Let me preface my comments by stating that I worked in the computer gaming industry for several years. During my years in the gaming industry, I have worked on titles for PSX and Windows, and also worked on what was probably the earliest commercially available full 3D game engine for massive multiplayer online games - and this was back in 95 before such things became commonplace. So while you may not agree with my comments, they are not without foundation and experience.
Look at the cost. For a time commitment of 18 months, you will find yourself $37,000 in the debt. After which time you will hold a 'certificate' that only qualifies you to work in a single industry. Since this is not a degree, but merely a certificate (what is a MSCE certificate worth?), you won't have much to fall back on if the game career doesn't work out.
Look at what you get. You get a 'fully loaded computer' for an extra fee of $5000. A great deal of the cost is probably software, but you can build a phenominal computer for less that $2000, and since they are probably getting the software at educational discounts, even if they are installing SoftImage, Maya, 3DSMax, Photoshop, and Lightwave for artists. The software required for programmers is probably less. A copy of Visual Studio for Windows since they will probably teach game programming for DirectX. As a student at about any university, you could get the stuff for less.
Who is doing the teaching? It is not really clear, but from the endorsements of the industry leaders who say such things as " I can't wait to teach at The Guildhall", it seems to infer that the people listed on the sight might be doing the teaching. If this is the case, then consider
John Romero - did level design at id and thought he was God. Part of the braintrust at ION Storm (along with Todd Porter and Tom Hall ) that blew through over $30 million of Eidos' money with only Daikatana and Anachronox to show for it. Not the model of success that you want to emulate.
Kill Creek - aka Stevie Case. Claim to fame was beating John Romero in Quake, getting the opportunity to yell "Suck it down, bitch" back to John Romero, posing nude for Playboy, and marrying John Romero.
Tom Hall - okay, Tom has a decent rap sheet with Anachronox, Rise of the Triad, Terminal Velocity and a lot of earlier stuff that was very pretty good at the time.
What does this certificate qualify you for? Working in the game industry, which by the way, pays very poorly. Game companies staff the production teams with one or two senior members who actually earn a real salary, and then staff the rest with kids fresh out of school who will work the typical 70 hour weeks for peanuts and not complain because the job is cool. While this is exceptional fun while you are young, if you ever decide to settle down, get married, have kids or buy a house, you will find yourself looking in a different industry for work. However, game programming skills, if you have a rock solid education and phenominal math and programming skills, can get you hired writing simulators for military contractors. Trust me, though, you won't be learning what you need for these types of jobs in 18 months.
If you decide to leave the gaming industry, you won't be qualified to work in any other field. This game programming certificate is probably even worse than the Devry/ITT schools that convince people that they will make lots of money with a two year tech degree.
My personal experience is that most of the programmers who do well in the gaming industry have degrees in Computer Science with a strong math and physics background, or a physics degree with a strong programming and math background. You can't really try to shortcut the process down to 18 months and expect to have the qualifications that employers are looking for.
I've always liked the O'Reilly books - good content at a decent price and very distinctive covers. Reminds me of all those math books from Dover Publications (http://store.doverpublications.com/by-subject-mat hematics.html) - excellent math books at rock bottom prices and very distinctive covers.
Not meaning to troll here, but you sound quite ungracious.
First of all, I am really wondering what kind of mentality we have here that everyone thinks that they are entitled to bonuses and such. And then complain when they only get 2.3%. I would be quite pleased if I got any kind of bonus.
I think that the blanket bonus is a bad idea. It makes people think that they are entitled for something which they may not have worked for. Historically, they were known as end-of-year bonuses and not Christmas bonuses, and they were only given to the top performers of the year. But employees in mass complained because it seemed that only the same people ever received the bonuses, so obviously it was a plan to reward favoritism, so after much complaints, it morphed into a blanket bonus where everyone got money.
The best thing for business to do is to get rid of all end-of-year bonuses and get rid of peoples perception that they are entitled to something that they may not have earned. Business should pay people what they are worth and forgo the bonuses. The people who work hard get more and those who don't get less - which is the way it should be. If people want more money, make them work for it - and if they don't want to work harder, don't reward them.
I think that perhaps you are not looking at role of math/science/sc in a liberal arts degree properly. First and foremost, a liberal arts degree is intended to be a broad based education, where the most important part of the education is THINKING. To succeed in a liberal arts enviroment, you need to be able to think, research, think some more and write.
How does this apply to DMCA and digital rights management? Fundamentally, DMCA has little to do with the complexities of implimenting a technical solution, but with whether something like digital rights should exist. To view this issue properly (at least in context of US society) requires knowlege of political and social history, US society, and individuals legal rights. In addition to considering the historical precedents for or against digital rights management, you have to think about what precedents this may set for the future of the society and government. This is the real issue with digital rights management - not the technical details of implimentation.
The fundamental question is not whether a drm solution can be created, but whether a drm solution SHOULD be created. Whether a solution can be created is just details - and the minimal exposure to computers that a class like Mr. Kernigan's provides should be enough to allow the students to research whether a drm solution can be done.
The use of TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) has become so rampant that it is hard to find things which aren't referred to by their TLA. In many cases, the same TLA has more than one meaning, so the users of the acronym are able to keep the context straight. In this case, where the software sector has a standard definition of UML, reusing the acronyn will only spread confusion
If I were to create a software application called Great New Utility and referred to it as GNU, people would rightly be upset at me for trying to usurp an already common use of an acronym. In this case, I would probably be violating a trademark. The acronym of UML is already trademarked by Object Management Group, and has a common and well known usage.
For goodness sake, lets drop most of the 9/11 sentimentalism. Yes, the events of 9/11 were tragic. Yes, it was the most horrific act of terrorism ever committed. But, it is time to get over it and put it in perspective.
During WWII, more soldiers were killed on a typical day than were killed on 9/11. During the six years of WWII (1939-1945), there were 7.5 million soldiers and 15 million civilians killed. That averages out to over 10,000 people a day for six years. The 3000 people killed on 9/11 seem insignificant by comparison.
My CD purchases have significantly decreased since I have started to listen to streaming audio on the internet. Previously, I purchased CD's so I could listen to music all day at work - pop the CD into the CD-ROM drive, plug in my headphones into my computer speaker, and them code/jam all day long. The only way that I could add variety to my music was by purchasing new CD's or borrowing a co-workers CD.
Now that there are 1000's of Internet Radio Stations, I don't buy many CD's anymore. I go to shoutcast, pick a style that I am interetested in listening to, and then listen all day.
The one caveat is that the only CD's I do purchase are by people who I've never heard of on commercial radio, but you find on eclectic radio stations such as Radio Paradise. So, my purchasing of unfamiliar artists has gone up, but my overall purchasing has SIGNIFICANTLY decreased.
...since I went to Best Buy, paid my money and followed the onscreen instructions. It seemed like the convenient thing to do since I was building a system from scratch and the hard drive out of the box didn't have an OS installed. Silly me, I didn't realize that you could connect to the net and download the OS when your computer doesn't even have an OS on it.
Particularly software that is free (as beer). However, with more and more free software entities asking for money (Gnome, Perl, etc), this is starting to look a lot more like commercial software. What happened to the legions of OSS fans who contributed code because they bought into the idea of OSS? If people are contributing code for free, why the need for money? And if people aren't contributing code, then one of the fundamental premises of OSS is destroyed.
Perhaps it is just me, but I have found almost nothing less productive than pair programming. If I am the person sitting at the keyboard, I spend so much time explaining what I am doing, or being interrupted by their questions, that I can't ever get into the zone. If I am the person sitting in the catbird seat, I get so frustrated watching the person at the keyboard fuddle around, that I just want to grab the damn keyboard from them and type the thing myself. My personal experience is that I can get work done in 1/2 to 1/3 of the time working by myself.
I agree with the sentiment that a college or university should give students a broad education, however, with the exception of liberal arts colleges, this doesn't seem to be the case. A four year degree in business is nothing more than vocational training for working in a beaurocratic organization. A four year engineering degree produces cookbook engineers who can't problem solve. And a four year IT/CS degree is vocational training for programmers.
Any real learning about CS is only at the 400 or greater level, and limits the students to only one year of real learning. The rest is training to work in a Dilbert shop.
Do students go to college to learn or to prepare for a job? If you are honest, you will admit that 95% of the students go to college to prepare for a job - and that is vocational training.
The question is not 'how do you cut and paste in vi?', but rather how do you cut and paste a single line and how do you cut and paste multiple lines.
For a single line to cut: dd to paste p
For multiple lines (easiest to do this do a named buffer) 1.mark first line of buffer (buffer a)
ma 2.mark the end of buffer a
"a 3.delete buffer a
d'a 4.paste buffer a
"ap
If my employer bounced a single paycheck, or if they were a single day late in getting my paycheck to me, I would be out of there before you could blink. A company's most valuable assets are its employees and the output of their employees work. If a company gets to a point where it can't pay its employees, stick a fork in them, they are done.
Companies get lines of credit from a bank which they can use to fund their costs. If a company doesn't use their line of credit to pay you, then they have little regard for you as an employee and you should leave. And if they can't get a line of credit from a bank, then obviously the company is screwed if the bank doesn't consider them credit worthy. Either way, you should bail.
I work for a paycheck - to pay my mortgage and feed my kids. And as someone puts into jeapardy my ability to have a house and feed my kids, them I am out of there. This isn't 'greedy-evil-capitalistic' behavior, it is a matter of living.
I would expect that the price of CD's should go up. When you purchase a CD, the cost of production for the media is immaterial.
Starting with the artist, due to inflation, they want more money, so they demand more from the recording companies. The recording company must add a little extra onto the cost of the CD to recoup this cost.
The recording companies have to advertise - and media outlets charge more because their shareholders want more profits. The recording company must add a little extra onto the cost of the CD to recoup this cost.
The recording companies want more profits because their shareholders demand this, so they charge more for the CD.
The retailers, who want increased profits for their shareholders, add more to the price of the CD than they did previously - and the fact that it cost them more to buy a CD than it did previously, drives the price up for the end consumer.
----------------
Next year, the recording artists will want more money than they did this year, so they will demand more from the record companies - driving next years prices up.
And next year, the media outlets will want more money than they did this year, so they raise their prices - driving up the prices again.
.... you see where this is going. So, I think that at time goes on, the cost of CD's is going to rise - perhaps in line with inflation, but it will continue to go up.
That is an interesting question, but I don't know enough about economic theory to give a correct answer. But, here are my musings:
In a truly open market, where multiple entities have the ability to manufacture the product for the end consumer, then you would suspect that prices would go down. Not because the cost of manufacturing is less, but as a result of competition in the marketplace. The cost of manufacturing is irrelevant. The price will be based on what the market is willing to pay for it. This only holds true if the manufacturers don't collude to drive up the price.
However, in the music industry, there is a defacto monopoly. A recording artist signs with a label, and only that label is able to produce records of that artist. If you want to listen to NSync, there is only one label that produces their music, so you have to go to them.
Since most music CD's are priced approximately the same, it seems that the record companies have determined that the market will bear a specific price for a CD - regardless of the content of the CD. This is not market behavior. Consider a CD by the Rolling Stones compared to a CD by Willie Nelson. Both are priced at approximately the same $18 price point. The Rolling Stones are gong to sell more CD's, so there is more demand for their product. You would expect the CD to cost more. Now, consider the price of concert tickets. A Willie Nelson ticket is going to cost about $40. A Rolling Stones ticket is going to cost $150. This is market behavior.
Yes it costs less to make a CD than a cassette, but that does not mean that the CD should be cheaper to the end user. Given a choice between a cassette and CD, if you have both a cassette player and a CD player, almost everyone will choose the CD. And since this is the case, there is more inherent value in a CD, so in a free market, the CD will cost more.
But, why would you choose a CD over a cassette? A cassette tape will stretch each time it is played - and rewound. Although you might not initially notice it, after 20, 30 or perhaps 40 times you listen to it, the tape will slightly stretch, and its ability to accurately reproduce the fidelity of the original recording goes down. As for a CD, play it all you want - its quality does not change. Because of the properties of the two different media, the CD has more value. And as in all things in a free market, if it has more value, you will pay more for it.
Not only is this totally racist and white supremist horseshit, it is completely wrong.
Whatever qualification Prof. Steve Jones holds, he should probably take down his degree and wipe his arse with it, as it has turned out that is all it's good for.
To guage his qualifications, perhaps we can read what other say about him or his work.
"I like Steve Jones' work. I've read most of his scientific papers. I work on pulmonate snails, and he's one of the best in this little field. I don't know him very well. He's a very good scientist. He's followed the path of a media person, but in my professional world -- snail biology -- his science is very good." -Stephen Jay Gould
And, regarding his racism, another reviewer of his work says the following:
"I've enjoyed Steve Jones' recent book The Language of the Genes. He's a little bit too eager to bend over backwards to be politically respectable, because of the unsavory history of genetics, and he rather goes out of his way to disown those aspects of genetics that are politically disrespectable. I feel that that's over and done with now, and we can forget about it and get on, and I feel he's still a little bit unnecessarily eager to distance himself from the bad aspects of the history of genetics. But I have a lot of time for him;I greatly respect him." -Richard Dawkins
You pay taxes to the government for the service that it provides - basically, keeping the society, the economy and the infrastructure in a working order. Purchasing software, for their benefit, is a mechanism that helps them provide their services to you.
Just because you are a tax payer does not entitle you to the products that the government purchases. The government also pays for nukes, but saying "I paid for it, I want one" is silly. Likewise, if you were to go into any government office and raid the office supplies, you would be arrested for theft. From their perspective, you have no ownership rights with regards to what they do with their money.
To follow your candy bar analogy, you are entitled to buy a candy bar and eat it. Hershey, however, has no obligation to give you their recipe for chocolate and the schematics for the manufacturing plants so you can duplicate what they are doing.
99.99% of internet surfers do not use lynx, so even if lynx users were counted, it would not alter the statistics.
Pictures are important to the web surfing experience - even here on slashdot, pictures are used to denote the general topic of articles. You can quickly find out article topics by looking at the associated image, saving you time from reading the article title if it is a topic that doesn't interest you. If the picture is a borg, it is a M$ article, and you don't have to waste time by reading the headline "Another Outlook Express Worm Is Spreading".
I think that the stats that were gathered represent Joe/Jane Average Computer User, and at this point in time, Joe and Jane are using Windows.
that Landover Baptist is a satire site. You probably would not want to go there looking for arguments for/against anything.
Since their satire is directed towards/against Christianity, it might actually be a place to look for arguments for atheism (although I suspect that the authors of the site would tell you to get a clue and realize that the whole thing is a joke).
While interesting, the Salon article is very biase
on
Opposing Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
The author of the Salon article, Andrew Leonard, is a senior writer for Salon whose interest is in chronicalling the Linux revolution. Leonard, under the auspices of Salon, is writing a book about linux that is targeted to "linux veterans and newbies alike". The book is being written online and open for review, much like open source software. In Salon's own words, their goal is that "this format will subject the book to the same kind of online peer review that the open-source movement applies to its software code. Everybody benefits"
Just as the the requestor for this discussion is hoping to avoid closed source articles written by Microsoft's marketing department, this article has the same credibility coming from the other side of the fence.
It really depends on what you expect to get out of a college education. Liberal arts colleges focus on educating students - to create students who are independent thinkers and with a broad breadth of knowledge. It seems that in most other schools, college is nothing more than vocational training for entry level white collar jobs.
In regards to your statement that most liberal arts grads have to get additional schooling in order to get a professional level job, the statement is true on surface, but not for the reasons that you infer. I am a graduate of a liberal arts college, and per the most recent bulletin from the college, over 70% of the students went to graduate school for additional schooling. This is not because they couldn't get jobs, it is because they chose an undergraduate school to educate them, and then a grad school for vocational training. Instead of getting entry level white collar jobs (becoming a number in some corporate cube farm), these students went on to medical school, law school, business school or on to get their PhD's. Instead of entry level positions, they went on to get high paying positions, and in corporate environments, their first day on the job is already half way up the corporate ladder.
When I graduated a liberal arts college twelve years ago, I got a job while most of my college mates went to grad school. My starting salary was the same as most people at that time, and in the past twelve years, my salary has increased 320% - far more than most people's. And, in comparison to my college mates, if you look at earnings, I am a failure. My immediate friends because a PhD Psychologist, an MBA who is a VP in a $40M company, and an architect who is designing projects in the US, Europe and Russia.
There is a reason why Ivy league schools are so highly regarded - even though they are liberal arts schools. They produce graduates who know how to think, how to work hard, and have the skills to excel in the workplace - even if they haven't been given training specific to any one job. I think that if you compare the earnings of Ivy League schools compared to your run of the mill college who graduates warm bodies with vocational training, you will see that Ivy graduates far exceed all others.
he is guilty of unauthorized access to the PDNS web site. He admitted in a recorded conversation with PDNS representatives that he accessed the user names and passwords to their site, that he entered their site using these names and passwords, and that on three occassions, he entered the web site of 1st National Bank of McAlster and was able to view customers checking accounts, savings accounts, and money transfers.
So, going back to the house analogy, he is guilty of going inside and looking around.
The details of the affidavit are from Brian West's own web site, http://www.bkw.org
You may argue that there is an obvious difference between cracking a system and exploiting it, but most 'joe bag-of-donuts' types won't see the difference. What you are fundamentally saying that breaking in to a computer is an OK thing to do - as long as you don't steal anything, and that for law enforcement not to feel that this is OK is indicative of their cluelessness.
How about an analogy that the 'joe bag-of-donuts' crowd can understand. Suppose you get letter in the mail that says
"Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I stopped by your house the other day, and I was able to easily break into your home. I was able to jimmy the back door, and slide open two of your windows. After I entered your house - since I saw that the exterior was insecure, I decided to see how secure the inside of the house was. While doing this, I was able to find your credit cards in your wallet, so your personal information isn't safe in your house. And, you left your gun cabinet unlocked. I just thought that I should share this with you since I am only interested in your security.
The Cracker"
I would argue that 99.9% of the people in this country would say that this person has broken the law and should be arrested, but you are arguing that since they didn't exploit what they found, that the clueless cops should leave this person alone. Common sense dictates that the person should be arrested, and the cops aren't clueless when they do this.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me preface my comments by stating that I worked in the computer gaming industry for several years. During my years in the gaming industry, I have worked on titles for PSX and Windows, and also worked on what was probably the earliest commercially available full 3D game engine for massive multiplayer online games - and this was back in 95 before such things became commonplace. So while you may not agree with my comments, they are not without foundation and experience.
Look at the cost.
For a time commitment of 18 months, you will find yourself $37,000 in the debt. After which time you will hold a 'certificate' that only qualifies you to work in a single industry. Since this is not a degree, but merely a certificate (what is a MSCE certificate worth?), you won't have much to fall back on if the game career doesn't work out.
Look at what you get.
You get a 'fully loaded computer' for an extra fee of $5000. A great deal of the cost is probably software, but you can build a phenominal computer for less that $2000, and since they are probably getting the software at educational discounts, even if they are installing SoftImage, Maya, 3DSMax, Photoshop, and Lightwave for artists. The software required for programmers is probably less. A copy of Visual Studio for Windows since they will probably teach game programming for DirectX. As a student at about any university, you could get the stuff for less.
Who is doing the teaching?
It is not really clear, but from the endorsements of the industry leaders who say such things as " I can't wait to teach at The Guildhall", it seems to infer that the people listed on the sight might be doing the teaching. If this is the case, then consider
John Romero - did level design at id and thought he was God. Part of the braintrust at ION Storm (along with Todd Porter and Tom Hall ) that blew through over $30 million of Eidos' money with only Daikatana and Anachronox to show for it. Not the model of success that you want to emulate.
Kill Creek - aka Stevie Case. Claim to fame was beating John Romero in Quake, getting the opportunity to yell "Suck it down, bitch" back to John Romero, posing nude for Playboy, and marrying John Romero.
Tom Hall - okay, Tom has a decent rap sheet with Anachronox, Rise of the Triad, Terminal Velocity and a lot of earlier stuff that was very pretty good at the time.
What does this certificate qualify you for?
Working in the game industry, which by the way, pays very poorly. Game companies staff the production teams with one or two senior members who actually earn a real salary, and then staff the rest with kids fresh out of school who will work the typical 70 hour weeks for peanuts and not complain because the job is cool. While this is exceptional fun while you are young, if you ever decide to settle down, get married, have kids or buy a house, you will find yourself looking in a different industry for work. However, game programming skills, if you have a rock solid education and phenominal math and programming skills, can get you hired writing simulators for military contractors. Trust me, though, you won't be learning what you need for these types of jobs in 18 months.
If you decide to leave the gaming industry, you won't be qualified to work in any other field. This game programming certificate is probably even worse than the Devry/ITT schools that convince people that they will make lots of money with a two year tech degree.
My personal experience is that most of the programmers who do well in the gaming industry have degrees in Computer Science with a strong math and physics background, or a physics degree with a strong programming and math background. You can't really try to shortcut the process down to 18 months and expect to have the qualifications that employers are looking for.
My own $0.02 so you don't waste $37,000.
I've always liked the O'Reilly books - good content at a decent price and very distinctive covers. Reminds me of all those math books from Dover Publications (http://store.doverpublications.com/by-subject-mat hematics.html) - excellent math books at rock bottom prices and very distinctive covers.
Not meaning to troll here, but you sound quite ungracious.
First of all, I am really wondering what kind of mentality we have here that everyone thinks that they are entitled to bonuses and such. And then complain when they only get 2.3%. I would be quite pleased if I got any kind of bonus.
I think that the blanket bonus is a bad idea. It makes people think that they are entitled for something which they may not have worked for. Historically, they were known as end-of-year bonuses and not Christmas bonuses, and they were only given to the top performers of the year. But employees in mass complained because it seemed that only the same people ever received the bonuses, so obviously it was a plan to reward favoritism, so after much complaints, it morphed into a blanket bonus where everyone got money.
The best thing for business to do is to get rid of all end-of-year bonuses and get rid of peoples perception that they are entitled to something that they may not have earned. Business should pay people what they are worth and forgo the bonuses. The people who work hard get more and those who don't get less - which is the way it should be. If people want more money, make them work for it - and if they don't want to work harder, don't reward them.
I think that perhaps you are not looking at role of math/science/sc in a liberal arts degree properly. First and foremost, a liberal arts degree is intended to be a broad based education, where the most important part of the education is THINKING. To succeed in a liberal arts enviroment, you need to be able to think, research, think some more and write.
How does this apply to DMCA and digital rights management? Fundamentally, DMCA has little to do with the complexities of implimenting a technical solution, but with whether something like digital rights should exist. To view this issue properly (at least in context of US society) requires knowlege of political and social history, US society, and individuals legal rights. In addition to considering the historical precedents for or against digital rights management, you have to think about what precedents this may set for the future of the society and government. This is the real issue with digital rights management - not the technical details of implimentation.
The fundamental question is not whether a drm solution can be created, but whether a drm solution SHOULD be created. Whether a solution can be created is just details - and the minimal exposure to computers that a class like Mr. Kernigan's provides should be enough to allow the students to research whether a drm solution can be done.
The use of TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) has become so rampant that it is hard to find things which aren't referred to by their TLA. In many cases, the same TLA has more than one meaning, so the users of the acronym are able to keep the context straight. In this case, where the software sector has a standard definition of UML, reusing the acronyn will only spread confusion
If I were to create a software application called Great New Utility and referred to it as GNU, people would rightly be upset at me for trying to usurp an already common use of an acronym. In this case, I would probably be violating a trademark. The acronym of UML is already trademarked by Object Management Group, and has a common and well known usage.
For goodness sake, lets drop most of the 9/11 sentimentalism. Yes, the events of 9/11 were tragic. Yes, it was the most horrific act of terrorism ever committed. But, it is time to get over it and put it in perspective.
During WWII, more soldiers were killed on a typical day than were killed on 9/11. During the six years of WWII (1939-1945), there were 7.5 million soldiers and 15 million civilians killed. That averages out to over 10,000 people a day for six years. The 3000 people killed on 9/11 seem insignificant by comparison.
My CD purchases have significantly decreased since I have started to listen to streaming audio on the internet. Previously, I purchased CD's so I could listen to music all day at work - pop the CD into the CD-ROM drive, plug in my headphones into my computer speaker, and them code/jam all day long. The only way that I could add variety to my music was by purchasing new CD's or borrowing a co-workers CD.
Now that there are 1000's of Internet Radio Stations, I don't buy many CD's anymore. I go to shoutcast, pick a style that I am interetested in listening to, and then listen all day.
The one caveat is that the only CD's I do purchase are by people who I've never heard of on commercial radio, but you find on eclectic radio stations such as Radio Paradise. So, my purchasing of unfamiliar artists has gone up, but my overall purchasing has SIGNIFICANTLY decreased.
...since I went to Best Buy, paid my money and followed the onscreen instructions. It seemed like the convenient thing to do since I was building a system from scratch and the hard drive out of the box didn't have an OS installed. Silly me, I didn't realize that you could connect to the net and download the OS when your computer doesn't even have an OS on it.
Particularly software that is free (as beer). However, with more and more free software entities asking for money (Gnome, Perl, etc), this is starting to look a lot more like commercial software. What happened to the legions of OSS fans who contributed code because they bought into the idea of OSS? If people are contributing code for free, why the need for money? And if people aren't contributing code, then one of the fundamental premises of OSS is destroyed.
Perhaps it is just me, but I have found almost nothing less productive than pair programming. If I am the person sitting at the keyboard, I spend so much time explaining what I am doing, or being interrupted by their questions, that I can't ever get into the zone. If I am the person sitting in the catbird seat, I get so frustrated watching the person at the keyboard fuddle around, that I just want to grab the damn keyboard from them and type the thing myself. My personal experience is that I can get work done in 1/2 to 1/3 of the time working by myself.
I agree with the sentiment that a college or university should give students a broad education, however, with the exception of liberal arts colleges, this doesn't seem to be the case. A four year degree in business is nothing more than vocational training for working in a beaurocratic organization. A four year engineering degree produces cookbook engineers who can't problem solve. And a four year IT/CS degree is vocational training for programmers.
Any real learning about CS is only at the 400 or greater level, and limits the students to only one year of real learning. The rest is training to work in a Dilbert shop.
Do students go to college to learn or to prepare for a job? If you are honest, you will admit that 95% of the students go to college to prepare for a job - and that is vocational training.
The question is not 'how do you cut and paste in vi?', but rather how do you cut and paste a single line and how do you cut and paste multiple lines.
For a single line
to cut: dd
to paste p
For multiple lines (easiest to do this do a named buffer)
1.mark first line of buffer (buffer a)
ma
2.mark the end of buffer a
"a
3.delete buffer a
d'a
4.paste buffer a
"ap
If my employer bounced a single paycheck, or if they were a single day late in getting my paycheck to me, I would be out of there before you could blink. A company's most valuable assets are its employees and the output of their employees work. If a company gets to a point where it can't pay its employees, stick a fork in them, they are done.
Companies get lines of credit from a bank which they can use to fund their costs. If a company doesn't use their line of credit to pay you, then they have little regard for you as an employee and you should leave. And if they can't get a line of credit from a bank, then obviously the company is screwed if the bank doesn't consider them credit worthy. Either way, you should bail.
I work for a paycheck - to pay my mortgage and feed my kids. And as someone puts into jeapardy my ability to have a house and feed my kids, them I am out of there. This isn't 'greedy-evil-capitalistic' behavior, it is a matter of living.
I would expect that the price of CD's should go up. When you purchase a CD, the cost of production for the media is immaterial.
Starting with the artist, due to inflation, they want more money, so they demand more from the recording companies. The recording company must add a little extra onto the cost of the CD to recoup this cost.
The recording companies have to advertise - and media outlets charge more because their shareholders want more profits. The recording company must add a little extra onto the cost of the CD to recoup this cost.
The recording companies want more profits because their shareholders demand this, so they charge more for the CD.
The retailers, who want increased profits for their shareholders, add more to the price of the CD than they did previously - and the fact that it cost them more to buy a CD than it did previously, drives the price up for the end consumer.
----------------
Next year, the recording artists will want more money than they did this year, so they will demand more from the record companies - driving next years prices up.
And next year, the media outlets will want more money than they did this year, so they raise their prices - driving up the prices again.
.... you see where this is going. So, I think that at time goes on, the cost of CD's is going to rise - perhaps in line with inflation, but it will continue to go up.
That is an interesting question, but I don't know enough about economic theory to give a correct answer. But, here are my musings:
In a truly open market, where multiple entities have the ability to manufacture the product for the end consumer, then you would suspect that prices would go down. Not because the cost of manufacturing is less, but as a result of competition in the marketplace. The cost of manufacturing is irrelevant. The price will be based on what the market is willing to pay for it. This only holds true if the manufacturers don't collude to drive up the price.
However, in the music industry, there is a defacto monopoly. A recording artist signs with a label, and only that label is able to produce records of that artist. If you want to listen to NSync, there is only one label that produces their music, so you have to go to them.
Since most music CD's are priced approximately the same, it seems that the record companies have determined that the market will bear a specific price for a CD - regardless of the content of the CD. This is not market behavior. Consider a CD by the Rolling Stones compared to a CD by Willie Nelson. Both are priced at approximately the same $18 price point. The Rolling Stones are gong to sell more CD's, so there is more demand for their product. You would expect the CD to cost more. Now, consider the price of concert tickets. A Willie Nelson ticket is going to cost about $40. A Rolling Stones ticket is going to cost $150. This is market behavior.
Yes it costs less to make a CD than a cassette, but that does not mean that the CD should be cheaper to the end user. Given a choice between a cassette and CD, if you have both a cassette player and a CD player, almost everyone will choose the CD. And since this is the case, there is more inherent value in a CD, so in a free market, the CD will cost more.
But, why would you choose a CD over a cassette? A cassette tape will stretch each time it is played - and rewound. Although you might not initially notice it, after 20, 30 or perhaps 40 times you listen to it, the tape will slightly stretch, and its ability to accurately reproduce the fidelity of the original recording goes down. As for a CD, play it all you want - its quality does not change. Because of the properties of the two different media, the CD has more value. And as in all things in a free market, if it has more value, you will pay more for it.
Not only is this totally racist and white supremist horseshit, it is completely wrong. Whatever qualification Prof. Steve Jones holds, he should probably take down his degree and wipe his arse with it, as it has turned out that is all it's good for.
To guage his qualifications, perhaps we can read what other say about him or his work.
"I like Steve Jones' work. I've read most of his scientific papers. I work on pulmonate snails, and he's one of the best in this little field. I don't know him very well. He's a very good scientist. He's followed the path of a media person, but in my professional world -- snail biology -- his science is very good." -Stephen Jay Gould
And, regarding his racism, another reviewer of his work says the following:
"I've enjoyed Steve Jones' recent book The Language of the Genes. He's a little bit too eager to bend over backwards to be politically respectable, because of the unsavory history of genetics, and he rather goes out of his way to disown those aspects of genetics that are politically disrespectable. I feel that that's over and done with now, and we can forget about it and get on, and I feel he's still a little bit unnecessarily eager to distance himself from the bad aspects of the history of genetics. But I have a lot of time for him;I greatly respect him." -Richard Dawkins
You pay taxes to the government for the service that it provides - basically, keeping the society, the economy and the infrastructure in a working order. Purchasing software, for their benefit, is a mechanism that helps them provide their services to you.
Just because you are a tax payer does not entitle you to the products that the government purchases. The government also pays for nukes, but saying "I paid for it, I want one" is silly. Likewise, if you were to go into any government office and raid the office supplies, you would be arrested for theft. From their perspective, you have no ownership rights with regards to what they do with their money.
To follow your candy bar analogy, you are entitled to buy a candy bar and eat it. Hershey, however, has no obligation to give you their recipe for chocolate and the schematics for the manufacturing plants so you can duplicate what they are doing.
99.99% of internet surfers do not use lynx, so even if lynx users were counted, it would not alter the statistics.
Pictures are important to the web surfing experience - even here on slashdot, pictures are used to denote the general topic of articles. You can quickly find out article topics by looking at the associated image, saving you time from reading the article title if it is a topic that doesn't interest you. If the picture is a borg, it is a M$ article, and you don't have to waste time by reading the headline "Another Outlook Express Worm Is Spreading".
I think that the stats that were gathered represent Joe/Jane Average Computer User, and at this point in time, Joe and Jane are using Windows.
that Landover Baptist is a satire site. You probably would not want to go there looking for arguments for/against anything.
Since their satire is directed towards/against Christianity, it might actually be a place to look for arguments for atheism (although I suspect that the authors of the site would tell you to get a clue and realize that the whole thing is a joke).
The author of the Salon article, Andrew Leonard, is a senior writer for Salon whose interest is in chronicalling the Linux revolution. Leonard, under the auspices of Salon, is writing a book about linux that is targeted to "linux veterans and newbies alike". The book is being written online and open for review, much like open source software. In Salon's own words, their goal is that "this format will subject the book to the same kind of online peer review that the open-source movement applies to its software code. Everybody benefits"
Just as the the requestor for this discussion is hoping to avoid closed source articles written by Microsoft's marketing department, this article has the same credibility coming from the other side of the fence.
It really depends on what you expect to get out of a college education. Liberal arts colleges focus on educating students - to create students who are independent thinkers and with a broad breadth of knowledge. It seems that in most other schools, college is nothing more than vocational training for entry level white collar jobs.
In regards to your statement that most liberal arts grads have to get additional schooling in order to get a professional level job, the statement is true on surface, but not for the reasons that you infer. I am a graduate of a liberal arts college, and per the most recent bulletin from the college, over 70% of the students went to graduate school for additional schooling. This is not because they couldn't get jobs, it is because they chose an undergraduate school to educate them, and then a grad school for vocational training. Instead of getting entry level white collar jobs (becoming a number in some corporate cube farm), these students went on to medical school, law school, business school or on to get their PhD's. Instead of entry level positions, they went on to get high paying positions, and in corporate environments, their first day on the job is already half way up the corporate ladder.
When I graduated a liberal arts college twelve years ago, I got a job while most of my college mates went to grad school. My starting salary was the same as most people at that time, and in the past twelve years, my salary has increased 320% - far more than most people's. And, in comparison to my college mates, if you look at earnings, I am a failure. My immediate friends because a PhD Psychologist, an MBA who is a VP in a $40M company, and an architect who is designing projects in the US, Europe and Russia.
There is a reason why Ivy league schools are so highly regarded - even though they are liberal arts schools. They produce graduates who know how to think, how to work hard, and have the skills to excel in the workplace - even if they haven't been given training specific to any one job. I think that if you compare the earnings of Ivy League schools compared to your run of the mill college who graduates warm bodies with vocational training, you will see that Ivy graduates far exceed all others.
he is guilty of unauthorized access to the PDNS web site. He admitted in a recorded conversation with PDNS representatives that he accessed the user names and passwords to their site, that he entered their site using these names and passwords, and that on three occassions, he entered the web site of 1st National Bank of McAlster and was able to view customers checking accounts, savings accounts, and money transfers.
So, going back to the house analogy, he is guilty of going inside and looking around.
The details of the affidavit are from Brian West's own web site, http://www.bkw.org
You may argue that there is an obvious difference between cracking a system and exploiting it, but most 'joe bag-of-donuts' types won't see the difference. What you are fundamentally saying that breaking in to a computer is an OK thing to do - as long as you don't steal anything, and that for law enforcement not to feel that this is OK is indicative of their cluelessness.
How about an analogy that the 'joe bag-of-donuts' crowd can understand. Suppose you get letter in the mail that says
"Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I stopped by your house the other day, and I was able to easily break into your home. I was able to jimmy the back door, and slide open two of your windows. After I entered your house - since I saw that the exterior was insecure, I decided to see how secure the inside of the house was. While doing this, I was able to find your credit cards in your wallet, so your personal information isn't safe in your house. And, you left your gun cabinet unlocked. I just thought that I should share this with you since I am only interested in your security.
The Cracker"
I would argue that 99.9% of the people in this country would say that this person has broken the law and should be arrested, but you are arguing that since they didn't exploit what they found, that the clueless cops should leave this person alone. Common sense dictates that the person should be arrested, and the cops aren't clueless when they do this.
The company does not need one person with deep pockets to save the company. They need lots of people with average pockets to buy their products.