But alot of people on slashdot dont care because they are CEOs or upper level management, not level 1 programmers.
It's not about exporting capitalism, it's about importing a 3rd world standard of living, which is why so many people around the world are against this.
I'm American and I'm against it.
It's about making a market place, a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States.
Exactly, it is like slavery, our companies are making them depend on us, and preventing them from starting their own companies. Wasnt capitalism supposed to be about the individual? This seems almost more like communism.
We lose because now we will NEVER be able to get a job here in the USA.
So what if you can hire some Indian, Africa or Chinese programmer for $1 a day or something, I'm an American.
Maybe it will be useful if I wanted to start a software company to be able to get cheap labor but its also known that these programmers suck at software design, so I'd still have to design everything, they'd just be cheap labor.
Which means any other company can use the same "We didnt authorize this" excuse.
How the hell are we supposed to sign a contract through the internet anyway?
Be realistic, I'm sure a judge would be realistic enough to know that AOL deliberately tricked millions of people, perhaps we should sue AOL for causing all of us to believe we had a valid license.
"Irrelevant if the code was not legaly licensed to them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, though I doubt very many of the "millions" that downloaded WASTE have managed not to hear about the scandal. If they use the code in a GPL project, they can expect to be sued. I wouldn't expect AOL to go after anyone, but the fact that they could means it's best to stay away from WASTE's source."
How do you know? this? Sure some have downloaded and heard about the scandal, AFTER they have used it, edited the code and released new versions of waste. So now the hear they may get sued? Too late, they already broke the law right? so why stop now?
What's your point here? I wouldn't assume that Justin wrote it all by himself. I really don't get what you're driving at here.
What makes you think Justin wrote waste all by himself? Why the double standard
No, Justin did not. Nullsoft/AOL did. They pay him to code Winamp. That's work-for-hire. He does not own Winamp. He could not GPL the code for Winamp. Not even what he wrote. That's a basic part of copyright law, your ignorance of which is astounding. As I mentioned in my prior post, there is the distinct possibility that WASTE, too, is work-for-hire, and as such, not his to give away.
Yes and according to Nullsofts site when they released Waste, AOL paid them to write it, AOL even used it internally.
The fact that they licensed it to you the moment you hit "I agree." You agreed to those terms, and only those terms.
How can you prove the Waste license is invalid? Just because AOL says so? Thats not enough evidence to prove anything in court, because AOL also said it was valid a day before when everyone downloaded it, and installed it.
This is completely different from WASTE. They are not changing the terms of the license. They are saying that it was never legally licensed to you to begin with.
But I have the license right here in a text file included with Waste. How can you prove that Justin released Waste without AOL's permission? How can you prove Justin released Winamp with AOLs permission? You have to prove with facts everything you are saying, opinion does not work in court.
All we have is AOLs word vs Justins word, and Justin is an employee for AOL meaning Justin represents AOL. So Justin is speaking for AOL, saying one thing, while other AOL employees say another thing, but to the outside world, anything any AOL employee says is official.
IF Justin released this software its officially released, if he released it under the GPL, its officially GPLed, it doesnt matter if he had the right to do it or not, he already did it, and the people dont know or care who Justin is, or where he stands in the company, the average person does not care about the scandal, just like they didnt care about the Gnutella scandal, they just care about the results.
Look, the code is out there, the average person thinks AOL released it, they dont care about internal politics, what you are saying is this.
Lets assume one of our soilders somehow got control of our nukes and nuked the soviet union, do you think the soviets would care if we authorized the soilder to nuke them or not? No, because they were just nuked. They dont care who pulled the switch, or how, they just know they were just nuked.
AC, if that guy lived in your house and gives away your stuff you have no way to prove to a court that the people buying it knew you werent selling it. Combine this with history of your brother selling stuff in your house before and you never saying anything.
Take the case with Winamp, Nullsoft released Winamp, it wasnt released on the AOL website, so suddenly its illegal?
"ANY GPL-ED PROJECT USING CODE FROM "WASTE" RISKS THE WRATH OF AOL'S LAWYERS. Just write your own code and GPL it. Don't even touch WASTE."
Wrong, saying this is like saying, "Well, because AOL didnt release it, signed with the signature of the current CEO of AOL, its not authorized."
You ignore the fact that Justin worked for AOL, you also ignore the fact he was a CEO, you finally ignore the fact that he has released many software products under the Nullsoft name before, such as Winamp and others on the Nullsoft site, hey if hes not authorized to release any software, well then why the hell is there all those software links on his site? Shouldnt they be at AOL.com? I mean Nullsoft cannot own any copyrights or release any software!
Now, if you come back and say "Well Nullsoft can release authorized software like Winamp, Shoutcast etc" How the hell are we the consumers supposed to know which software is authorized and which isnt?
How can AOL prove to us Waste was not Authorized? Even if they can prove that it wasnt, its already too late, millions of people have downloaded it, started using it, looked the the source code, edited and compiled the code, etc.
What can AOL's lawyers do? Sue people for using something AOL released? Mistake or not, AOL released Waste. IF it was not authorized, Justin should be the one in trouble, not the people he influenced, lied to or tricked into downloading it.
You can say the source code is tainted but guess what, Lets assume this, lets assume tomorrow Redhat pops up and says "WAIT WAIT WAIT, the sourcecode for Redhat is not GPLed, it was all released by accident, some rogue in our company released Redhat 9.0 code which we didnt authorize and attached A GPL."
Do you think it will matter after people already saw the code, edited the code and so on?
This is as ridiculous as what SCO is trying to do, you cannot release code under the GPL as open source by ACCIDENT and then change your mind. You just cant, if you can well every company who ever used or released anything under the GPL can turn around right now and say they released it be accident, and suddenly sue everyone.
What stops Redhat, IBM, and all these other Linux companies, like Lindows, etc from saying "Well we released our code by ACCIDENT, we arent REALLY GPL even though you see the code and GPL license in that zip file, we didnt really write it, a hacker broke into our company and wrote that GPL msg along with posting the code they stole from us, oh and the hacker happens to be a CEO"
It will NEVER work.
Its a scare tactic, just like what the RIAA uses to keep people from sharing files, AOL knows they couldnt hire enough lawyers to stop Gnutella, so how can they suddenly hire a million lawyers to sue a million people.
The only way this will be an issue with lawyers is if a company pops up and uses Waste code within the next month or so.
You're completely missing the issue. The issue is whether whomever is responsible for it's release (presumably Justin Frankel) held the copyright, and thus had the right to do so. This comes down to contractual agreements between Justin and AOL.
So its not like AOL can do anything about it now, the millions who downloaded it from NullSofts website have no way of knowing this, the only one who knows this are AOL, and Justin.
The GPL License says Nullsoft, not Justin Frankel, the same thing is on all of Nullsofts other products, like Winamp, so why pick this product to say "well we dont know if Justin was authorized to release this"
Justin also released Winamp 3, Shoutcast, and all this other stuff. What stops AOL from saying "You all must destroy your copies of WinAmp 3, Shoutcast,Aimazing," etc?
If Justin cannot release any software, all software released by Nullsoft since their purchase from AOL can be recalled.
Why? Because we have no way of knowing if AOL authorized those releases either. SO I guess AOL can change the license at any time and say "Hey we changed our license, you all have to pay for this software"
I dont want your corperate education because unlike you, I dont CARE about the corperate world, I hate the corperate world.
So you think I want to learn how to be a better corperate peon? NO! I want to learn how to think, how to be smarter, and apply it to my life, not to the job.
Not in the eyes of the law. It doesnt matter if it were up for 1 day, 1 hour, 1 year, once its up its still up and you cannot take it back!
This would be like car companies sueing people for using something they recalled.
Yes you can recall something but people have to volunteer to give or destroy the software, and usually you have to replace it. You cannot however say they cannot use something which YOU gave to them.
Face it, AOL gave us waste, so what it was only day, no one hacked their website, it was legit, there was a whole press release and website designed explaining it.
I'm sorry but without proof that someone hacked into their servers and put it up there, theres nothing they can do now.
No judge is going to care that they pulled down the site after a day, millions of people downloaded the software within that 24 hours believing AOL released it, they got it from Nullsofts website, the same site which is giving Winamp.
So if you were a lawyer and your best defense is "Well it was only one day" You are going to lose.
you are required to be working while taking classes? what the hell is this? I can see from their goofy rules that the school is nothing more than a corperate training center.
It does depend on the class as well as the teacher, not the tools. My best teacher used online tools to teach, we used blackboard, she used the internet to assist with her lectures, and our assignments were posted on the internet.
This was best, first if you messed the lecture it means you'll have to put more effort into doing your required readings, if you make your lectures the exams are much easier.
When it comes to writing paper it requires you to do alot of research on your own and you'll need the computer to do it, however its guided research because the teacher tells you what you need to research.
Overall a teacher is supposed to be like aa coach or guide, they show you the right way to do something, then you go do it.
Sometimes they dont show you the right way, such as with writing papers, here you have to figure out yourself the right way and your graded on how well you do it.
Like I said a teacher is just a coach, they guide you, its your job to teach yourself using the materials they give you and the tools you have as your disposal.
Sounds good to me, you got all your work, everything seems to be going according to plan, do your work, if you have questions ask them, in many ways its better than being in a class because you can ask more questions.
I'd like to learn a bit more about how it works before i take one, but in my opinion the best courses are a mix of online and offline.
We use blackboard here, and the net and computers are used to assist with offline lectures.
The best part is your assignments, grades etc are all organized online.
"I wouldn't deny that. And yet, it was your choice to live in Boston and to go to school there, "
It wasnt me choice to be born and it certain wasnt my choice to be born in Boston. What you are saying is like saying someone born in another country chooses to live there, as if someone can just get up and leave everything they know and start over. " I went to school in Austin, TX,"
Figures. "where both the cost of living and college fees were cheaper. Did I compromise my education? Not a chance."
Texas! Come on!! Whats in Texas name a good school in Texas, and since when did Texas suddenly have good cities? Texas is known as hickville, alot of trailerpark folk and other poor people live in Texas.
Sure theres poor people in every State, but Texas has ALOT more lazy/poor people than Boston. " My subsequent successes in graduate school and in the business world are evidence otherwise (although as with any success a bit of Providence is always involved). And more importantly, I left school with no debt, a burden far too many students obtain, thus giving me much more flexible options after I graduated."
Once again you went to school in Texas, if I go to School in Canada or Japan, I'd pay less and live for cheaper too! Whats your point? "Honestly, HanzoSan, it is clear to me that you vastly underestimate the choices that are available to you. You have made your choices, and you don't like the consequences---and yet you refuse to believe that there were any alternatives."
Oh right, I decided to be born in Boston! Thats funny! I love how people can make it seem like everything in life is trivial, people can just decide to live in Texas and go to a totally different enviornment which has a completely different culture, hell in Texas people dont even speak proper English alot of the time, if you are going to go somewhere you have to at least know the culture.
I consider myself poor, yeah sure theres people in Texas who are more poor, theres also people in West Virginia who are more poor, what you forget to mention is West Virginia is a ghetto filled with trailers, and Texas is filled with hicks, and the like. So yeah you can live cheap in Texas but who wants to live in a trailer park?
I dont think anyone wants to live in a trailer, just like people dont want to live in Harlem New York, or Compton LA. Theres poor people who live there who survive, I'm sure the college in Harlem or Compton is cheap as hell, but who wants to go to school there?
People want to go to school at Berkley, not Compton College, people want to go to school at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cornell, MIT, places like that, and these places just happen to be in expensive parts of the country and not in Texas.
So you can tell me you got a great education at Texas but please give me a name, what College in Texas? I dont know of any great colleges there, Cheap college doesnt mean good college, just like living in a cheap ghetto doesnt mean its better than barely being able to pay rent and living with roomates in a city.
Once its released to a website, if even ONE person downloads it, the license takes effect.
If what you say is true, Nullsoft, AOL, etc could say "oops, we released Winamp 3.0 by mistake, please destroy your copies, your license is invalid."
Or they can say "Oops, Mirabilis released ICQ without or permission, please destroy your copy of ICQ, we know 100 million of you have downloaded it but we changed our minds"
If people could just recall software like this, then the licenses become totally pointless.
You cannot recall software, if one person downloads it from the nullsoft site and has the logs to prove it along with the website documented, theres no way nullsoft can win in court, one person downloads it and gets that license and the license takes effect.
"You have a very distorted view of poverty. You are not "poor" just because you are not "comfortable," particularly if you are the one that gets to define "comfort." You are not "poor" just because you can't do all the things you wish you could do. There are no Constitutional guarantees on "comfort." The very fact that you can afford the time to spout off on SlashDot as much as you do is evidence against your supposed poverty."
If i cannot afford to live on my own I consider this poor.
"More proof of your distorted point of view! There are plenty of people outside of large, expensive areas like Boston or San Francisco working decent jobs and living in very reasonable accomodations on $30K a year or less. Your claim just patently false. You've made your choice to live in a more expensive place on less income that you would like to have."
But the fact is that I wouldnt be able to find a job anywhere but boston or san fran, People work in cities because thats where all the jobs are.
As of right now I cannot do anything to change my situation. If I leave Boston then I cannot survive at all because theres no jobs, if I stay in Boston I'll live poor, living with 3-4 people just to pay rent. I dont consider grouping up with 3-4 people in a studio apartment to be living confortable by anyones standards!
If we look internationally, your idea that $30K is poor sounds even more absurd. Guess what, the average income level is above $30K in only 8 or 9 countries in the world. It is below that average in 200 other countries. You pay $1000 a month in rent? Well, the average per capita income is below $1000 a year in over 70 countries in the world. (World Bank Data)
Oh yeah just ignore inflation. Nice job trying to spin.
So let's look at some more reasonable measures of poverty. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, a single person with an annual income of $8980 is considered poor. Now some federal programs that support the poor actually use a threshold that is 185 perect of that, which comes to $16613. The U.S. Census puts the poverty threshold for 2001 at $9214 if you're under 65.
Nice job trying to spin again, the official poverty statistics are completely unrealistic, they ignore cost of living. YES you can live just fine making $8000 a year, if you are living in a tent in the forest, or livimg in a homeless shelter, poverty to the US government is when you cannot afford to eat 3 meals a day, they ignore rent, bills, or anything else.
Horror of horrors! You have to have roommates? Sir, during my college years, I lived on an income which was approximately a third of what you are making now. I paid rent (with roommates), I ate food, I drank beer, I paid tuition, I bought books, I bought gas... and I graduated with no debt.
where did you live?
You made 1/3 what I'm making going to Harvard and living in Boston? Or did you make 1/3 what I'm making going to University of Idaho, and living on a farm.
Trust me, if you make $30,000 here in Boston, in San Fran, in New York etc, you arent going to have ANY extra money at all, none, all your money will be sucked dry, college, bills, fees, rent, food, You'll be lucky if you can go to the movies once a month.
If there we so much choice in the world, everyone would choose to pay $100 a month rent in a third world country, then take a plane and fly to work every day.
Slashdot Mirror
But alot of people on slashdot dont care because they are CEOs or upper level management, not level 1 programmers.
It's not about exporting capitalism, it's about importing a 3rd world standard of living, which is why so many people around the world are against this.
I'm American and I'm against it.
It's about making a market place, a product out of entire countries, whose populations are shopped by corporations, much like individual slaves were shopped for in the early United States.
Exactly, it is like slavery, our companies are making them depend on us, and preventing them from starting their own companies. Wasnt capitalism supposed to be about the individual? This seems almost more like communism.
Whos you? lol,
We lose because now we will NEVER be able to get a job here in the USA.
So what if you can hire some Indian, Africa or Chinese programmer for $1 a day or something, I'm an American.
Maybe it will be useful if I wanted to start a software company to be able to get cheap labor but its also known that these programmers suck at software design, so I'd still have to design everything, they'd just be cheap labor.
Big greedy companies like Microsoft now think Indian developers are too expensive, I guess the jobs will move to Africa and China now.
No wait I thought my name was Rico Suave?
According to your website where you got that other information if you search for HanzoSan thats who you find.
AC, wrong guy, but nice try.
I'm sure you know that theres more than one LucianSK on the internet.
Because I dont have a choice.
You have to pay them to get your degree.
I am getting a degree in philosophy actually.
Which means any other company can use the same "We didnt authorize this" excuse.
How the hell are we supposed to sign a contract through the internet anyway?
Be realistic, I'm sure a judge would be realistic enough to know that AOL deliberately tricked millions of people, perhaps we should sue AOL for causing all of us to believe we had a valid license.
"Irrelevant if the code was not legaly licensed to them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, though I doubt very many of the "millions" that downloaded WASTE have managed not to hear about the scandal. If they use the code in a GPL project, they can expect to be sued. I wouldn't expect AOL to go after anyone, but the fact that they could means it's best to stay away from WASTE's source."
How do you know? this? Sure some have downloaded and heard about the scandal, AFTER they have used it, edited the code and released new versions of waste. So now the hear they may get sued? Too late, they already broke the law right? so why stop now?
What's your point here? I wouldn't assume that Justin wrote it all by himself. I really don't get what you're driving at here.
What makes you think Justin wrote waste all by himself? Why the double standard
No, Justin did not. Nullsoft/AOL did. They pay him to code Winamp. That's work-for-hire. He does not own Winamp. He could not GPL the code for Winamp. Not even what he wrote. That's a basic part of copyright law, your ignorance of which is astounding. As I mentioned in my prior post, there is the distinct possibility that WASTE, too, is work-for-hire, and as such, not his to give away.
Yes and according to Nullsofts site when they released Waste, AOL paid them to write it, AOL even used it internally.
The fact that they licensed it to you the moment you hit "I agree." You agreed to those terms, and only those terms.
How can you prove the Waste license is invalid? Just because AOL says so? Thats not enough evidence to prove anything in court, because AOL also said it was valid a day before when everyone downloaded it, and installed it.
This is completely different from WASTE. They are not changing the terms of the license. They are saying that it was never legally licensed to you to begin with.
But I have the license right here in a text file included with Waste. How can you prove that Justin released Waste without AOL's permission? How can you prove Justin released Winamp with AOLs permission? You have to prove with facts everything you are saying, opinion does not work in court.
All we have is AOLs word vs Justins word, and Justin is an employee for AOL meaning Justin represents AOL. So Justin is speaking for AOL, saying one thing, while other AOL employees say another thing, but to the outside world, anything any AOL employee says is official.
IF Justin released this software its officially released, if he released it under the GPL, its officially GPLed, it doesnt matter if he had the right to do it or not, he already did it, and the people dont know or care who Justin is, or where he stands in the company, the average person does not care about the scandal, just like they didnt care about the Gnutella scandal, they just care about the results.
Look, the code is out there, the average person thinks AOL released it, they dont care about internal politics, what you are saying is this.
Lets assume one of our soilders somehow got control of our nukes and nuked the soviet union, do you think the soviets would care if we authorized the soilder to nuke them or not? No, because they were just nuked. They dont care who pulled the switch, or how, they just know they were just nuked.
AC, if that guy lived in your house and gives away your stuff you have no way to prove to a court that the people buying it knew you werent selling it. Combine this with history of your brother selling stuff in your house before and you never saying anything.
Take the case with Winamp, Nullsoft released Winamp, it wasnt released on the AOL website, so suddenly its illegal?
"ANY GPL-ED PROJECT USING CODE FROM "WASTE" RISKS THE WRATH OF AOL'S LAWYERS. Just write your own code and GPL it. Don't even touch WASTE."
Wrong, saying this is like saying, "Well, because AOL didnt release it, signed with the signature of the current CEO of AOL, its not authorized."
You ignore the fact that Justin worked for AOL, you also ignore the fact he was a CEO, you finally ignore the fact that he has released many software products under the Nullsoft name before, such as Winamp and others on the Nullsoft site, hey if hes not authorized to release any software, well then why the hell is there all those software links on his site? Shouldnt they be at AOL.com? I mean Nullsoft cannot own any copyrights or release any software!
Now, if you come back and say "Well Nullsoft can release authorized software like Winamp, Shoutcast etc" How the hell are we the consumers supposed to know which software is authorized and which isnt?
How can AOL prove to us Waste was not Authorized? Even if they can prove that it wasnt, its already too late, millions of people have downloaded it, started using it, looked the the source code, edited and compiled the code, etc.
What can AOL's lawyers do? Sue people for using something AOL released? Mistake or not, AOL released Waste. IF it was not authorized, Justin should be the one in trouble, not the people he influenced, lied to or tricked into downloading it.
You can say the source code is tainted but guess what, Lets assume this, lets assume tomorrow Redhat pops up and says "WAIT WAIT WAIT, the sourcecode for Redhat is not GPLed, it was all released by accident, some rogue in our company released Redhat 9.0 code which we didnt authorize and attached A GPL."
Do you think it will matter after people already saw the code, edited the code and so on?
This is as ridiculous as what SCO is trying to do, you cannot release code under the GPL as open source by ACCIDENT and then change your mind. You just cant, if you can well every company who ever used or released anything under the GPL can turn around right now and say they released it be accident, and suddenly sue everyone.
What stops Redhat, IBM, and all these other Linux companies, like Lindows, etc from saying "Well we released our code by ACCIDENT, we arent REALLY GPL even though you see the code and GPL license in that zip file, we didnt really write it, a hacker broke into our company and wrote that GPL msg along with posting the code they stole from us, oh and the hacker happens to be a CEO"
It will NEVER work.
Its a scare tactic, just like what the RIAA uses to keep people from sharing files, AOL knows they couldnt hire enough lawyers to stop Gnutella, so how can they suddenly hire a million lawyers to sue a million people.
The only way this will be an issue with lawyers is if a company pops up and uses Waste code within the next month or so.
You're completely missing the issue. The issue is whether whomever is responsible for it's release (presumably Justin Frankel) held the copyright, and thus had the right to do so. This comes down to contractual agreements between Justin and AOL.
So its not like AOL can do anything about it now, the millions who downloaded it from NullSofts website have no way of knowing this, the only one who knows this are AOL, and Justin.
The GPL License says Nullsoft, not Justin Frankel, the same thing is on all of Nullsofts other products, like Winamp, so why pick this product to say "well we dont know if Justin was authorized to release this"
Justin also released Winamp 3, Shoutcast, and all this other stuff. What stops AOL from saying "You all must destroy your copies of WinAmp 3, Shoutcast,Aimazing," etc?
If Justin cannot release any software, all software released by Nullsoft since their purchase from AOL can be recalled.
Why? Because we have no way of knowing if AOL authorized those releases either. SO I guess AOL can change the license at any time and say "Hey we changed our license, you all have to pay for this software"
I dont want your corperate education because unlike you, I dont CARE about the corperate world, I hate the corperate world.
So you think I want to learn how to be a better corperate peon? NO! I want to learn how to think, how to be smarter, and apply it to my life, not to the job.
Not in the eyes of the law.
It doesnt matter if it were up for 1 day, 1 hour, 1 year, once its up its still up and you cannot take it back!
This would be like car companies sueing people for using something they recalled.
Yes you can recall something but people have to volunteer to give or destroy the software, and usually you have to replace it. You cannot however say they cannot use something which YOU gave to them.
Face it, AOL gave us waste, so what it was only day, no one hacked their website, it was legit, there was a whole press release and website designed explaining it.
I'm sorry but without proof that someone hacked into their servers and put it up there, theres nothing they can do now.
No judge is going to care that they pulled down the site after a day, millions of people downloaded the software within that 24 hours believing AOL released it, they got it from Nullsofts website, the same site which is giving Winamp.
So if you were a lawyer and your best defense is "Well it was only one day" You are going to lose.
You are so ignorant.
you are required to be working while taking classes? what the hell is this? I can see from their goofy rules that the school is nothing more than a corperate training center.
You know, you make a good point.
It does depend on the class as well as the teacher, not the tools. My best teacher used online tools to teach, we used blackboard, she used the internet to assist with her lectures, and our assignments were posted on the internet.
This was best, first if you messed the lecture it means you'll have to put more effort into doing your required readings, if you make your lectures the exams are much easier.
When it comes to writing paper it requires you to do alot of research on your own and you'll need the computer to do it, however its guided research because the teacher tells you what you need to research.
Overall a teacher is supposed to be like aa coach or guide, they show you the right way to do something, then you go do it.
Sometimes they dont show you the right way, such as with writing papers, here you have to figure out yourself the right way and your graded on how well you do it.
Like I said a teacher is just a coach, they guide you, its your job to teach yourself using the materials they give you and the tools you have as your disposal.
Sounds good to me, you got all your work, everything seems to be going according to plan, do your work, if you have questions ask them, in many ways its better than being in a class because you can ask more questions.
I'd like to learn a bit more about how it works before i take one, but in my opinion the best courses are a mix of online and offline.
We use blackboard here, and the net and computers are used to assist with offline lectures.
The best part is your assignments, grades etc are all organized online.
Alot of you slashdotters like to defend copyright in one sentence then say statements like these.
Whats your problem?
"I wouldn't deny that. And yet, it was your choice to live in Boston and to go to school there, "
It wasnt me choice to be born and it certain wasnt my choice to be born in Boston. What you are saying is like saying someone born in another country chooses to live there, as if someone can just get up and leave everything they know and start over.
" I went to school in Austin, TX,"
Figures.
"where both the cost of living and college fees were cheaper. Did I compromise my education? Not a chance."
Texas! Come on!! Whats in Texas name a good school in Texas, and since when did Texas suddenly have good cities? Texas is known as hickville, alot of trailerpark folk and other poor people live in Texas.
Sure theres poor people in every State, but Texas has ALOT more lazy/poor people than Boston.
" My subsequent successes in graduate school and in the business world are evidence otherwise (although as with any success a bit of Providence is always involved). And more importantly, I left school with no debt, a burden far too many students obtain, thus giving me much more flexible options after I graduated."
Once again you went to school in Texas, if I go to School in Canada or Japan, I'd pay less and live for cheaper too! Whats your point?
"Honestly, HanzoSan, it is clear to me that you vastly underestimate the choices that are available to you. You have made your choices, and you don't like the consequences---and yet you refuse to believe that there were any alternatives."
Oh right, I decided to be born in Boston! Thats funny! I love how people can make it seem like everything in life is trivial, people can just decide to live in Texas and go to a totally different enviornment which has a completely different culture, hell in Texas people dont even speak proper English alot of the time, if you are going to go somewhere you have to at least know the culture.
I consider myself poor, yeah sure theres people in Texas who are more poor, theres also people in West Virginia who are more poor, what you forget to mention is West Virginia is a ghetto filled with trailers, and Texas is filled with hicks, and the like. So yeah you can live cheap in Texas but who wants to live in a trailer park?
I dont think anyone wants to live in a trailer, just like people dont want to live in Harlem New York, or Compton LA. Theres poor people who live there who survive, I'm sure the college in Harlem or Compton is cheap as hell, but who wants to go to school there?
People want to go to school at Berkley, not Compton College, people want to go to school at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cornell, MIT, places like that, and these places just happen to be in expensive parts of the country and not in Texas.
So you can tell me you got a great education at Texas but please give me a name, what College in Texas? I dont know of any great colleges there, Cheap college doesnt mean good college, just like living in a cheap ghetto doesnt mean its better than barely being able to pay rent and living with roomates in a city.
Annonymous yes you could, if it were Microsofts website you put it on.
Nullsoft Released Winamp, how do we KNOW for a fact its legal to use ? I mean what if AOL decides to recall it! We all could go to jail!
Once its released to a website, if even ONE person downloads it, the license takes effect.
If what you say is true, Nullsoft, AOL, etc could say "oops, we released Winamp 3.0 by mistake, please destroy your copies, your license is invalid."
Or they can say "Oops, Mirabilis released ICQ without or permission, please destroy your copy of ICQ, we know 100 million of you have downloaded it but we changed our minds"
If people could just recall software like this, then the licenses become totally pointless.
You cannot recall software, if one person downloads it from the nullsoft site and has the logs to prove it along with the website documented, theres no way nullsoft can win in court, one person downloads it and gets that license and the license takes effect.
Because these peices of software were released not directly by AOL, but by Nullsoft and Mirabilis on their own websites.
So if Winamp is Legal, how do you figure Waste isnt?
"You have a very distorted view of poverty. You are not "poor" just because you are not "comfortable," particularly if you are the one that gets to define "comfort." You are not "poor" just because you can't do all the things you wish you could do. There are no Constitutional guarantees on "comfort." The very fact that you can afford the time to spout off on SlashDot as much as you do is evidence against your supposed poverty."
If i cannot afford to live on my own I consider this poor.
"More proof of your distorted point of view! There are plenty of people outside of large, expensive areas like Boston or San Francisco working decent jobs and living in very reasonable accomodations on $30K a year or less. Your claim just patently false. You've made your choice to live in a more expensive place on less income that you would like to have."
But the fact is that I wouldnt be able to find a job anywhere but boston or san fran, People work in cities because thats where all the jobs are.
As of right now I cannot do anything to change my situation. If I leave Boston then I cannot survive at all because theres no jobs, if I stay in Boston I'll live poor, living with 3-4 people just to pay rent. I dont consider grouping up with 3-4 people in a studio apartment to be living confortable by anyones standards!
If we look internationally, your idea that $30K is poor sounds even more absurd. Guess what, the average income level is above $30K in only 8 or 9 countries in the world. It is below that average in 200 other countries. You pay $1000 a month in rent? Well, the average per capita income is below $1000 a year in over 70 countries in the world. (World Bank Data)
Oh yeah just ignore inflation. Nice job trying to spin.
So let's look at some more reasonable measures of poverty. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, a single person with an annual income of $8980 is considered poor. Now some federal programs that support the poor actually use a threshold that is 185 perect of that, which comes to $16613. The U.S. Census puts the poverty threshold for 2001 at $9214 if you're under 65.
Nice job trying to spin again, the official poverty statistics are completely unrealistic, they ignore cost of living. YES you can live just fine making $8000 a year, if you are living in a tent in the forest, or livimg in a homeless shelter, poverty to the US government is when you cannot afford to eat 3 meals a day, they ignore rent, bills, or anything else.
Horror of horrors! You have to have roommates? Sir, during my college years, I lived on an income which was approximately a third of what you are making now. I paid rent (with roommates), I ate food, I drank beer, I paid tuition, I bought books, I bought gas... and I graduated with no debt.
where did you live?
You made 1/3 what I'm making going to Harvard and living in Boston? Or did you make 1/3 what I'm making going to University of Idaho, and living on a farm.
Trust me, if you make $30,000 here in Boston, in San Fran, in New York etc, you arent going to have ANY extra money at all, none, all your money will be sucked dry, college, bills, fees, rent, food, You'll be lucky if you can go to the movies once a month.
If there we so much choice in the world, everyone would choose to pay $100 a month rent in a third world country, then take a plane and fly to work every day.