The choice isn't "lib arts plus grad degree" vs. "other entry-level white collar degree." The choice is "get bachelor's and work 5 years, gaining experience and getting raises and promotions," or "go to grad school and get advanced degree, then start out at same level as guy with bachelor's and experience." Both roads lead to the same end result.
This is the reason that people tend to hire those with bachelor's for "entry-level positions" vice those advanced degrees - they can initially pay them less *and* train them they way they want them.
Also, in most technical fields other than engineering, they have this fun little thing call "Post-Doc work."
I guess the point is you can either start out with just a bachelor's and get experience, or they can hire you right out of school with an advanced degree, but you'll start out at the same level as that person with a bachelor's but who has the five years' experience already.
That assumes that the technical degree-bearing person is a typical/. loser geek with a CS degree who sits and writes code for 18 hours a day for $45,000/yr but does it because of the free cokes and nerf-gun fights and then wonders why he is out of a job when his dot-bomb company folds in a year. Ever wonder why a lot of CS grads started out as CSE or EE students?
If that technical degree happens to be an actual engineering or hard science degree and is involved in an appropriate field of employment - then there is no plateau. I work in a field where I started out average ($45,000/yr) but within two years was making almost double that, with no end in sight.
More importantly, it doesn't matter what field you are in - some people move into management and some don't. Why the hell would I want to have someone with an arts degree manage a team of engineers when I can hire an engineer who also has an MBA? Sure - you still need the technical experts - but you also need managers who understand engineering.
*THAT* is precisely the key - continue schooling (letting your company pay for it) and get that MBA or other "management" degree and move up the ladder into management, or continue schooling getting that Master's or PhD in your field, and become a technical expert in your company (if not your entire field.)
But, that's the rub - either you do technical stuff because you like it and don't mind only getting a low six-figure salary, or you do management because you like making higher six-figure salary, and do a lot of boot-licking to get promoted to an executive slot in 20 years.
Finally - I'll tell you who we remember for their technical achievements - Einstein, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Moore, Shockley, Bell, Edison, Watt, Hertz, Schrodinger (yeah - yeah - I know there is supposed to be a funny.. over the o), Ampere, Avogadro, Pauli, Heisenburg, Boltzmann, Bohr, Newton, Maxwell, Curie, DaVinci, Franklin, Galileo, Gutenberg, Pasteur, the Wright Bros., Faraday, de Broglie, Sakharov, Tesla, Boyle, Pascal, Babbage, etc, etc.
How many philosophers have improved peoples' lives? How many get immortalized by having a unit of measure named after them? How many hold patents?
Never forget that IT is *not* a true technical field - Christ - you can get an IT "degree" via mail-order...
Hey moron - you can be the one to suffer massive kidney failure in some shitty European Socialist Paradise (ESP)and wait 12 years on a dialysis machine until they can find the time to pencil your surgery in on their scheduling books. I'll take my chances with the insurance companies and HMOs in the U.S. - at least I know that as soon as a kidney is available, I'll be going under the knife.
More importantly, douchebag - in those shitty ESPs, you get the free healthcare only *because* you get to enjoy paying about 85+% of your pay directly to the gub'mint.
Well, this is where you are sadly mistaken - we *do* pay for everyone's college education in the U.S. - we just happen to do it via mostly loans and grants.
Unless you happen to be well-off, it pays to be poor (or for those of you who are "independent," it pays for your parents to be poor.)
What most people don't realize is that if you are smart enough to figure out how to be eligible for lots of grants and loans, you *are* going to be able to not pay a dime out of your own pocket until after you get out of school. By my senior year, I received *all* grants as financial aid - so my senior year was essentially free.
But - here is where people like you feel to grasp the "point" of this - in order to get to the point where you are receiving grants rather than loans, you have to be productive in school and earn good grades, not be one of those countless smelly, dirty liberal arts or fine arts "students" who spend their days smoking expensive "Yooropean" cigarettes and lamenting about how they are being oppressed by "the man," rather than get their asses to class.
Your spelling of the word "forest," I would say that you need to learn basic grammar before you do much of anything else. I don't care if you are a genius at brain surgery - if you can't spell or write, a potential employer is gonna look at you and decide you are an idiot. Employers figure that if you can learn the simple stuff, they can train you for their needs.
Really - do we need to jump for joy about an update to a game with zero replayability value that didn't even add anything to the genre when it was Quake 1? I could care less about getting 800fps and deathmatches in Q1/2/3 when I can still fire up my copy of System Shock or Ultima Underworld and they replay as well as the day I first got them.
Yep, Dr. Uman and his guys are pretty cool, too - he is the dept. chair for the EE department there at UF - unfortunately, my studies concentrated on Power and DSP, so I never got a chance to take any courses that he taught.
Re:did anyone notice the name of the guy?
on
Real Cyber-Spying
·
· Score: 1
Irony that he shares the same last name as Donald T. Regan, the former Secretary of the Treasury?
This scuzzbag passed secrets on to foreign shithole countries that can (will) be used in such a manner that eventually someone is gonna get killed. Remember a few years ago about Johnny Walker Red? Or how about Pelton? "What possible harm..." they did caused people to get killed. They set back national security at least 50 years, and helped support not-nice countries like China and Iraq.
Despite the fact that our country collects intelligence on other countries, we aren't as bad of a police state as any of the others (as a Chink, try practicing a little religious cultism and see how fast you get sent for "re-education." Now as an Amer'kin, do the same thing. Note the subtle difference in what happens to you.)
He can put up as many Audreys as he wants - they ain't gonna sell - 3Com has discontinued their whole line of "internet appliances" - including both Audrey and Kerbango.
My one true wish is that there would be backlash against DMCA, SDMI along with the MPAA and RIAA and all of their supporters who believe that corporations are more important than people.
The backlash I wish to happen would be of such a magnitude and type as to make Genghis Khan or Atilla proud - By that, I mean go in and torture and murder whole slews of company executives and lawyers - to quote Cornholio - "The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers!"
The legal and practical aspects or your "argument" are two different things.
So long as I don't *sell* copies of music that I've bought and paid for, I can do whatever the fuck I want to with that music - *give* copies to friends, invite them over to listen to the music on my A/V system, write bad reviews of the music, modify the music so it sounds funky, whatever.
Because of this, the practical reality is that once it is in my hands, it is *my* music, selling copies excepted.
Why do you think the NFL makes those statements at the end of a game - what they essentially state is that you can do whatever you want with their broadcast as long as it isn't commercial.
What is different between that and mp3's? Nothing other than content.
This is why I believe in the "mafia" method of operation. If someone (MPAA goon, RIAA goon) comes knocking on your door, you give them a beating - figuratelivy at first, and then if they don't get the point, then do it literally. Baseball bat those sons-of-bitches so bad that they can't be recognized as human.
This can also be referred to as the Hillbilly method - ya answer your door with a loaded shotgun and tell them to "get the hell off'n mah prop'ty."
The important thing to always remember is that when anyone other than a judge threatens you with any type of C&D letter, it is a threat and is not legally binding. The MPAA/RIAA bottom-feeders can send all the C&D letters they want. Simply forward them to a (your) bottom-feeder. If they demand to sue, tell them "Ok - I'm ready - let's go to court now."
I've found that when threatened with court by an officer of some company (in my case, a credit-card compant when I was a poor starving student 2 months behind) that demanding they follow-through usually quiets them.
Re:We definately need some education reform
on
Sean In The Middle
·
· Score: 1
I, of course, realize this is a sorry attempt at a troll, but I'll bite.
Heck no. Despite your desire to protect your "little angel" from the big bad world, what that school did was extremist. How about a hearing? How about questioning all parties? How 'bout a little fuckin' due process?!?!?!
Since when is a comment made sarcastically or as a jest something to be acted upon? Where was the probable cause to toss the kid out of school.
This is, typically, the standard knee-jerk reaction.
You know *how* to prevent gun violence in school? Encourage your kid to defend himself. No-one ever died from an after-school ass-beating. Urge your local, state and federal government to *prosecute* those who violate the 20,000+ gun laws on the books. Teach your kid how to use a gun responsibly and why using a gun for other than self-defense, hunting or keeping the king of england out of your face is wrong, legally and/or morally.
Years ago (13, to be exact) when I was in school, kids were perfectly willing to "duke it out." There was a line not to be crossed - and that line was guns. Today's "darling little angels" are unable to take what they dish out on others and are unwilling to "lose face" by taking an ass-beating.
Also, how 'bout you take your fuckin' job as a parent seriously, and *be* a parent - fuck your career and trips to Aspen.
The underlying problem can be traced to the children of hippies, who are parents of teens today. Hippie children have been used to being given things by *their* ex-hippy yuppie parents. These current parents have been conditioned to feel that they deserve something without working for it and that their "feelings" are precious and they have the unalienable right to not be offended. They've passed this (and other bad ideas) to *their* children who are today's teens, while neglecting their 1st job of being parents in favor of 6 figures and a corner office. They've forced parenting and citizenship to be something teachers do, rather than teaching.
In addition, these socialist leftist ex-hippy liberal scum have decided that the 1st amendment guarantee of protection from an established state religion means, in their warped sense of reality, that there is a "separation of church and state." As such, good habits, character and citizenship have slowly been tossed out in favor of "me-me-me" and political correctness by "society."
How 'bout takin' some fuckin' personal responsibility and being parents? Maybe then, parentless, single-parent, or career-caused parentless kids have role models other than hoodlum sports figures and trenchcoat-wearing punks.
The *problem* is that *sharing* is not illegal. If I invite you over to my house to watch a movie I have that is legal. If I invite you to watch it through my computer, how is that different? Sharing copyright material is done all the time in the non-computer world. The difference in the computer world is that some bottom-feeder thinks that they can charge per-use fees for the same information that they sell to you once in a non-computer format. If I buy a videotape, I can make copies for personal non-commercial use, re-sell the (original) tape, loan the tape, whatever. If I attempt to copy software for myself, or loan software to someone, that is (currently) viewed as illegal. What is the difference?
Actually, that is not true. In the U.S., most prisoners have the right to work if they want, and they get paid, albeit sub-minimum wage. However, unlike China, U.S. prisoners are not forced to work - if they choose to work, it is for a maximum of 8 hrs - the standard workday of an average U.S. Citizen (i'm not considering the 16+ hr days of the average computer industry geek). Although the idea of chaingangs sounds barbaric, the prisoners are not forced to work over 8 hrs a day.
Don't you fucking GET IT! You moron - first it is "in public," then it is "in private." Public surveillance is a slippery slope - ever wonder why, in the U.S., it requires the signature of a judge on a warrant to allow surveillance? It is because most Americans (I really can't use the word most, since it seems that "most" refers to all the brain-dead Clinton-loving sheeple who let this country get dry-fucked in the ass by a Chicom-loving scumbag for 8 years) value our privacy and our rights more than anything else. That is why our laws are designed such that a 100 guilty persons goes free if it means that an innocent person isn't convicted and locked up.
As an aside, it is unfortunate that the intention of our laws has been bastardized and abused by scumbag lawyers and stupid litigious sheeple who won't take personal responsibility for themselves and believe that their own stupidity is somehow someone *elses's* fault. Ever wonder why there are stupid-people warnings on stuff you buy? It is because some moron sued somebody after injuring themselves using the product in a manner which was clearly stupid.
"I really can't get over this violation of privacy thing.. what's the difference between the restaurant owner viewing his property via a camera, and sticking his head in through the door? If you're in a public place you're being viewed by thousands of people anyway so why the paranoia?"
I'll tell you what the difference is: Without cameras, there is no record to be held against you - if for some reason there is a court case, it is your word, the other party's word, and the word of witnesses.
Unfortunately, the fact that a record of some sort exists means that someone, somewhere, will exploit it and use it in a manner it shouldn't be.
Plus there is always a double standard, when it comes to the interests of private citizens and the government.
Recently the 9th Circuit Court (U.S.) ruled that it was ok for anti-abortion activists to post the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions on a website, knowing full well the intent is to allow violent anti-abortion activists the ability to target these doctors. This same court is trying a case against Jim Bell - who posts the addresses of federal agents. You tell me - what is the difference?
So - by this same logic, it would be ok to have cameras in public areas only so long as the cameras are recording private citizens and not government personnel? It is ok to record a man and woman smooching on the street corner, but not ok to record that city council session where they are discussing illegal (or bordeline illegal) activities under cover of secrecy?
Luckily (at least in Florida), the state recognized this and made the "Sunshine Law" which mandates that various activities must be public - it is illegal to engage in "Star Chamber" activities.
I'd rather be a libertarian any day. At least their attitude is "leave me the fsck alone." The fact is that he isn't arguing that someone has no right to look at you on the street. He is arguing that someone has no right to look at you and pass judgement without due process. There are people acting like jerks on street corners every day of the week - that doesn't mean that I have the right to not be offended by them. That is what we are really talking about here - cameras aren't deterring crime, they are deterring public assholery, because someone with a stick up their ass feels that it is a crime for them to be offended by someone elses' non-illegal thoughts, words, or actions. Installing cameras in public places is an extension of the "there oughta be a law..." mentality towards things which piss people off, but which are not illegal. If you don't like someone doing or saying something in public - too bad, that is why it is public. Cameras don't deter crime, large police officers with the ability to tune-up hoodlums deters crime.
Of course there is a big argument over the ability of the cops to beat people. I agree that they should not be allowed to beat citizens. However, that being said, the local beat cops *know* who the hoodlums are - people who commit petty street crimes. In the US, at least, the cops know it is futile because they will be out of jail almost before the ink dries on the arrest report. Letting these cops calibrate these petty criminals is fine.
Fortunately, most of us 'Merkins realise that when you start completely trusting your government is the moment when they start to institute martial law and Stalinist purges. Unfortunately most of the American sheeple are too stupid to think for themselves and like the idea of being stuffed in their stalls to be fed and watered by a protective liberal-Democrat government. Despite the feeling that the republicans are pro-big business/anti-citizen, the fact remains that they advocate doing the right thing for people, without all of the social engineering that the Democrats want. The republicans want to give everyone a tax cut, the democrats only want to give the tax cut to the "right" people - those who think and act the way they want them to. Installing cameras to make people act "the right way" is an extension of that.
Government that tries to do everything does nothing well. I don't want or need my government to "protect" me from anyone or myself. If you are so concerned for my safety in a public place, then make "shall issue" concealed carry permits for handguns a reality. Just because cameras are installed doesn't mean that hoodlums are going to become angels. In the time it takes for the security drone to see that I'm being stabbed and robbed and get the single motor neuron firing fast enough to dispatch a cop, I'll be laying in the street bleeding. The idea that being "caught" on camera doesn't deter crime - if being caught (either on or off camera) deterred crime, the jails and courts wouldn't be overflowing. The only thing that deters (non-heat-of-passion) crime such as rapes, robberies, and assaults is the idea that your "victim" just might end up maiming or killing you.
I once caught a hoodlum attempting to break into my car and proceeded to beat that scumbag to within an inch of his life - the cop said I wasn't in trouble because I left the guy breathing. Luckily, it was while I was in the navy - most military police (military personnel in general, and navy personnel in particular, due to large amounts of people living in too-close proximity) feel that being a thieving bastard is just as bad as being a murderer.
Unfortunately, in your precious England, the majority of the time, the victims are the ones to blame, not the criminal - I'm referring to the recent case where a farmer shot two dirtbags attempting to enter his house to rob, beat or do who knows what to him. The judge ruled that he was guilty of a crime for shooting them. As far as I am concerned (as is the majority of intelligent, common-sense, non-sheeple Americans), the act of defending onesself, ones family or ones property is always a non-criminal act, regardless of whether or not you kill or maim the assailant.
Similarly, there was a recent case here where a Continental Airlines ticket-taker broke his neck in a scuffle with a customer, after he shoved the man's wife as she attempted to corral their child which took off down the jetway. The jury found the man not guilty of a crime. One of the jurors stated that just because his neck was broken was no reason to automatically assume the defendant was guilty of doing it. More importantly, what was not said, but implied was - if you lay a hand on someone else's wife (especially a violent hand), prepare to be dealt with.
Would cameras have prevented these types of acts? Probably not. Would they have prevented these acts in a crowded place, probably not.
What people fail to realise is that in large enough crowds, cameras are not going to be able to identify someone doing something illegal - there are just too many people - a sea of (in)humanity.
Actually, you don't need cameras ANYWHERE public, anyway - that is why there are these things in court called witnesses, see...
The only place cameras should be used are in sensitive, security-controlled areas or in private institutions. These include banks, kwikee-marts, and military installations. Cameras for "social engineering the populace to be good little drones" should never be installed in a public area. I would consider it the duty of a citizen to promptly render said camers inoperable.
I agree. It will only truly get better when we stop rolling over and stand up for our rights, with armed violent disobedience. Every time a lawmaker or corporation makes a decision which is morally and ethically wrong, The People ought to march to that person's place of business, drag them out into the street, and set them on fire. Hilary Rosen's head would have been on a stake months ago...
Sure, this law may make it illegal to modify PSX (or any other console?) But so what? Does the law make PIC12 chips illegal? (It's been awhile, is everyone still using PIC12 or PIC13s?) Does it make having a prom burner illegal? Does it making having a CD-R/W illegal? Does it make it illegal to download code off of the internet?
Do you see my point?
This law will really affect those who sell pre-burned chips in Australia or who sell modified boxes in Australia.
How are they going to know if you order a blank or pre-burned chip from the U.S. or Europe (or, since you are in Australia, you'll most likely get it from Asia)? They can't know unless they confiscate it and read the code (which can be easily avoided since I know many of the microcontroller chips allow the person burning them to encrypt the code).
This law really is moot unless you are a for-profit pirate.
Slashdot Mirror
The choice isn't "lib arts plus grad degree" vs. "other entry-level white collar degree." The choice is "get bachelor's and work 5 years, gaining experience and getting raises and promotions," or "go to grad school and get advanced degree, then start out at same level as guy with bachelor's and experience." Both roads lead to the same end result.
This is the reason that people tend to hire those with bachelor's for "entry-level positions" vice those advanced degrees - they can initially pay them less *and* train them they way they want them.
Also, in most technical fields other than engineering, they have this fun little thing call "Post-Doc work."
I guess the point is you can either start out with just a bachelor's and get experience, or they can hire you right out of school with an advanced degree, but you'll start out at the same level as that person with a bachelor's but who has the five years' experience already.
If that technical degree happens to be an actual engineering or hard science degree and is involved in an appropriate field of employment - then there is no plateau. I work in a field where I started out average ($45,000/yr) but within two years was making almost double that, with no end in sight.
More importantly, it doesn't matter what field you are in - some people move into management and some don't. Why the hell would I want to have someone with an arts degree manage a team of engineers when I can hire an engineer who also has an MBA? Sure - you still need the technical experts - but you also need managers who understand engineering.
*THAT* is precisely the key - continue schooling (letting your company pay for it) and get that MBA or other "management" degree and move up the ladder into management, or continue schooling getting that Master's or PhD in your field, and become a technical expert in your company (if not your entire field.)
But, that's the rub - either you do technical stuff because you like it and don't mind only getting a low six-figure salary, or you do management because you like making higher six-figure salary, and do a lot of boot-licking to get promoted to an executive slot in 20 years.
Finally - I'll tell you who we remember for their technical achievements - Einstein, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Moore, Shockley, Bell, Edison, Watt, Hertz, Schrodinger (yeah - yeah - I know there is supposed to be a funny
How many philosophers have improved peoples' lives? How many get immortalized by having a unit of measure named after them? How many hold patents?
Never forget that IT is *not* a true technical field - Christ - you can get an IT "degree" via mail-order...
More importantly, douchebag - in those shitty ESPs, you get the free healthcare only *because* you get to enjoy paying about 85+% of your pay directly to the gub'mint.
Unless you happen to be well-off, it pays to be poor (or for those of you who are "independent," it pays for your parents to be poor.)
What most people don't realize is that if you are smart enough to figure out how to be eligible for lots of grants and loans, you *are* going to be able to not pay a dime out of your own pocket until after you get out of school. By my senior year, I received *all* grants as financial aid - so my senior year was essentially free.
But - here is where people like you feel to grasp the "point" of this - in order to get to the point where you are receiving grants rather than loans, you have to be productive in school and earn good grades, not be one of those countless smelly, dirty liberal arts or fine arts "students" who spend their days smoking expensive "Yooropean" cigarettes and lamenting about how they are being oppressed by "the man," rather than get their asses to class.
Yep, Dr. Uman and his guys are pretty cool, too - he is the dept. chair for the EE department there at UF - unfortunately, my studies concentrated on Power and DSP, so I never got a chance to take any courses that he taught.
This scuzzbag passed secrets on to foreign shithole countries that can (will) be used in such a manner that eventually someone is gonna get killed. Remember a few years ago about Johnny Walker Red? Or how about Pelton? "What possible harm..." they did caused people to get killed. They set back national security at least 50 years, and helped support not-nice countries like China and Iraq.
Despite the fact that our country collects intelligence on other countries, we aren't as bad of a police state as any of the others (as a Chink, try practicing a little religious cultism and see how fast you get sent for "re-education." Now as an Amer'kin, do the same thing. Note the subtle difference in what happens to you.)
My one true wish is that there would be backlash against DMCA, SDMI along with the MPAA and RIAA and all of their supporters who believe that corporations are more important than people.
The backlash I wish to happen would be of such a magnitude and type as to make Genghis Khan or Atilla proud - By that, I mean go in and torture and murder whole slews of company executives and lawyers - to quote Cornholio - "The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers!"
So long as I don't *sell* copies of music that I've bought and paid for, I can do whatever the fuck I want to with that music - *give* copies to friends, invite them over to listen to the music on my A/V system, write bad reviews of the music, modify the music so it sounds funky, whatever.
Because of this, the practical reality is that once it is in my hands, it is *my* music, selling copies excepted.
Why do you think the NFL makes those statements at the end of a game - what they essentially state is that you can do whatever you want with their broadcast as long as it isn't commercial. What is different between that and mp3's? Nothing other than content.
This can also be referred to as the Hillbilly method - ya answer your door with a loaded shotgun and tell them to "get the hell off'n mah prop'ty."
The important thing to always remember is that when anyone other than a judge threatens you with any type of C&D letter, it is a threat and is not legally binding. The MPAA/RIAA bottom-feeders can send all the C&D letters they want. Simply forward them to a (your) bottom-feeder. If they demand to sue, tell them "Ok - I'm ready - let's go to court now."
I've found that when threatened with court by an officer of some company (in my case, a credit-card compant when I was a poor starving student 2 months behind) that demanding they follow-through usually quiets them.
Heck no. Despite your desire to protect your "little angel" from the big bad world, what that school did was extremist. How about a hearing? How about questioning all parties? How 'bout a little fuckin' due process?!?!?!
Since when is a comment made sarcastically or as a jest something to be acted upon? Where was the probable cause to toss the kid out of school.
This is, typically, the standard knee-jerk reaction.
You know *how* to prevent gun violence in school? Encourage your kid to defend himself. No-one ever died from an after-school ass-beating. Urge your local, state and federal government to *prosecute* those who violate the 20,000+ gun laws on the books. Teach your kid how to use a gun responsibly and why using a gun for other than self-defense, hunting or keeping the king of england out of your face is wrong, legally and/or morally.
Years ago (13, to be exact) when I was in school, kids were perfectly willing to "duke it out." There was a line not to be crossed - and that line was guns. Today's "darling little angels" are unable to take what they dish out on others and are unwilling to "lose face" by taking an ass-beating.
Also, how 'bout you take your fuckin' job as a parent seriously, and *be* a parent - fuck your career and trips to Aspen.
The underlying problem can be traced to the children of hippies, who are parents of teens today. Hippie children have been used to being given things by *their* ex-hippy yuppie parents. These current parents have been conditioned to feel that they deserve something without working for it and that their "feelings" are precious and they have the unalienable right to not be offended. They've passed this (and other bad ideas) to *their* children who are today's teens, while neglecting their 1st job of being parents in favor of 6 figures and a corner office. They've forced parenting and citizenship to be something teachers do, rather than teaching.
In addition, these socialist leftist ex-hippy liberal scum have decided that the 1st amendment guarantee of protection from an established state religion means, in their warped sense of reality, that there is a "separation of church and state." As such, good habits, character and citizenship have slowly been tossed out in favor of "me-me-me" and political correctness by "society."
How 'bout takin' some fuckin' personal responsibility and being parents? Maybe then, parentless, single-parent, or career-caused parentless kids have role models other than hoodlum sports figures and trenchcoat-wearing punks.
The *problem* is that *sharing* is not illegal. If I invite you over to my house to watch a movie I have that is legal. If I invite you to watch it through my computer, how is that different? Sharing copyright material is done all the time in the non-computer world. The difference in the computer world is that some bottom-feeder thinks that they can charge per-use fees for the same information that they sell to you once in a non-computer format. If I buy a videotape, I can make copies for personal non-commercial use, re-sell the (original) tape, loan the tape, whatever. If I attempt to copy software for myself, or loan software to someone, that is (currently) viewed as illegal. What is the difference?
Actually, that is not true. In the U.S., most prisoners have the right to work if they want, and they get paid, albeit sub-minimum wage. However, unlike China, U.S. prisoners are not forced to work - if they choose to work, it is for a maximum of 8 hrs - the standard workday of an average U.S. Citizen (i'm not considering the 16+ hr days of the average computer industry geek). Although the idea of chaingangs sounds barbaric, the prisoners are not forced to work over 8 hrs a day.
Fuck the children. Sell 'em to the salt mines.
As an aside, it is unfortunate that the intention of our laws has been bastardized and abused by scumbag lawyers and stupid litigious sheeple who won't take personal responsibility for themselves and believe that their own stupidity is somehow someone *elses's* fault. Ever wonder why there are stupid-people warnings on stuff you buy? It is because some moron sued somebody after injuring themselves using the product in a manner which was clearly stupid.
I'll tell you what the difference is: Without cameras, there is no record to be held against you - if for some reason there is a court case, it is your word, the other party's word, and the word of witnesses.
Unfortunately, the fact that a record of some sort exists means that someone, somewhere, will exploit it and use it in a manner it shouldn't be.
Plus there is always a double standard, when it comes to the interests of private citizens and the government.
Recently the 9th Circuit Court (U.S.) ruled that it was ok for anti-abortion activists to post the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions on a website, knowing full well the intent is to allow violent anti-abortion activists the ability to target these doctors. This same court is trying a case against Jim Bell - who posts the addresses of federal agents. You tell me - what is the difference?
So - by this same logic, it would be ok to have cameras in public areas only so long as the cameras are recording private citizens and not government personnel? It is ok to record a man and woman smooching on the street corner, but not ok to record that city council session where they are discussing illegal (or bordeline illegal) activities under cover of secrecy?
Luckily (at least in Florida), the state recognized this and made the "Sunshine Law" which mandates that various activities must be public - it is illegal to engage in "Star Chamber" activities.
Of course there is a big argument over the ability of the cops to beat people. I agree that they should not be allowed to beat citizens. However, that being said, the local beat cops *know* who the hoodlums are - people who commit petty street crimes. In the US, at least, the cops know it is futile because they will be out of jail almost before the ink dries on the arrest report. Letting these cops calibrate these petty criminals is fine.
Government that tries to do everything does nothing well. I don't want or need my government to "protect" me from anyone or myself. If you are so concerned for my safety in a public place, then make "shall issue" concealed carry permits for handguns a reality. Just because cameras are installed doesn't mean that hoodlums are going to become angels. In the time it takes for the security drone to see that I'm being stabbed and robbed and get the single motor neuron firing fast enough to dispatch a cop, I'll be laying in the street bleeding. The idea that being "caught" on camera doesn't deter crime - if being caught (either on or off camera) deterred crime, the jails and courts wouldn't be overflowing. The only thing that deters (non-heat-of-passion) crime such as rapes, robberies, and assaults is the idea that your "victim" just might end up maiming or killing you.
I once caught a hoodlum attempting to break into my car and proceeded to beat that scumbag to within an inch of his life - the cop said I wasn't in trouble because I left the guy breathing. Luckily, it was while I was in the navy - most military police (military personnel in general, and navy personnel in particular, due to large amounts of people living in too-close proximity) feel that being a thieving bastard is just as bad as being a murderer.
Unfortunately, in your precious England, the majority of the time, the victims are the ones to blame, not the criminal - I'm referring to the recent case where a farmer shot two dirtbags attempting to enter his house to rob, beat or do who knows what to him. The judge ruled that he was guilty of a crime for shooting them. As far as I am concerned (as is the majority of intelligent, common-sense, non-sheeple Americans), the act of defending onesself, ones family or ones property is always a non-criminal act, regardless of whether or not you kill or maim the assailant.
Similarly, there was a recent case here where a Continental Airlines ticket-taker broke his neck in a scuffle with a customer, after he shoved the man's wife as she attempted to corral their child which took off down the jetway. The jury found the man not guilty of a crime. One of the jurors stated that just because his neck was broken was no reason to automatically assume the defendant was guilty of doing it. More importantly, what was not said, but implied was - if you lay a hand on someone else's wife (especially a violent hand), prepare to be dealt with.
Would cameras have prevented these types of acts? Probably not. Would they have prevented these acts in a crowded place, probably not.
What people fail to realise is that in large enough crowds, cameras are not going to be able to identify someone doing something illegal - there are just too many people - a sea of (in)humanity.
Actually, you don't need cameras ANYWHERE public, anyway - that is why there are these things in court called witnesses, see...
The only place cameras should be used are in sensitive, security-controlled areas or in private institutions. These include banks, kwikee-marts, and military installations. Cameras for "social engineering the populace to be good little drones" should never be installed in a public area. I would consider it the duty of a citizen to promptly render said camers inoperable.
I agree. It will only truly get better when we stop rolling over and stand up for our rights, with armed violent disobedience. Every time a lawmaker or corporation makes a decision which is morally and ethically wrong, The People ought to march to that person's place of business, drag them out into the street, and set them on fire. Hilary Rosen's head would have been on a stake months ago...
Do you see my point?
This law will really affect those who sell pre-burned chips in Australia or who sell modified boxes in Australia.
How are they going to know if you order a blank or pre-burned chip from the U.S. or Europe (or, since you are in Australia, you'll most likely get it from Asia)? They can't know unless they confiscate it and read the code (which can be easily avoided since I know many of the microcontroller chips allow the person burning them to encrypt the code).
This law really is moot unless you are a for-profit pirate.