Pay particular attention to zaydana's recommendation to do a significant pet project. Tangible, proven skills even in an otherwise toy problem are one aspect of breaking into the software business, no matter where you ultimately work.
Conversely, if one doesn't have the personal inclination or passion to actually come up with such a project, one perhaps should consider something other than a life in software.
The "liberal" side is somewhat socialistic, and the "conservative" side somewhat authoritarian. Regardless, both are big government. Without a shadow of a doubt.
....and that the copyright monopoly only covers direct copies, nothing else....
You are mistaken. Congress assigns sole rights to "derivative" works to the original author. I would provide you with some clarity here on what does or does not constitute a derivative work, however in fact the situation is quite muddy. Regardless, rest assured that supposing you were to create a bit of fiction involving two characters named Gandalf and Frodo, you need to take care.
No, it isn't. In fact it's a required practice in artschool to learn to paint "like the masters" in this manner.
Your are mistaken. If painter manually reproduces the work of another artist, matching the details of the original photograph or painting, this is derivative work. Congress assigns the sole right to derivative works to the original author.
It is indeed even extremely common in Western Christianity. It's just that said participating unbelievers give the appearance of solidarity to the others, so they are tolerated.
Certainly you are aware that certain prominent ones (Ron Paul, et al) are pro-life, but what's the party line, here?
The answer to this question lies deeply nestled down in the theoretical/ethical basis of Libertarianism. Basically, ethical Libertarians have this notion of "rights, which are inalienable" (and so forth, I won't get into it here). So the real question in a pro-choice/life discussion is "when do rights begin"? At what point does a new life have "rights"?
This is an interesting question, and the back-and-forth arguing about it one of the defining arguments of our age.
You don't have to believe in any kind of hokum to say that they begin before birth. While I personally find any choice one makes here to be rather arbitrary, it's not all certain that a pre-birth pro-lifer is religous or a magical thinker. To the contrary, one could arbitrarily pick rather objective standards such as "it doesn't have rights if the brain hasn't developed yet, and does if it has." Science has plenty of answers for you here, feel free to investigate on your own regarding at what stage fetuses begin to have brain power.
Hitler was most emphatically not an atheist. He was a member of the Catholic church until his death, and was firm enough about it to order his peers to remain members. Mein Kampf, which he penned in his own hands, is replete with religious references. I encourage you to question what you've been told, because it's clear that you are accepting input from others who are plainly not rich in their historical education. Regardless:
When someone cites for me the list of "atheist" tyrants and the bad things they did, what I conclude is that when governments of any enforce religious creeds on the many, the result is always an epic fucking disaster. I hope this is your view as well.
Says unknown pastebin. This job is in Defense, which I neglected to state previously, which would expose you to security questions about 1/3rd the population shy away from. If, however, that doesn't scare you, try sending you key again and I will encrypt you a link.
Nope. That's not the problem.We generally open tri level reqs: junior/college, medium, senior. They're written differently. The junior reqs never mention anything like certs.
We often don't get that many junior reqs when they're open, either.
The high level reqs always state clearly "or equivalent working experience, with similar product form other vendors" or similar such words. For the enterprise switching gear, you really need that. One small mistake can cripple a whole data center. Literally. It is that bad.
As for our junior reqs, they read like this:
We are seeking a systems engineer to work in a high-visibility data center technologies group that researches, designs, and tests large-scale compute infrastructure and virtualization solutions. The engineer should be highly self-motivated, and quickly work around roadblocks. Job duties will be as follows:
Configure and test new enterprise computing infrastructure technologies (e.g., enterprise storage, networking, virtualization, operating systems, clustering techniques, identity management systems). Timely and thorough documentation required.
Provide design services in the form of conceptual documents (Power Point) and design artifacts.
Skills
Familiarity with Linux, Windows, and/or Unix Systems; command line experience REQUIRED
Familiarity with virtualization technology such as VMware, open source Xen/KVM, or other is preferred, but not required
Familiarity with Linux and Windows scripting
Download, configure, recompile and install open source packages
You would think a req like that would flood us with so many resumes that it would be impossible to read them all, the way you tell it. Instead, I might get about 10/month (at best).
Anyway, obviously not stated in the req is that if the phone interview finds them not a tinkerer, they are out. If they are a more senior applicant, there are other requirements (a different req).
For my reqs, I see all the apps, except the "obviously disqualified," which excludes non-citizens, and non-technical, and some times, no degree. I don't see that many apps. There really aren't that many applicants. The practice is Data Center Engineering; the experience required a tawdry list of enterprise labels (Cisco certs "or equivalent experience, including with a competing vendor," EMC, NetApp, Linux and Windows operating systems, and so forth). Contrary to how you it, there's not a flood of resumes. This is also true (although is less true) for our programming jobs.
Google would be a special case. That's almost like trying to get a date with the prettiest girl in the school, except it's worse, because she's also narcissistic and conceited.
Are you picky about where you're willing to work? By and large I've found a lack of good candidates is my primary hiring problem. The last round of job reqs I put out didn't even get that many responses. Anyway, high unemployment rates are a drag. Consider:
You go to school and at that school there are 13 guys for every 10 girls. Odds are 13:10, right? Not so fast. Suppose that 9 of the girls are already hooked up with 9 of the guys. That leaves 4 guys to compete for 1 girl. That's some seriously unfriendly dating math there. And employment is a bit like that, unfortunately.
Anyway, if you have a resume, I'll be happy to give you pointers.
I don't trust any form of science when it's delivered in a political context.
Your words "funny that's the one study you trust" is an example of confirmation bias.
The short story is that there isn't a single pundit who won't happily grab the one "study" that confirms all his beliefs and croon it to the world while simultaneously ignoring every other story.
This problem is worse than it might first appear. It is practically intrinsic to the inferential statistics used in modern studies such that 1 in N studies will, with a degree of reliability, produce exactly the wrong conclusion. The statistics aren't perfect. Drawing random samples from a normally distributed population will sometimes indeed produce samples not representative of the distribution itself. It happens.
So normal science, even when practiced well, will occasionally throw the confirmation-bias favoring pundit and other Joe Schmoe a bone, and we end up with a nation of smug ignoramuses who preen about their confirmed beliefs, but who in fact know very little at all.
Go out and actually deploy something on your home network
As a hirer of engineers, one of the things I like to do is ask what people do with their computers and networks on their own time.
A surprisingly large number of folks answer "not much".
Unless that have an established stellar work history (e.g., perhaps now they are married and don't have time to tinker at home any more), I won't hire them. If someone does not love technology, they're really not going to work out to my standard of expectation.
Some things that are valuable of you are getting out of college, when you want to work in computer sciences: having contributed to or authored open source; having built your own computer from parts; having deployed a custom home network (DD-WRT anyone?), built linux kernel from sources, and so forth. I mean really, if you don't love technology, why are you in this business?
Of course, he now makes more than I do. So why on earth would anyone want to go through what I did, when you could go through the far, far easier thing HE did, and be more financially rewarded for it?
While there are plenty of other articles in this thread discussing the salary situation and the like, consider one additional thing:
You don't have o push too hard to get it in wrong. Some USB connectors have just enough slack to let you put them in wrong. You can usually feel that something is wrong, but not always, and not if you're not paying close attention. You're right. USB is dumb.
At least it's not as bad as the memory situation on late 80's era Sun motherboards. The memory wasn't keyed, could be put in backwards, and if done so could damage the memory.
That's not how ex post facto works. Ex post facto would be:
Make something "retroactively" illegal, and as a consequence of making the said thing illegal, convict you of a crime for something that was legal to do when it was done.
I know this. The "/" was inadvertent. You can tell this from the $0.01 in the shown calculation, which is more properly $0.017, which is $150/8760 hrs in a year.
Agreed; the cost is so low, that if it were true, he wouldn't even need investors. He could just get excellent loans from banks and build his sole-owner-of-the-corporation business himself. I think that the reason people like that find people like us willing to talk about it necks down to the following simple fact:
Slashdot Mirror
I'd wager that 95% of the bills that pass congress have nothing to do with individual rights. 5% difference is by far and above not enough.
Pay particular attention to zaydana's recommendation to do a significant pet project. Tangible, proven skills even in an otherwise toy problem are one aspect of breaking into the software business, no matter where you ultimately work.
Conversely, if one doesn't have the personal inclination or passion to actually come up with such a project, one perhaps should consider something other than a life in software.
The "liberal" side is somewhat socialistic, and the "conservative" side somewhat authoritarian. Regardless, both are big government. Without a shadow of a doubt.
....and that the copyright monopoly only covers direct copies, nothing else....
You are mistaken. Congress assigns sole rights to "derivative" works to the original author. I would provide you with some clarity here on what does or does not constitute a derivative work, however in fact the situation is quite muddy. Regardless, rest assured that supposing you were to create a bit of fiction involving two characters named Gandalf and Frodo, you need to take care.
C//
No, it isn't. In fact it's a required practice in artschool to learn to paint "like the masters" in this manner.
Your are mistaken. If painter manually reproduces the work of another artist, matching the details of the original photograph or painting, this is derivative work. Congress assigns the sole right to derivative works to the original author.
C//
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
It is indeed even extremely common in Western Christianity. It's just that said participating unbelievers give the appearance of solidarity to the others, so they are tolerated.
An interesting question for your to contemplate?
Are Libertarians pro-choice or pro-life?
Certainly you are aware that certain prominent ones (Ron Paul, et al) are pro-life, but what's the party line, here?
The answer to this question lies deeply nestled down in the theoretical/ethical basis of Libertarianism. Basically, ethical Libertarians have this notion of "rights, which are inalienable" (and so forth, I won't get into it here). So the real question in a pro-choice/life discussion is "when do rights begin"? At what point does a new life have "rights"?
This is an interesting question, and the back-and-forth arguing about it one of the defining arguments of our age.
You don't have to believe in any kind of hokum to say that they begin before birth. While I personally find any choice one makes here to be rather arbitrary, it's not all certain that a pre-birth pro-lifer is religous or a magical thinker. To the contrary, one could arbitrarily pick rather objective standards such as "it doesn't have rights if the brain hasn't developed yet, and does if it has." Science has plenty of answers for you here, feel free to investigate on your own regarding at what stage fetuses begin to have brain power.
C//
Hitler was most emphatically not an atheist. He was a member of the Catholic church until his death, and was firm enough about it to order his peers to remain members. Mein Kampf, which he penned in his own hands, is replete with religious references. I encourage you to question what you've been told, because it's clear that you are accepting input from others who are plainly not rich in their historical education. Regardless:
When someone cites for me the list of "atheist" tyrants and the bad things they did, what I conclude is that when governments of any enforce religious creeds on the many, the result is always an epic fucking disaster. I hope this is your view as well.
C//
Says unknown pastebin. This job is in Defense, which I neglected to state previously, which would expose you to security questions about 1/3rd the population shy away from. If, however, that doesn't scare you, try sending you key again and I will encrypt you a link.
Medical is a boom market right now. It's been recession proof.
Nope. That's not the problem.We generally open tri level reqs: junior/college, medium, senior. They're written differently. The junior reqs never mention anything like certs.
We often don't get that many junior reqs when they're open, either.
The high level reqs always state clearly "or equivalent working experience, with similar product form other vendors" or similar such words. For the enterprise switching gear, you really need that. One small mistake can cripple a whole data center. Literally. It is that bad.
As for our junior reqs, they read like this:
We are seeking a systems engineer to work in a high-visibility data
center technologies group that researches, designs, and tests
large-scale compute infrastructure and virtualization solutions. The
engineer should be highly self-motivated, and quickly work around
roadblocks. Job duties will be as follows:
Configure and test new enterprise computing infrastructure
technologies (e.g., enterprise storage, networking, virtualization,
operating systems, clustering techniques, identity management
systems). Timely and thorough documentation required.
Provide design services in the form of conceptual documents (Power
Point) and design artifacts.
Skills
Familiarity with Linux, Windows, and/or Unix Systems; command line
experience REQUIRED
Familiarity with virtualization technology such as VMware, open
source Xen/KVM, or other is preferred, but not required
Familiarity with Linux and Windows scripting
Download, configure, recompile and install open source packages
You would think a req like that would flood us with so many resumes that it would be impossible to read them all, the way you tell it. Instead, I might get about 10/month (at best).
Anyway, obviously not stated in the req is that if the phone interview finds them not a tinkerer, they are out. If they are a more senior applicant, there are other requirements (a different req).
C//
For my reqs, I see all the apps, except the "obviously disqualified," which excludes non-citizens, and non-technical, and some times, no degree. I don't see that many apps. There really aren't that many applicants. The practice is Data Center Engineering; the experience required a tawdry list of enterprise labels (Cisco certs "or equivalent experience, including with a competing vendor," EMC, NetApp, Linux and Windows operating systems, and so forth). Contrary to how you it, there's not a flood of resumes. This is also true (although is less true) for our programming jobs.
Google would be a special case. That's almost like trying to get a date with the prettiest girl in the school, except it's worse, because she's also narcissistic and conceited.
Are you picky about where you're willing to work? By and large I've found a lack of good candidates is my primary hiring problem. The last round of job reqs I put out didn't even get that many responses. Anyway, high unemployment rates are a drag. Consider:
You go to school and at that school there are 13 guys for every 10 girls. Odds are 13:10, right? Not so fast. Suppose that 9 of the girls are already hooked up with 9 of the guys. That leaves 4 guys to compete for 1 girl. That's some seriously unfriendly dating math there. And employment is a bit like that, unfortunately.
Anyway, if you have a resume, I'll be happy to give you pointers.
I don't trust any form of science when it's delivered in a political context.
Your words "funny that's the one study you trust" is an example of confirmation bias.
The short story is that there isn't a single pundit who won't happily grab the one "study" that confirms all his beliefs and croon it to the world while simultaneously ignoring every other story.
This problem is worse than it might first appear. It is practically intrinsic to the inferential statistics used in modern studies such that 1 in N studies will, with a degree of reliability, produce exactly the wrong conclusion. The statistics aren't perfect. Drawing random samples from a normally distributed population will sometimes indeed produce samples not representative of the distribution itself. It happens.
So normal science, even when practiced well, will occasionally throw the confirmation-bias favoring pundit and other Joe Schmoe a bone, and we end up with a nation of smug ignoramuses who preen about their confirmed beliefs, but who in fact know very little at all.
Meh.
Go out and actually deploy something on your home network
As a hirer of engineers, one of the things I like to do is ask what people do with their computers and networks on their own time.
A surprisingly large number of folks answer "not much".
Unless that have an established stellar work history (e.g., perhaps now they are married and don't have time to tinker at home any more), I won't hire them. If someone does not love technology, they're really not going to work out to my standard of expectation.
Some things that are valuable of you are getting out of college, when you want to work in computer sciences: having contributed to or authored open source; having built your own computer from parts; having deployed a custom home network (DD-WRT anyone?), built linux kernel from sources, and so forth. I mean really, if you don't love technology, why are you in this business?
C//
Of course, he now makes more than I do. So why on earth would anyone want to go through what I did, when you could go through the far, far easier thing HE did, and be more financially rewarded for it?
While there are plenty of other articles in this thread discussing the salary situation and the like, consider one additional thing:
You would be terribly bored.
C//
You don't have o push too hard to get it in wrong. Some USB connectors have just enough slack to let you put them in wrong. You can usually feel that something is wrong, but not always, and not if you're not paying close attention. You're right. USB is dumb.
At least it's not as bad as the memory situation on late 80's era Sun motherboards. The memory wasn't keyed, could be put in backwards, and if done so could damage the memory.
That's not how ex post facto works. Ex post facto would be:
Make something "retroactively" illegal, and as a consequence of making the said thing illegal, convict you of a crime for something that was legal to do when it was done.
Understood. The "/" was inadvertent. I was tired. I should have written that as kW-Hr or something.
$.017/kWhr = $150/8760 ($150/the watt-hours used in a year).
C//
I know this. The "/" was inadvertent. You can tell this from the $0.01 in the shown calculation, which is more properly $0.017, which is $150/8760 hrs in a year.
If you are responding to me, you are confused.
Well; the reasons to be skeptical are manifold. However, Argumentum ad Maximus is probably not a good argument to make here. :-P
Agreed; the cost is so low, that if it were true, he wouldn't even need investors. He could just get excellent loans from banks and build his sole-owner-of-the-corporation business himself. I think that the reason people like that find people like us willing to talk about it necks down to the following simple fact:
"We keep hoping".