I think the copyright laws need to be changed into protecting just fresh written works. I can understand that. However, claiming that you need to be paid for a 70 years after your death is just ridiculous.
I'm with you. This "life + 70" shit is often justified as a way to "bequeath the business to one's family", but that's a load of crap. If a man is a carpenter and wants to leave his carpentry business to his son, he better teach the kid carpentry. The business of an author is writing, so it satnds to reason that the only way to pass on such a business is to teach your kids to write, no? The carpenters kid can't go around to houses his dad built and demand payment for his dad's work. Author's descendents shouldn't get to either. My favorite line from crackpot Ellison's ALL CAPS LETTER is the one where he claims "A WRITER'S WORK IS NOT INFORMATION: IT IS OUR CREATIVE PROPERTY, OUR LIVELIHOOD AND OUR FAMILIES' ANNUITY." Bullshit. If a writer wants to leave his family an annuity, he should have to set up a trust fund with money like the rest of us slobs.
How can the lower court support the DMCA and still side with an evil corporation...are they that corrupt now? Do we need federal courts to provide simple justice to the common man now?
Perhaps the lower court thought that Mr. Ellison is a crackpot jousting at windmills, and that if all he could manage was to send a couple emails (apparently not bothered enough to send an actual letter or even pick up a phone), then he really couldn't say he'd held up his half of the DMCA requirements (in spirit at least). AOL was in violation of the letter of the DMCA, though, so (crackpot or not) Mr. Ellison was in the right.
However, hitting AOL's Usenet server to either cancel the offending post or drop the whole group takes the book out of view of the AOL-using population, and that's a pretty big chunk of people in one hit.
Then again, how many people who know how to get binaries off USENET use AOL?
Why can't car companies make an electric car that doesn't look like a bad futuristic science fiction movie? I mean, why do they have to make it sooo ugly that people will only buy it on the principle of fuel economy?
I dunno, this looks like every other cheap french car I've ever seen. I think french economy cars just look like that.
Usenet was a haven for "GET RICH QUICK!!" and "ADD YOUR NAME" scams. Everyone was getting rich in those days. Some usenet groups were nothing but get rich schemes. I was always amazed that people would offer their address so willingly. But then, their cousin always knew someone who got rich doing it.
Please add me to your cousins list!
imadumass@ingrate.net
Let me ask you something, what do you think of MKUltra? Do you believe those experiments and the line thereof led to Echelon (MK-series)? Just curious...
Dunno. Mind control is outta my field. I was a lowly radio traffic analyst. I wouldn't put it past the CIA to fiddle with crap like that though.
Funny thing is, a Republican senator did it first. And he wasn't an experienced astronaut.
He was an experienced pilot in the navy and air force, though. And he went up as a payload specialist on a shuttle satellite launch mission, not as a test subject for a bogus scientific experiment. Studying the effects of space on old folks? If the old folks are healthy enough for NASA to let 'em go up, the effects are nada.
He participated in 83 science experiments over 9 days while up in the shuttle. (That's an average of 9.2 experiments per day, for those having trouble with the math as well as with history).
So what? The tests were pointless because, as the linked story says:
Glenn, 77 at the time and the oldest person ever sent into space, was so healthy and the mission so short that the results weren't much different from tests done on men and women half his age.
Then is goes on to quote Glenn saying we need to send more old folks up to get more varied test results, but that'll never happen. NASA won't send anyone up who isn't in excellent physical health because they don't want the risk.
I've found that there are very few original thoughts or ideas, and very few people who come up with them. It isn't a matter of plagerism. It's just that there are only so many viable ideas out there. And the more that are already taken, the harder it is to come up with a new one. If you reach too far just to have an original thought, then you end up a wacko.
Interesting, as I've found that there are very few original thoughts or ideas, and very few people who come up with them. It isn't a matter of plagerism. It's just that there are only so many viable ideas out there. And the more that are already taken, the harder it is to come up with a new one. If you reach too far just to have an original thought, then you end up a wacko.
you can try and change your story all you want... At least now you agree that the programs exist..
It was never my intention to claim that programs under those names don't exist. My initial post was admittedly vague in that regard, but I was referring to the notion that either system watches and records all communications being a myth.
First off, it's not as you said "are centralized systems for monitoring communications on demand"
WRONG. They are not one giant mainframe (which of course wouldn't work), they are a great NETWORK of computers. I've seen the satellite diagrams, and believe me, there is at least one bird flying over you RIGHT NOW with echelon programming onboard. ALL COMMUNICATION SATELLITES are plugged in.
I never said it was a single machine. I say centralized as in "single point of access". The FBI's NCIC is a centralized database of crime inforation and nobody thinks it runs on a single machine, or even that it's all in one place. It, like ECHELON, is a network which acts as a clearinghouse for information. A system for connecting and centralizing information from disparate sources to be delivered to any single point on the network.
Your hysterical spewing of "evidence" in the form of articles on slashdot and from Wired all eventually lead back to a handfull of pages of information. Nowhere in any of these pages is even the intimation, much less the proof that either ECHELON or Carnivore does anything more than task cueing via dictionary analysis of live streams. You still have yet to provide even a reference to either system recording all the traffic it receives for any length of time, much less "several days". Further, the sheer volume of communications traffic makes it impossible to watch ALL of it. Again, the ability to monitor 100% of the communications only means that they have access to any subset of that 100% they wish, subject to the limitations of the system.
ALL COMMUNICATION SATELLITES are plugged in.
Inconclusive. Not all communications are via satellite. In fact, most are routed via terrestrial cable or fiber. Are you saying all the copper and fiber lines are monitored and recorded 24/7, with no regard as to the likelyhood that anything worth monitoring is even likely to show up?
Like I said originally, don't spew facts from the top of your head and act like you know what your talking about, someday, somewhere, someone is going to make you look like an ignorant fool.
It's not going to be you, apparently. If all you can offer is links to documents that you haven't read (or understood, maybe), I suppose you'll continue to blindly assert that "ALL CALLS ARE RECORDED". Anyone with any experience in COMINT knows that tasking capacity is always stretched to its limit and in the end, you have to choose what you want to watch. It was that way when I was a SIGINT analyst in the US Army, and it's still the same way now. I suspect you'l sputter incoherently at my counterarguments again and point to still more Wired and Slashdot articles as "proof", and perhaps even accuse me of lying about having worked in military intelligence-- that's usually how these exchanges go at this point-- but the fact remains that you have yet to produce any substantive claim that either is any more than a remotely taskable monitoring system that does dictionary analysis on selected live streams of non-voice data.
Your an ignorant fool that doesn't know what he's talking about. Did you bother doing ANY research or just made comments off the top of your head. It amazes me how stupid people are. Okay since your too damn STUPID to learn how to use a search engine, here we go.
1. Carnivore and Echelon DO exist.
They do not exist as you seem to think they do. Your statement of "They then pick out keywords, voice pattern matches, suspicious behavour, etc. and do "follow-up" investigations. ALL CALLS ARE RECORDED" is absurd on its face. Programs named "echelon" and "carnivore" may exist, but their capabilities aren't what you think. You seem to have mistaken the ability to log any given communication with the ability to log all communications. And "keyword" matching? This is from the first page you linked:
It is also limited by both technological barriers (the inability to develop word-spotting software so as to allow for the automatic processing of intercepted conversations)
If you're going to spew links in an attempt to prove your point, make sure the linked material actually supports your point. The urban legend to which I refer is in regard to the notion that the [NSA/CIA/FBI] has a system that records and analyzes all [phone/email/radio] communications, a story that has been circulating since the late 60's. Carnivore and Echelon are centralized systems for monitoring communications on demand. As I stated before, it's not technologically realistic to record and automatically process ALL communications.
Umm, actually it is routine to monitor 100% of calls, emails, electronic communcations, (cell phone, land line, GSM, or anything else), ANYWHERE in the world by the CIA. You need to research "Echelon" and "Carniovre". They then pick out keywords, voice pattern matches, suspicious behavour, etc. and do "follow-up" investigations. ALL CALLS ARE RECORDED, most calls are deleted every X hours (X being unknown).
Uh huh. Right. And where does the CIA hide the MASSIVE digital recording, sorting and storage facilities that would be required to record, analyze, and sort the incredible volume of communications that go on daily? Basic common sense should tell you that the "Echelon" story is urban legend, as variations of it have been going around for over 30 years. Furthermore, all one needs to do is think for a moment to realize that implementing a system that records everyone, all the time is a tremendous waste of resources. 90% of people's communications out there aren't worth monitoring at all, and most of them can be eliminated by applying common sense. Calls from telemarketing firms, calls made by 90 year old widows of deceased WW2 vets, calls to tech support hot lines-- those can all be tossed right away. From there the filed can be narrowed further. By the time you get down to the list of people who are worth monitoring, you've got a pretty short list. Short enough, in fact, that you don't need a giant secret computer to analyze calls for keywords-- you can tell a human agent to do it. What nuts like you fail to realize is that most of our lives are so uninteresting that no one, not even the government, is even the slightest bit interested. Paranoia is really just a modified form of delusions of grandeur. You really think anyone gives a crap about your friday night call to Domino's Pizza? You think you're so important that the government would waste a single dollar monitoring you? We're faceless taxpayers/consumers to them. Relax and enjoy your inconsequentiality. I know I do.
do you know how retroactive this law is supposed to be?
Well, the constitution prohibits passage of ex post facto laws, so they can't legally make it retroactive. But then again, when has the constitution ever bothered congress?
that is, if a bunch of people were to create a freely-available database of facts which may contain facts gathered from databases before they were copyrighted, would that be legal? making the information available via a large source might even the odds a bit.
That's a really good idea. If the facts were copyable from a freely available source, they'd have a hard time convincing a judge that anyone would bother to copy theirs. Hopefully none of this will be necessary...
But there's no reason the service can't be provided via GPS, and on a voluntary basis.
First, GPS only works with a clear view of the sky. Radiolocation works better in urban areas. Second, emergency services and QOS data are reasons enough to justify the system, and they're hardly nefarious in nature. The fact that tracking can be used against us now is an unfortunate additional effect. This is the way it is nowadays. You can't just move out west and change your name to re-acquire anonymity like you could 150 years ago. Welcome to the future.
The lame excuse we are given is that we need to track cell phones for 911 purposes, but that needn't be mandated by the government. If you want a cell phone that can give your location to authorities, buy one with a built-in GPS receiver that transmits your location. There was never any legitimate need to upgrade the infrastructure to allow for tracking any cell user at will.
-GPS doesn't work without a clear view of the sky.
-911 location reporting is mandated for land lines. Why should wireless providers be exempted?
-Tracking, even anonymous tracking, is valuable for QOS purposes. It allows providers to find "dead spots" in their coverage. Seems like a good enough reason on its own, there.
however, "innocent until proven guilty" still exists.
Trouble is, copyright infringement is generally handled through civil action. In civil court all they have to do is make their side of the story sound 51% likely, and yours 49%. All things being equal, you having the truth on your side would make it end in your favor, but all things are NOT equal when it's Joe Schmoe vs. IBM.
You show that you went down to the libarary, did the research, and entered the data. Case over - even if they are identical.
Proof, man, proof! Courts don't take hearsay. How do you "show" that? At best, all you can show is that it's possible for one to do so, and this is already assumed as these are facts we're talking about.
Berkeley Engineers have come up with an ingenious mechanism that almost mimics, well, Borg technology
Borg technology consists of plastic plumbing fixtures and spirit gum. There's nothing specific to Borg robotics in the Star Trek universe that sets it apart from any other science fiction. In fact, this device is exactly unlike Borg tech in that it is worn externally rather than integrated. Silly geeks trying to show off their geekness...
You know, there is a real advantage to a sealed hood/bonnet: stiffness. I would bet that the modern hood is a real PITA to car structural designers who look at that big unstressed hood and weep.
Actually, unlike airplanes, cars aren't built to rely on a "stressed skin" for structural support. Cars nowadays are built on a "unibody" design and all the cosmetic parts-- fenders, doors, hood, trunk lid-- are hung on the outside. The supporting structure needs to be near where the weight sits-- at the wheels. Really the only places the structure is exposed is the parts holding up the roof and framing the doors, and then only out of obvious necessity.
Trite and true, but how many have said "I wish I could have put my kids through college", "If could have afforded health care I wouldn't be here now", "I wish I hadn't had to kill my female children so I could afford to feed my male children", et friggen cetera..
Those examples, of course, would be the other end of the spectrum. There's a lot of room between "I hope I get enough work to buy food this week" and "if I work 70 hours a week I'll get promoted, make partner, and earn enough money to buy three Beemers and a mansion in Bel-Air; I'll relax when I retire filthy rich at 65". The former just needs work. The latter should ask himself if the payoff is worth the strain.
First off a plumber makes more than someone with a phd?
Yes. A PhD doesn't necessarily translate into any sort of job skill. I know people with PhD's in philosophy who are waiting tables at a bar in Iowa City. I have a friend with a PhD in English who works as a tech support slave. I quit college after 2 years for financial reasons and I make twice as much as any of 'em. I think too much emphasis has been put on education and not enough put on application. Used to be, a degree was proof that you were "smart", but anymore it's become proof that you can tell intructors what they want to hear for four or more years. Not that there aren't people who do learn usefull skills in college; it's just that it's harder to tell those from the rest of the dregs who got a degree because "everyone else is".
I'm thinking of moving out of the IT industry...
What I'm looking for:
Reasonable job satisfaction- No more adjusting the settings on something that's going to get screwed up constantly or need non-stop maintenance. Something physical. And preferably something that people don't consider vital to their life. I can't even guess how many day-traders have threatened to hold me responsible for their ISP being down...
Telecom infrastructure installer. Physical work (pulling wire, etc.), plenty of variety. It is something that people depend on, but they don't blame you for trouble because cut wires and the like aren't your fault! Instead, you become the wizard who saves the day by being able to tell people exactly where the problem is and who to yell at! I can't tell you how many times I've been called out to troubleshoot "my phone doesn't work" or "can't contact our server" problems where it was (respectively) phone plugged into the wrong jack, and the IT guy swore it had to be the wiring and it turned out to be the server plugged into port 1 on the switch, which "shares" with the uplink port and nobody on the uplink can get to the server. huh. IT guy gets yelled at, I get the attaboys and my money, everything works again.
Human interaction-And by human, I don't mean people that can't use their computers. Being in a job where the only people you see for months on end are 7 other guys kind of gets old. Especially if you don't get out a lot.
Hmmmm....instead of that you get people who can't use their telephones. Not much better class of ineptitude there, I'm afraid. At least you get to interact with an infinite variety of 'em.
Money will/would be nice, but my expenses are low, so I'm fortunate that it won't be a primary concern.
That's good, because it don't pay a lot. I'm making $35K a year after 8 years-- but I only work 30-35 hours a week.
Because let's face it, there's way more stuff that's fun to do in your free time than as a job.
Yep. Like they say, nobody ever said on their deathbed "I wish I'd spent more time at work". Whenever I get the chance to work a few less hours, I take it. I'm sitting at work right now reading slashdot and getting paid for it, but I'd leave early and read slashdot at home if I could. As one of my coworkers says, "time spent at work is time spent waiting to die".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you. This "life + 70" shit is often justified as a way to "bequeath the business to one's family", but that's a load of crap. If a man is a carpenter and wants to leave his carpentry business to his son, he better teach the kid carpentry. The business of an author is writing, so it satnds to reason that the only way to pass on such a business is to teach your kids to write, no? The carpenters kid can't go around to houses his dad built and demand payment for his dad's work. Author's descendents shouldn't get to either. My favorite line from crackpot Ellison's ALL CAPS LETTER is the one where he claims "A WRITER'S WORK IS NOT INFORMATION: IT IS OUR CREATIVE PROPERTY, OUR LIVELIHOOD AND OUR FAMILIES' ANNUITY." Bullshit. If a writer wants to leave his family an annuity, he should have to set up a trust fund with money like the rest of us slobs.
Perhaps the lower court thought that Mr. Ellison is a crackpot jousting at windmills, and that if all he could manage was to send a couple emails (apparently not bothered enough to send an actual letter or even pick up a phone), then he really couldn't say he'd held up his half of the DMCA requirements (in spirit at least). AOL was in violation of the letter of the DMCA, though, so (crackpot or not) Mr. Ellison was in the right.
Then again, how many people who know how to get binaries off USENET use AOL?
I dunno, this looks like every other cheap french car I've ever seen. I think french economy cars just look like that.
Please add me to your cousins list!
imadumass@ingrate.net
--
me too!
fool@ingrate.net
Dunno. Mind control is outta my field. I was a lowly radio traffic analyst. I wouldn't put it past the CIA to fiddle with crap like that though.
He was an experienced pilot in the navy and air force, though. And he went up as a payload specialist on a shuttle satellite launch mission, not as a test subject for a bogus scientific experiment. Studying the effects of space on old folks? If the old folks are healthy enough for NASA to let 'em go up, the effects are nada.
So what? The tests were pointless because, as the linked story says:
Then is goes on to quote Glenn saying we need to send more old folks up to get more varied test results, but that'll never happen. NASA won't send anyone up who isn't in excellent physical health because they don't want the risk.Interesting, as I've found that there are very few original thoughts or ideas, and very few people who come up with them. It isn't a matter of plagerism. It's just that there are only so many viable ideas out there. And the more that are already taken, the harder it is to come up with a new one. If you reach too far just to have an original thought, then you end up a wacko.
It was never my intention to claim that programs under those names don't exist. My initial post was admittedly vague in that regard, but I was referring to the notion that either system watches and records all communications being a myth.
First off, it's not as you said "are centralized systems for monitoring communications on demand"
WRONG. They are not one giant mainframe (which of course wouldn't work), they are a great NETWORK of computers. I've seen the satellite diagrams, and believe me, there is at least one bird flying over you RIGHT NOW with echelon programming onboard. ALL COMMUNICATION SATELLITES are plugged in.
I never said it was a single machine. I say centralized as in "single point of access". The FBI's NCIC is a centralized database of crime inforation and nobody thinks it runs on a single machine, or even that it's all in one place. It, like ECHELON, is a network which acts as a clearinghouse for information. A system for connecting and centralizing information from disparate sources to be delivered to any single point on the network.
Your hysterical spewing of "evidence" in the form of articles on slashdot and from Wired all eventually lead back to a handfull of pages of information. Nowhere in any of these pages is even the intimation, much less the proof that either ECHELON or Carnivore does anything more than task cueing via dictionary analysis of live streams. You still have yet to provide even a reference to either system recording all the traffic it receives for any length of time, much less "several days". Further, the sheer volume of communications traffic makes it impossible to watch ALL of it. Again, the ability to monitor 100% of the communications only means that they have access to any subset of that 100% they wish, subject to the limitations of the system.
ALL COMMUNICATION SATELLITES are plugged in.
Inconclusive. Not all communications are via satellite. In fact, most are routed via terrestrial cable or fiber. Are you saying all the copper and fiber lines are monitored and recorded 24/7, with no regard as to the likelyhood that anything worth monitoring is even likely to show up?
Like I said originally, don't spew facts from the top of your head and act like you know what your talking about, someday, somewhere, someone is going to make you look like an ignorant fool.
It's not going to be you, apparently. If all you can offer is links to documents that you haven't read (or understood, maybe), I suppose you'll continue to blindly assert that "ALL CALLS ARE RECORDED". Anyone with any experience in COMINT knows that tasking capacity is always stretched to its limit and in the end, you have to choose what you want to watch. It was that way when I was a SIGINT analyst in the US Army, and it's still the same way now. I suspect you'l sputter incoherently at my counterarguments again and point to still more Wired and Slashdot articles as "proof", and perhaps even accuse me of lying about having worked in military intelligence-- that's usually how these exchanges go at this point-- but the fact remains that you have yet to produce any substantive claim that either is any more than a remotely taskable monitoring system that does dictionary analysis on selected live streams of non-voice data.
They do not exist as you seem to think they do. Your statement of "They then pick out keywords, voice pattern matches, suspicious behavour, etc. and do "follow-up" investigations. ALL CALLS ARE RECORDED" is absurd on its face. Programs named "echelon" and "carnivore" may exist, but their capabilities aren't what you think. You seem to have mistaken the ability to log any given communication with the ability to log all communications. And "keyword" matching? This is from the first page you linked:
If you're going to spew links in an attempt to prove your point, make sure the linked material actually supports your point. The urban legend to which I refer is in regard to the notion that the [NSA/CIA/FBI] has a system that records and analyzes all [phone/email/radio] communications, a story that has been circulating since the late 60's. Carnivore and Echelon are centralized systems for monitoring communications on demand. As I stated before, it's not technologically realistic to record and automatically process ALL communications.Uh huh. Right. And where does the CIA hide the MASSIVE digital recording, sorting and storage facilities that would be required to record, analyze, and sort the incredible volume of communications that go on daily? Basic common sense should tell you that the "Echelon" story is urban legend, as variations of it have been going around for over 30 years. Furthermore, all one needs to do is think for a moment to realize that implementing a system that records everyone, all the time is a tremendous waste of resources. 90% of people's communications out there aren't worth monitoring at all, and most of them can be eliminated by applying common sense. Calls from telemarketing firms, calls made by 90 year old widows of deceased WW2 vets, calls to tech support hot lines-- those can all be tossed right away. From there the filed can be narrowed further. By the time you get down to the list of people who are worth monitoring, you've got a pretty short list. Short enough, in fact, that you don't need a giant secret computer to analyze calls for keywords-- you can tell a human agent to do it. What nuts like you fail to realize is that most of our lives are so uninteresting that no one, not even the government, is even the slightest bit interested. Paranoia is really just a modified form of delusions of grandeur. You really think anyone gives a crap about your friday night call to Domino's Pizza? You think you're so important that the government would waste a single dollar monitoring you? We're faceless taxpayers/consumers to them. Relax and enjoy your inconsequentiality. I know I do.
Well, the constitution prohibits passage of ex post facto laws, so they can't legally make it retroactive. But then again, when has the constitution ever bothered congress?
that is, if a bunch of people were to create a freely-available database of facts which may contain facts gathered from databases before they were copyrighted, would that be legal? making the information available via a large source might even the odds a bit.
That's a really good idea. If the facts were copyable from a freely available source, they'd have a hard time convincing a judge that anyone would bother to copy theirs. Hopefully none of this will be necessary...
First, GPS only works with a clear view of the sky. Radiolocation works better in urban areas. Second, emergency services and QOS data are reasons enough to justify the system, and they're hardly nefarious in nature. The fact that tracking can be used against us now is an unfortunate additional effect. This is the way it is nowadays. You can't just move out west and change your name to re-acquire anonymity like you could 150 years ago. Welcome to the future.
-GPS doesn't work without a clear view of the sky.
-911 location reporting is mandated for land lines. Why should wireless providers be exempted?
-Tracking, even anonymous tracking, is valuable for QOS purposes. It allows providers to find "dead spots" in their coverage. Seems like a good enough reason on its own, there.
Trouble is, copyright infringement is generally handled through civil action. In civil court all they have to do is make their side of the story sound 51% likely, and yours 49%. All things being equal, you having the truth on your side would make it end in your favor, but all things are NOT equal when it's Joe Schmoe vs. IBM.
Proof, man, proof! Courts don't take hearsay. How do you "show" that? At best, all you can show is that it's possible for one to do so, and this is already assumed as these are facts we're talking about.
Actually, unlike airplanes, cars aren't built to rely on a "stressed skin" for structural support. Cars nowadays are built on a "unibody" design and all the cosmetic parts-- fenders, doors, hood, trunk lid-- are hung on the outside. The supporting structure needs to be near where the weight sits-- at the wheels. Really the only places the structure is exposed is the parts holding up the roof and framing the doors, and then only out of obvious necessity.
Those examples, of course, would be the other end of the spectrum. There's a lot of room between "I hope I get enough work to buy food this week" and "if I work 70 hours a week I'll get promoted, make partner, and earn enough money to buy three Beemers and a mansion in Bel-Air; I'll relax when I retire filthy rich at 65". The former just needs work. The latter should ask himself if the payoff is worth the strain.
Yes. A PhD doesn't necessarily translate into any sort of job skill. I know people with PhD's in philosophy who are waiting tables at a bar in Iowa City. I have a friend with a PhD in English who works as a tech support slave. I quit college after 2 years for financial reasons and I make twice as much as any of 'em. I think too much emphasis has been put on education and not enough put on application. Used to be, a degree was proof that you were "smart", but anymore it's become proof that you can tell intructors what they want to hear for four or more years. Not that there aren't people who do learn usefull skills in college; it's just that it's harder to tell those from the rest of the dregs who got a degree because "everyone else is".
But patents are designed to be anticompetitive measures-- that's why they're an incentive.
Telecom infrastructure installer. Physical work (pulling wire, etc.), plenty of variety. It is something that people depend on, but they don't blame you for trouble because cut wires and the like aren't your fault! Instead, you become the wizard who saves the day by being able to tell people exactly where the problem is and who to yell at! I can't tell you how many times I've been called out to troubleshoot "my phone doesn't work" or "can't contact our server" problems where it was (respectively) phone plugged into the wrong jack, and the IT guy swore it had to be the wiring and it turned out to be the server plugged into port 1 on the switch, which "shares" with the uplink port and nobody on the uplink can get to the server. huh. IT guy gets yelled at, I get the attaboys and my money, everything works again.
Human interaction-And by human, I don't mean people that can't use their computers. Being in a job where the only people you see for months on end are 7 other guys kind of gets old. Especially if you don't get out a lot.
Hmmmm....instead of that you get people who can't use their telephones. Not much better class of ineptitude there, I'm afraid. At least you get to interact with an infinite variety of 'em.
Money will/would be nice, but my expenses are low, so I'm fortunate that it won't be a primary concern.
That's good, because it don't pay a lot. I'm making $35K a year after 8 years-- but I only work 30-35 hours a week.
Yep. Like they say, nobody ever said on their deathbed "I wish I'd spent more time at work". Whenever I get the chance to work a few less hours, I take it. I'm sitting at work right now reading slashdot and getting paid for it, but I'd leave early and read slashdot at home if I could. As one of my coworkers says, "time spent at work is time spent waiting to die".
There's more money in porn than teaching. If you can "get wood" and produce a "money shot" on cue, porn producers will almost come looking for you.