Well I'm a CS student about to graduate with my bachelors degree. I've found that the pay for the jobs out there hasn't decreased it's simply the number of jobs available has gone down the toilet.
Think again. What I've noticed is that, as a direct result of their being fewer jobs, those few jobs left are being fought over by people over-qualified for them. These people should be getting jobs that match their experience, but instead you see experts competing for entry positions. And since the entry positions pay what entry positions usually pay, not what expert positions pay, the net result is a lower salary.
(coming from Windows GIMP 1.2 vs PS 6 perspective)
My biggest gripe with GIMP is lack of Layer Styles and Adjustment Layers. Wow, those might seem to be frilly options for some people, and yes the same can be accomplished by hand. But I use those two functions ALL THE TIME and would love GIMP to have a similar interface.
Also, does the new version support layer grouping? And is there still a layer number limitation? My first experience with GIMP, I tried importing my most recent project and was told I used too many layers. Not a very good first impression.
Doing additional dubs and subtitling takes time, making simultaneous release worldwide somewhat tricky
It seems to me that if anything, having multiple worldwide releases for different languages, would be beneficial.
Say a studio makes a worldwide release of a Hollywood movie as soon as the DVD is complete in english. If somebody in China spoke english well enough to get something out of it, they should be able to buy the english version. Then when the studio releases a Chinese version, that person might buy that one too. It seems like an opportunity for studios to make multiple sales on the same release.
But the real advantage is that an American that happens to be in China (with a Chinese-region encoded DVD player) would be able to buy the real movie, as soon as it was released, instead of buying a pirated version.
That might work for your field, but not for mine. I run a web design biz, and on some days my uploads no doubt exceed my downloads. And if you think that's a lot of webpages, then I should specify that I specialize in flash movies. For instance, a campus tour I'm working on right now has one 500Kb section and nine 300Kb subsections -- a sizeable upload whenever I update all of them.
And these large uploads can happen multiple times a day, because I maintaint a client access page that allows them to observe the progress on an up-to-the-hour level basis if need be.
But you also have to consider that I am constantly sharing files between clients and myself, including mockups, proposals, contracts, etc.
All of these take their toll. It's no 2GB a night, but it's sizable. But it also doesn't mean that I'm sharing files (not in the illegal sense, anyway). The important thing is that they accept your reasonable explanation.
Ok, I admit I had no idea that what I was describing was SSL. It just seemed safer than the standard encryption mentioned in the article (which I finally got around to reading).
The article mentions that range is the primary protection against my second concern, but I find it conceivable that a significant power boost could bridge that....
<humerous anecdote> I used to work in a building that required those proximity RFID security cards for entrace. They must have had the power cranked up plenty though, because we not only didn't have to take the card out of our wallet, but we didn't have to take our wallet out of our pants! A friend of mine, who was there long before I was, used to just back up to the door, especially if his hands were full.
And then one day he came up and found a homeless guy rubbing his butt against the door trying to get inside! </humerous anecdote>
The biggest security issue that I can think of off the top of my head (other than theft or loosing your wallet) is if there are scanners set up that might intercept your credit card information.
So here's a concept. When you make a purchase using the RFID credit card, these steps happen: 1. the cash register sends a HELO type signal 2. the credit card responds and requests an encryption key 3. the cash register randomly generates an asymmetric encryption key valid for that transaction only, and send the 'public' portion of the key to the credit card 4. the credit card encrypts the transaction information using the 'public' key it received and send it to the cash register 5. the cash register uses the 'private' key to decrypt the information and process the transaction.
This way, the only information being transmitted is either encrypted, or a public key which isn't useful in decrypting the information.
The other concern I can think of off the top of my head would be people carrying devices that could fake a transaction -- so a thief would just be walking behind somebody, making a transaction through a device in their pocket, and walk away without a trace. Not sure about this one, though the first step would be high security on the transaction protocol.
But I will add that it is not only available by Googling for "miserable failure" (inside quotes), but all you have to do is hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button!
What has happened to BMRT (Blue Moon Render Toolbox, I believe is the full name)? It looks like not only has development stopped, but all trace of it has vanished. What gives?
Let's pull a "Blender" and make sure it gets OSed!
what if the attack wasn't only internal, but intentional? what if the whole idea was to direct attention away from the SCO bad news of the last few days, and create a 'sympathy vote?'
I am sorry but we are unable to provide the source code examples you have requested. These examples were stored on our web server and were lost in a recent DDoS attack on these servers.
By my reckoning, that means we win. Tell IBM to pay up.
I completely agree! And fortunately, thanks to my contract (and I encourage this to anybody who does hosting) I would also be able to seek damages from clients that are spamming, regardless of ignorance.
For instance, if my server gets blacklisted for being a spam source due to one client sending spam, which would ruin it for many other clients, I can (and will!) seek damages for having to move my server/clients/etc. And hopefully drive further into oblivion anyone thinking that unsolicited 'promotion marketing material' isn't spam.
But new research suggests most top UK websites are already breaking the new rules. "Companies are either not aware of the legislation, or are ignoring it," said Ian Thomas from WebAbacus.
Perhaps in some cases, but it others I'm not so sure it's either. I think some companies are just in denial about sending spam. Sounds hard to believe, right? Well, I run a small web design company, and I specifically put a No Spam clause in my contracts. When I talk about this with clients, I get some pretty sad responses.
They are all shocked that I would suggest that they would spam -- because most of them think that 'spam' only refers to the pornography, penis/breast enlargement, Nigerian scam, fraudulent products, etc. emails. In their eyes, "we're just sending out a promotional email, it isn't spam!" When I ask them if they will only send emails to people who have requested it, the response is typically, "We have to send out to more people than that! We are planning on buying a list of email addresses from (fill-in-the-blank-"marketing"-operation) and using that. That's ok, right?"
Now I'm not talking about companies that knowingly hire spammers to do their marketing, I'm talking about the smaller companies that try to do it themselves, or maybe are convinced of the legality from a spammer wanting some more business, and end up becoming part of the spam problem with their purchased lists and "but we offer a legitimate service!" attitudes.
Critics of the UK approach say the laws do not go far enough and that the maximum 5,000 fine is not high enough.
5,000 fine for what? Laws like the California anti-spam bill (which unfortunately will be nixed by the new federal bill before it even becomes law) allow for fines on a per-email basis. If this is the same, then I see no problem with 5,000 per email. It will add up in the end. But if it is 5,000 per campaign!? Much to little.
This law does allow for individuals to sue for themselves, but I didn't see anything mentioning if the marketers could be sued as well as the spammers. So it's got a leg up on the US law, although it could be better.
well gosh, it should still be safe to say that the range is at least 1200nm, right? That is one-thousand-two-hundred nano-miles, right? Or about 8/100's of an inch?
Yeah, but I only have to verify one email every four or five days, tops. I can tell with just about all of them. What I don't understand is how people go through their blocked spam every few days looking for false positives. I get about 600-700 spams a day, and block a percentage somewhere in the mid-to-low 80s. There's no way I could go through thousands of spam like that! If it's been blocked, it's as good as lost, for better or for worse.
p.s. And what REALLY chaps my hide is that all of my effort is reactive instead of proactive.
I've got a hardware firewall box, not software, so it can't filter on an app-by-app basis. A shame, but I really don't want any more processes running on this already-heavily-laden box. But I only have to verify maybe one email every four or five days, so it's no big deal really.
My real solution (as in, the one I have planned but so far haven't had time to implement) is to roll-my-own email application. But then again I've always been in the "if you want it done right, do it yourself" train of thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I'm a CS student about to graduate with my bachelors degree. I've found that the pay for the jobs out there hasn't decreased it's simply the number of jobs available has gone down the toilet.
Think again. What I've noticed is that, as a direct result of their being fewer jobs, those few jobs left are being fought over by people over-qualified for them. These people should be getting jobs that match their experience, but instead you see experts competing for entry positions. And since the entry positions pay what entry positions usually pay, not what expert positions pay, the net result is a lower salary.
Clippy: Hi! It looks like you're trying to draw a straight line. Would you like some help?
Me: Dammit, I know I can't draw a straight line. But go the hell away!
(coming from Windows GIMP 1.2 vs PS 6 perspective)
My biggest gripe with GIMP is lack of Layer Styles and Adjustment Layers. Wow, those might seem to be frilly options for some people, and yes the same can be accomplished by hand. But I use those two functions ALL THE TIME and would love GIMP to have a similar interface.
Also, does the new version support layer grouping? And is there still a layer number limitation? My first experience with GIMP, I tried importing my most recent project and was told I used too many layers. Not a very good first impression.
I don't know if your comment includes people like me, but I majored in Cinema... ...and I thought the trilogy was bloody brilliant.
Doing additional dubs and subtitling takes time, making simultaneous release worldwide somewhat tricky
It seems to me that if anything, having multiple worldwide releases for different languages, would be beneficial.
Say a studio makes a worldwide release of a Hollywood movie as soon as the DVD is complete in english. If somebody in China spoke english well enough to get something out of it, they should be able to buy the english version. Then when the studio releases a Chinese version, that person might buy that one too. It seems like an opportunity for studios to make multiple sales on the same release.
But the real advantage is that an American that happens to be in China (with a Chinese-region encoded DVD player) would be able to buy the real movie, as soon as it was released, instead of buying a pirated version.
Don't law firms build their business model around litigation? They seem to do pretty well.
Yes their business involves litigation, but that is not where their money comes from. Their money comes from clients paying them to litigate.
In other words, a law firm litigates on behalf of someone else's interests, not their own.
That might work for your field, but not for mine. I run a web design biz, and on some days my uploads no doubt exceed my downloads. And if you think that's a lot of webpages, then I should specify that I specialize in flash movies. For instance, a campus tour I'm working on right now has one 500Kb section and nine 300Kb subsections -- a sizeable upload whenever I update all of them.
And these large uploads can happen multiple times a day, because I maintaint a client access page that allows them to observe the progress on an up-to-the-hour level basis if need be.
But you also have to consider that I am constantly sharing files between clients and myself, including mockups, proposals, contracts, etc.
All of these take their toll. It's no 2GB a night, but it's sizable. But it also doesn't mean that I'm sharing files (not in the illegal sense, anyway). The important thing is that they accept your reasonable explanation.
....to the age old question by all the kids that never fit in, and always wondered if they were really adopted.
Ok, I admit I had no idea that what I was describing was SSL. It just seemed safer than the standard encryption mentioned in the article (which I finally got around to reading).
The article mentions that range is the primary protection against my second concern, but I find it conceivable that a significant power boost could bridge that....
<humerous anecdote>
I used to work in a building that required those proximity RFID security cards for entrace. They must have had the power cranked up plenty though, because we not only didn't have to take the card out of our wallet, but we didn't have to take our wallet out of our pants! A friend of mine, who was there long before I was, used to just back up to the door, especially if his hands were full.
And then one day he came up and found a homeless guy rubbing his butt against the door trying to get inside!
</humerous anecdote>
*sniff* I didn't know. That is very sad.....
The biggest security issue that I can think of off the top of my head (other than theft or loosing your wallet) is if there are scanners set up that might intercept your credit card information.
So here's a concept. When you make a purchase using the RFID credit card, these steps happen:
1. the cash register sends a HELO type signal
2. the credit card responds and requests an encryption key
3. the cash register randomly generates an asymmetric encryption key valid for that transaction only, and send the 'public' portion of the key to the credit card
4. the credit card encrypts the transaction information using the 'public' key it received and send it to the cash register
5. the cash register uses the 'private' key to decrypt the information and process the transaction.
This way, the only information being transmitted is either encrypted, or a public key which isn't useful in decrypting the information.
The other concern I can think of off the top of my head would be people carrying devices that could fake a transaction -- so a thief would just be walking behind somebody, making a transaction through a device in their pocket, and walk away without a trace. Not sure about this one, though the first step would be high security on the transaction protocol.
hehe, you beat me to it!
But I will add that it is not only available by Googling for "miserable failure" (inside quotes), but all you have to do is hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button!
speaking of a decent shader --
What has happened to BMRT (Blue Moon Render Toolbox, I believe is the full name)? It looks like not only has development stopped, but all trace of it has vanished. What gives?
Let's pull a "Blender" and make sure it gets OSed!
as well as being easier to find the infected box
unless they aren't looking....
what if the attack wasn't only internal, but intentional? what if the whole idea was to direct attention away from the SCO bad news of the last few days, and create a 'sympathy vote?'
Dear Mr. Judge,
I am sorry but we are unable to provide the source code examples you have requested. These examples were stored on our web server and were lost in a recent DDoS attack on these servers.
By my reckoning, that means we win. Tell IBM to pay up.
-D. McBride
CEO, SCO Group
I completely agree! And fortunately, thanks to my contract (and I encourage this to anybody who does hosting) I would also be able to seek damages from clients that are spamming, regardless of ignorance.
For instance, if my server gets blacklisted for being a spam source due to one client sending spam, which would ruin it for many other clients, I can (and will!) seek damages for having to move my server/clients/etc. And hopefully drive further into oblivion anyone thinking that unsolicited 'promotion marketing material' isn't spam.
the businesses such as you describe will decide that they need to find another method of marketing if spam is illegal
But what if they don't recognize that what they are doing is spam?
(Not just a river in Egypt anymore, eh?)
Perhaps in some cases, but it others I'm not so sure it's either. I think some companies are just in denial about sending spam. Sounds hard to believe, right? Well, I run a small web design company, and I specifically put a No Spam clause in my contracts. When I talk about this with clients, I get some pretty sad responses.
They are all shocked that I would suggest that they would spam -- because most of them think that 'spam' only refers to the pornography, penis/breast enlargement, Nigerian scam, fraudulent products, etc. emails. In their eyes, "we're just sending out a promotional email, it isn't spam!" When I ask them if they will only send emails to people who have requested it, the response is typically, "We have to send out to more people than that! We are planning on buying a list of email addresses from (fill-in-the-blank-"marketing"-operation) and using that. That's ok, right?"
Now I'm not talking about companies that knowingly hire spammers to do their marketing, I'm talking about the smaller companies that try to do it themselves, or maybe are convinced of the legality from a spammer wanting some more business, and end up becoming part of the spam problem with their purchased lists and "but we offer a legitimate service!" attitudes.
These people are just in denial.
Critics of the UK approach say the laws do not go far enough and that the maximum 5,000 fine is not high enough.
5,000 fine for what? Laws like the California anti-spam bill (which unfortunately will be nixed by the new federal bill before it even becomes law) allow for fines on a per-email basis. If this is the same, then I see no problem with 5,000 per email. It will add up in the end. But if it is 5,000 per campaign!? Much to little.
This law does allow for individuals to sue for themselves, but I didn't see anything mentioning if the marketers could be sued as well as the spammers. So it's got a leg up on the US law, although it could be better.
yeah, I figured. those silly traditional measurements.
It's impossible to state the range (1200nm),
well gosh, it should still be safe to say that the range is at least 1200nm, right? That is one-thousand-two-hundred nano-miles, right? Or about 8/100's of an inch?
Oh, wait...
Why don't women like dating mathematicians?
They believe there is a limit of x to c (ecstasy)
... is when SCO claims the code infringement includes unauthorized use of "//", "/*", and "*/"
Yeah, but I only have to verify one email every four or five days, tops. I can tell with just about all of them. What I don't understand is how people go through their blocked spam every few days looking for false positives. I get about 600-700 spams a day, and block a percentage somewhere in the mid-to-low 80s. There's no way I could go through thousands of spam like that! If it's been blocked, it's as good as lost, for better or for worse.
p.s. And what REALLY chaps my hide is that all of my effort is reactive instead of proactive.
HEAR, HEAR! My biggest gripe as well.
I've got a hardware firewall box, not software, so it can't filter on an app-by-app basis. A shame, but I really don't want any more processes running on this already-heavily-laden box. But I only have to verify maybe one email every four or five days, so it's no big deal really.
My real solution (as in, the one I have planned but so far haven't had time to implement) is to roll-my-own email application. But then again I've always been in the "if you want it done right, do it yourself" train of thought.