect. Try showing some mercy next time.
So can Slashdot now file suit against Microsoft as a direct infringer? Microsoft gains direct financial benefit by having people download Internet Explorer, and their software directly infringes copyrights when viewing webpages. Must Microsoft incorporate code into IE to block users that view copyrighted material?
This brings up the topic of authorized distribution and reproduction. Is the act of serving your copyrighted material through a webserver an implied/implicit permission to distribute/reproduce said content? Or is it implied that you may only store 1 copy? What then about caching? What about proxy servers that cache popular websites? Would I have to name Google since they cache my copyrighted material? Would I have to name Verizon/@Home for caching my material in their proxies? If Slashdot changed their copyright policy to deny ANY reproduction/storage/distribution could they then go after each and every one of us for viewing their webpage?
What about photography? If I take a picture of a work, am I infringing? If I record a concert, am I infringing? Can I not distribute my photograph? What if I'm in the picture with the copyrighted work? Can I not distribute that either? Suppose I consider MP3's an art, similar to photography. I don't copy a song exactly, I merely take a lossy image of it. How does that differ from photography exactly? What if I include extraneous non-copyrighted material inside the lossy, "MP3-photograph" of the song? Somebody please enlighten me.
As it goes without saying, IANAL, or rather, IA-Damn-glad-IANAL.
I think I'm getting the idea of this, with the encryption and all, but one thing isn't quite clear to me. Is the reason the DMCA defense seems plausible is because each Aimster account is essentially a closed system?
The reason this works is because Aimster has legitimate, legal, fair uses as a service. And using the DMCA, it's illegal to intercept/decrypt/decipher what is in those transmissions. So somebody like the RIAA can't snoop the traffic to see if Aimster users are sending MP3s. They also can't get a court to bypass the DMCA because the RIAA does not ( and cannot without breaking the DMCA) know whether Aimster users are engaging in illegal activity or not, since Aimster does have legitimate uses.
I suppose it's somewhat equivalent to the police entering your home without probable cause, finding drugs/illegal material/criminal activity, and THEN arresting you. The police can't unlawfully search your home due to the 4th Amendment (DMCA) to find illegal material (MP3s) since your home does (hopefully) have legitimate fair, non-infringing uses.
Because they don't even know that other options exist, for the most part.
Why? Because MS is a monopoly.
And thats Microsofts fault? No, its the fault of the ignorant consumer. If you don't research your options you're going to have to put up with what you're given. For the 'average' user at home Windows is the best operating system.
It IS Microsoft's fault because (back before the DOJ investigation) Microsoft would not let a computer supplier sell Windows if they sold another OS. They did the same thing with IE. They told manufacturers "you cannot sell windows if Netscape is on the desktop." So because of Microsoft using its monopoly, consumers could not buy a computer with an alternative OS. Nor could they buy a computer with an alternative browser. That is why it's harmful.
Secondly, what good is research if you can't buy an alternative product preinstalled anyway? This is where the Microsoft tax came from. You couldn't buy a computer for use with Linux/FreeBSD/*NIX without also buying a copy of Windows, regardless of whether you actually USE Windows or not. Now do you still want to talk about fair?