There are serious issues with BPL. It generates interference that compromises several amateur radio bands, and is likewise interfered with by the legal operation of numerous low-power transmitters. (This includes CB radio transmitters as well as ham radio transmitters.)
I think that the 5 people who this will negatively impact will be rendered insignificant by the thousands that it would benefit. It's the same argument that people use to negate the complaints of Mac users, except hams are a MUCH MUCH smaller percentage of the population.
What was the reasoning behind the decision to ditch the public charter and switch to "maximize profits or jail" model.
Greedy stockholders who can sue if they think the company is acting contrary to their interest.
Clearly, corporations make donations to, say, the Red Cross which I assume bolsters the corp.'s image.
Make no mistake, if it weren't for the tax deduction that those donations qualify the company for, they would never ever do that.
But it seems there would be many grey areas between "this will boost profits NOW" and "this will be good for our business and profits in the long run".
Actually, that area is remarkably small, bordering on nonexistent. Investors want to double their money in six months, and if a company isn't approaching that performance level, investors go elsewhere. It's all about how much the stock goes up TODAY, not over the next six quarters. Anything after the current quarter's results is completely irrelevant.
Not only "can", but "must". Publicly held company, legal responsibility to maximize profits, etc.
Your company getting ripped off is just another symptom of a culture-wide problem: once a company goes public (Google notwithstanding, because they've established 1) they don't give a flying fig about the stock price, and 2) their shares are distributed in such a way that a shareholder revolt is both unlikely and difficult), the focus goes from "How can we build customer relationships that will be worth far more money in the long run" to "How can we take this company for all they're worth right now, so our stock price stays high?" This problem also takes the effectiveness out of switching vendors because of this behavior; they ALL do this because they HAVE to to stay "competitive". (IMHO an alternative way to stay "competitive" is to not pay CEOs who have driven the company into the ground eight-figure golden parachutes. Yes, Carly, I'm looking at you.)
Doesn't matter if they don't technically have the power. Technically they don't have the right to search files on your computer without explicit permission, but they do anyway (because you've made those files available to anyone who asks.) Whether they can make a case or not has no bearing on their decision to sue; the suit is designed to bully the defendant into settling through the threat of hideously expensive litigation.
IANAL, but I'd like to see the above concept tested in court (i.e. does making files available via p2p applications mean that you forfeit any right to contest the validity of a search for the purpose of discovery?) Seems to me that you should be able to refuse the examination of your computer and the files contained thereon the same way you can refuse a search of your person or property without a court order.
Anyone involved with the RIAA/MPAA suits want to illuminate this for me?
This is a larger issue than just what happens on a job hunting site. Recruiters are THE #1 problem with trying to find a good job these days. These are people whose primary skill seems to be cramming the square peg into the round hole, with a strong "I'm completely fucking clueless when it comes to technical thingys" component. Good, smart, flexible, hard-working candidates are tossed in the trash because they have, for example, 3 years of Java programming experience instead of 4. What the recruiters don't get is that that candidate with 3 years' experience might, due to their talent, be a world class programmer (and a model employee to boot, showing up on time, meeting deadlines, etc), while the guy with (allegedly) 4 years' experience might be a complete hack whose primary skill is to generate steaming piles of useless code (and shows up late, takes long lunches, makes excuses instead of deadlines, etc.)
Even outside their complete incompetence, is the egregious and pervasive lack of ethical behavior on the recruiters' part. More than once I've been lured to a recruiter's office, resume in hand, wearing my interview suit, to be told "Oh, that position has been filled, but we'd like to put you in our database for future positions." Nothing makes a job seeker more angry than to have their time wasted.
Recruiters also make it that much harder to hire people; they add a layer of complexity and they increase expenses associated with hiring.
I'd personally like to see recruiters outlawed; you want to hire someone, you do it your damn self.
ENRON execs notwithstanding (people understand what they did wrong), rich people don't go to jail. Especially over "some computer thing" that nobody outside of the technical community understands or cares about.
I'm sure Sony is quaking in their boots from fear of a/. boycott.
At least someone in the government has enough clue to see how this is a Very Bad Thing, and the government getting involved, while less than optimal, is the only way this kind of behavior will stop. The industry certianly isn't going to restrain itself, and the buying public is too stupid/ignorant/drunk to give half a shit about this issue. People who buy country music generally wouldn't know a rootkit if it walked up and bit them in the FAT.
No problem. I won't be ripping any RIAA members' CDs because I AM NOT GOING TO BUY ANY CDs FROM THEM ANYMORE. I've had it with the suing of grandmothers and shortchanging of artists.
Your choice not to purchase CDs doesn't concern the RIAA in the least.
Your purchases constitute a microscopic portion of their profits.
99.999% of the buying public doesn't really give a shit about this issue, and therefore will continue to buy their CDs at Wal-Mart so they can take them home, put them in their $10 cd player, crack a Miller Lite, and watch NASCAR with the sound off. That is, if they're even sophisticated enough to know you can do that.
Should, however impossibly unlikely this case may be, enough people stop buying CDs to actually affect the industry's profits, the RIAA will blame the loss on "those nasty intarweb pirates" and have that much more ammunition when they go to their bought-and-paid-for legislators and demand even more ridiculous "copyright protections".
They're impervious to logic.
The only useful thing to do here is reward the legitimate distributors with the least onerous DRM, thus proving that it's possible to turn a profit while not assraping the consumer's rights (too badly.)
another candidate is further a long in the process and has already had 2 interviews. If he doesn't work out, would you be avaliable?
OMG. I thought I'd had bad rejections in the past (and I have). That's just downright rude, and completely unprofessional. Please consider telling slashdotters who that was so we can flip them off properly if they ever try to headhunt one of us.
IMHO a public library isn't "free distribution" because: 1) the media remains property of the library and must be returned under terms they dictate, and 2) making a copy of the content is still copyright infringement (as all the signs around the library saying "DON'T PHOTOCOPY BOOKS #@$#(" will attest to.)
Granted, a fine hair to split, but the content is available in the library only because the copyright holder has allowed it to be made available in a public library.
The "problem" is copying a work, not viewing it for free.
I'm not sure I see your point here; borrowing a movie from a public library and downloading the movie from BitTorrent are two different things. By downloading the movie, you've made an unauthorized copy; borrowing from the public library and viewing for "free" doesn't generate an unauthorized copy. I put "free" in quotes because public libraries are supported by local tax dollars, so they technically aren't "free".
Wiretapping laws are written to protect phone conversations. IP packets are not the same as analog phone transmissions. Apples and oranges.
My point is, that in the absence of specific legislation regarding Internet privacy, it is unreasonable at this time to have an expectation of privacy regarding information sent in the clear over the Internet.
Case in point: If, let's say, I work for Yahoo!, and use AOL Instant Messenger to communicate a trade secret to someone else at Yahoo!, it would go over a network and into servers that AOL owns and controls, therefore AOL would own it. Privacy policies are what would serve the same function as wiretapping laws in this context; the difference is that the corporations are writing the rules directly instead of having their bought-and-paid-for legislators do it for them. In a twisted way, it's more efficient.
This is important because there's an expectation of privacy between you and Google
It's not reasonable to have an expectation of privacy on the public Internet. Your search query is transmitted in the clear through any number of intervening network devices and nearly as many privately owned networks. The only time it MIGHT be reasonable to have an expectation of privacy is when your communications are encrypted; even then, your information is subject to the recipient's privacy policy.
If you buy a chair and then make another one just like it, you own that chair.
Your analogy here is flawed; a chair is a physical object, a movie or a song is intellectual property. What applies to one doesn't necessarily apply to the other. A better analogy would be, if you listened to a song and then recorded yourself performing the same song, then you would own the rights to that recording. (I'm not sure what the extent of those rights are, however. Anyone familiar with IP law regarding covers of copyrighted works, please let me know.)
Please don't mistake me for a media company apologist; I'm a firm believer in the concept of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose", in other words, I recognize the (basic) right of a company or individual to dictate the terms under which a work may be viewed or performed. The problem comes when the public and/or legislature accept unreasonable restrictions on that viewing or performance, as everyone's definition of "unreasonable" is going to differ. I believe that I should have a legal right to make copies of media that I have purchased legitimately for my own personal use (e.g., I make a copy of a CD that I want to listen to in the car, so my original CD doesn't get damaged and/or stolen while in my car.) The RIAA seems to think that I should buy a second copy of their CD to listen to in the car, to which I say "Fuck you, I bought it legitimately, and I'm protecting my purchase." I know that if I (hypothetically) download a recent movie from BitTorrent, I'm committing copyright infringement, because I'm viewing a work that is protected by copyright, whose owner has not granted permission for free distribution.
However, I'm MORE (not less) apt to do this because of the MPAA/RIAA's ongoing campaign of terror against the 12 year olds of the world. Memo to the industry: People can easily pirate your content, more easily than they can purchase it. Pissing them off only makes piracy that much worse, because you're placing another barrier to legitimate purchase (i.e., you're pissing people off and making them not want to make the effort.)
You have nobody to blame but yourselves for the scope of the current problem. Rather than change the way you do business in order to meet the demands of the marketplace, you've elected to dig in your heels and fight to the bitter end. Also, if 95% of what you release weren't pure crap that people don't want to pay $15 to listen to (or $12 to watch in the theater) that would also help the situation.
A more useful answer (heh) might be "don't screw around with them, tell them the second they're out of contention so they can move on with their lives". Treat their time as if it's as valuable as yours is, because it is. Waiting three weeks and then getting the "thanks for applying" letter in the mail negatively impacts your company's reputation (should the applicant or anyone he knows be considering a position with your company in the future) and also makes it harder for the candidate to consider other offers.
Majorly off-topic here, but I thought I'd share something. My wife works for this dinosaur of a staffing company (she's a full-time employee of the company itself). To give you an idea of the mindset, she still has to wear full "business" attire to work, eg skirts/hose/dress shoes etc, even though there's no customer-facing at all in her role. So one year their holiday party (big fancy shindig, long-winded speeches, rubber chicken, one free drink, etc) got snowed out. It happens, we're in New England. So, rather than accept it under the banner of "stuff happens", they decided not to have the party. Ever again. Just no holiday party whatsoever, because they got snowed out one year. Fell into the "looking for an excuse" category for me, and morale took a big hit.
You make the assumption that Sony gives half a shit about employee morale. More likely, they didn't want to have to pay for the resources necessary to maintain both versions.
Do you have a source for the text of that memo? I'd like to see for myself if the typo is his and not yours. (No offense if it's yours, these things happen. But there's a big difference between a post on Slashdot and a NASA memo. One is an informal communcation between peers, and in theory the NASA memo would be seen by superiors and subordinates alike and would merit at least SOME proofreading.)
Headhunters aren't paid to figure out what you want to do with your career, they're paid to cram you into a job description so they can make money. I'd suggest you make an appointment with a career counselor who has no financial interest in your situation. Frequently state or local government will provide these services, primarily to those finding themselves collecting unemployment insurance payments, but often their services are available to anyone. (At least in this state.)
That, and I hate headhunters on principle; they're another obstacle between you and the job you want. HR is bad enough, there's no reason to add another layer of clueless communications majors and financial drain.
We have much more power than the corporations would like us to think.
Not so much, IMHO. Basically the only thing we can do in the face of a terrible employer is leave, and most of us can't afford to do that unless we have something else lined up. And it's still pretty hard to do a job search while you're working for someone else (surfing Monster.com, getting to interviews without tipping off Lumbergh, etc.)
There are good employers out there, but finding one that 1) pays a salary you can pay your bills on and 2) will be in business next quarter is the real trick.
You might not do as good a job at work, but if they don't care, then let them suffer with the long-term consequences. If the consequences aren't on your job description, they're not yours to worry about.
Cliche time: What color is the sky on your planet?
Every job description I've ever seen includes the phrase "other duties as assigned by management" or something similar. Job descriptions are worthless, and in nearly all cases, non-binding and unenforceable. If they say it's your responsibility, it's your responsibility; if you don't perform that duty to their satisfaction, out you go, regardless of whether or not it was your job when you started. The problem caused that hurts their overall productivity and incurs turnover-related costs will be remedied by giving your job to someone else, in addition to the other 3 jobs they're doing.
It's not right, but that's the way it is right now.
As far as training goes; yep, you'll be out of pocket for it. Just make sure anything that your employer says regarding reimbursement (ha) or training materials (double ha) is in writing and well established and agreed to before the fact. The up side to paying for it yourself is, that when you're finished, you'll already have experience doing the tasks that in theory you're in training to learn how to do, and can quickly find another job without having to pay your current employer back for any training expenses. Also, the training should (in theory) be easier to pass since you're hands-on with it already.
Of course, if you hold these opinions, the NSA probably already has surveillance on you through your ISP. After all, if you're not with us, you're against us. See you in the carrot patch.
Slashdot Mirror
(waits for inevitable ham flames)
Your company getting ripped off is just another symptom of a culture-wide problem: once a company goes public (Google notwithstanding, because they've established 1) they don't give a flying fig about the stock price, and 2) their shares are distributed in such a way that a shareholder revolt is both unlikely and difficult), the focus goes from "How can we build customer relationships that will be worth far more money in the long run" to "How can we take this company for all they're worth right now, so our stock price stays high?" This problem also takes the effectiveness out of switching vendors because of this behavior; they ALL do this because they HAVE to to stay "competitive". (IMHO an alternative way to stay "competitive" is to not pay CEOs who have driven the company into the ground eight-figure golden parachutes. Yes, Carly, I'm looking at you.)
Doesn't matter if they don't technically have the power. Technically they don't have the right to search files on your computer without explicit permission, but they do anyway (because you've made those files available to anyone who asks.) Whether they can make a case or not has no bearing on their decision to sue; the suit is designed to bully the defendant into settling through the threat of hideously expensive litigation.
IANAL, but I'd like to see the above concept tested in court (i.e. does making files available via p2p applications mean that you forfeit any right to contest the validity of a search for the purpose of discovery?) Seems to me that you should be able to refuse the examination of your computer and the files contained thereon the same way you can refuse a search of your person or property without a court order.
Anyone involved with the RIAA/MPAA suits want to illuminate this for me?
This is a larger issue than just what happens on a job hunting site. Recruiters are THE #1 problem with trying to find a good job these days. These are people whose primary skill seems to be cramming the square peg into the round hole, with a strong "I'm completely fucking clueless when it comes to technical thingys" component. Good, smart, flexible, hard-working candidates are tossed in the trash because they have, for example, 3 years of Java programming experience instead of 4. What the recruiters don't get is that that candidate with 3 years' experience might, due to their talent, be a world class programmer (and a model employee to boot, showing up on time, meeting deadlines, etc), while the guy with (allegedly) 4 years' experience might be a complete hack whose primary skill is to generate steaming piles of useless code (and shows up late, takes long lunches, makes excuses instead of deadlines, etc.)
Even outside their complete incompetence, is the egregious and pervasive lack of ethical behavior on the recruiters' part. More than once I've been lured to a recruiter's office, resume in hand, wearing my interview suit, to be told "Oh, that position has been filled, but we'd like to put you in our database for future positions." Nothing makes a job seeker more angry than to have their time wasted.
Recruiters also make it that much harder to hire people; they add a layer of complexity and they increase expenses associated with hiring.
I'd personally like to see recruiters outlawed; you want to hire someone, you do it your damn self.
ENRON execs notwithstanding (people understand what they did wrong), rich people don't go to jail. Especially over "some computer thing" that nobody outside of the technical community understands or cares about.
I'm sure Sony is quaking in their boots from fear of a /. boycott.
At least someone in the government has enough clue to see how this is a Very Bad Thing, and the government getting involved, while less than optimal, is the only way this kind of behavior will stop. The industry certianly isn't going to restrain itself, and the buying public is too stupid/ignorant/drunk to give half a shit about this issue. People who buy country music generally wouldn't know a rootkit if it walked up and bit them in the FAT.
The only useful thing to do here is reward the legitimate distributors with the least onerous DRM, thus proving that it's possible to turn a profit while not assraping the consumer's rights (too badly.)
Granted, a fine hair to split, but the content is available in the library only because the copyright holder has allowed it to be made available in a public library. I'm not sure I see your point here; borrowing a movie from a public library and downloading the movie from BitTorrent are two different things. By downloading the movie, you've made an unauthorized copy; borrowing from the public library and viewing for "free" doesn't generate an unauthorized copy. I put "free" in quotes because public libraries are supported by local tax dollars, so they technically aren't "free".
Wiretapping laws are written to protect phone conversations. IP packets are not the same as analog phone transmissions. Apples and oranges.
My point is, that in the absence of specific legislation regarding Internet privacy, it is unreasonable at this time to have an expectation of privacy regarding information sent in the clear over the Internet.
Case in point: If, let's say, I work for Yahoo!, and use AOL Instant Messenger to communicate a trade secret to someone else at Yahoo!, it would go over a network and into servers that AOL owns and controls, therefore AOL would own it. Privacy policies are what would serve the same function as wiretapping laws in this context; the difference is that the corporations are writing the rules directly instead of having their bought-and-paid-for legislators do it for them. In a twisted way, it's more efficient.
Please don't mistake me for a media company apologist; I'm a firm believer in the concept of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose", in other words, I recognize the (basic) right of a company or individual to dictate the terms under which a work may be viewed or performed. The problem comes when the public and/or legislature accept unreasonable restrictions on that viewing or performance, as everyone's definition of "unreasonable" is going to differ. I believe that I should have a legal right to make copies of media that I have purchased legitimately for my own personal use (e.g., I make a copy of a CD that I want to listen to in the car, so my original CD doesn't get damaged and/or stolen while in my car.) The RIAA seems to think that I should buy a second copy of their CD to listen to in the car, to which I say "Fuck you, I bought it legitimately, and I'm protecting my purchase." I know that if I (hypothetically) download a recent movie from BitTorrent, I'm committing copyright infringement, because I'm viewing a work that is protected by copyright, whose owner has not granted permission for free distribution.
However, I'm MORE (not less) apt to do this because of the MPAA/RIAA's ongoing campaign of terror against the 12 year olds of the world. Memo to the industry: People can easily pirate your content, more easily than they can purchase it. Pissing them off only makes piracy that much worse, because you're placing another barrier to legitimate purchase (i.e., you're pissing people off and making them not want to make the effort.)
You have nobody to blame but yourselves for the scope of the current problem. Rather than change the way you do business in order to meet the demands of the marketplace, you've elected to dig in your heels and fight to the bitter end. Also, if 95% of what you release weren't pure crap that people don't want to pay $15 to listen to (or $12 to watch in the theater) that would also help the situation.
A more useful answer (heh) might be "don't screw around with them, tell them the second they're out of contention so they can move on with their lives". Treat their time as if it's as valuable as yours is, because it is. Waiting three weeks and then getting the "thanks for applying" letter in the mail negatively impacts your company's reputation (should the applicant or anyone he knows be considering a position with your company in the future) and also makes it harder for the candidate to consider other offers.
Majorly off-topic here, but I thought I'd share something. My wife works for this dinosaur of a staffing company (she's a full-time employee of the company itself). To give you an idea of the mindset, she still has to wear full "business" attire to work, eg skirts/hose/dress shoes etc, even though there's no customer-facing at all in her role. So one year their holiday party (big fancy shindig, long-winded speeches, rubber chicken, one free drink, etc) got snowed out. It happens, we're in New England. So, rather than accept it under the banner of "stuff happens", they decided not to have the party. Ever again. Just no holiday party whatsoever, because they got snowed out one year. Fell into the "looking for an excuse" category for me, and morale took a big hit.
How is this different from what happens in every workplace I know of? If someone's out sick, their co-workers have to pick up the slack.
You make the assumption that Sony gives half a shit about employee morale. More likely, they didn't want to have to pay for the resources necessary to maintain both versions.
Do you have a source for the text of that memo? I'd like to see for myself if the typo is his and not yours. (No offense if it's yours, these things happen. But there's a big difference between a post on Slashdot and a NASA memo. One is an informal communcation between peers, and in theory the NASA memo would be seen by superiors and subordinates alike and would merit at least SOME proofreading.)
That, and I hate headhunters on principle; they're another obstacle between you and the job you want. HR is bad enough, there's no reason to add another layer of clueless communications majors and financial drain.
Many spyware/virus utilities have command line options. Also, try looking into BartsPE or Knoppix (both live cds that can be custom scripted.)
uhh...
There are good employers out there, but finding one that 1) pays a salary you can pay your bills on and 2) will be in business next quarter is the real trick.
Every job description I've ever seen includes the phrase "other duties as assigned by management" or something similar. Job descriptions are worthless, and in nearly all cases, non-binding and unenforceable. If they say it's your responsibility, it's your responsibility; if you don't perform that duty to their satisfaction, out you go, regardless of whether or not it was your job when you started. The problem caused that hurts their overall productivity and incurs turnover-related costs will be remedied by giving your job to someone else, in addition to the other 3 jobs they're doing.
It's not right, but that's the way it is right now.
As far as training goes; yep, you'll be out of pocket for it. Just make sure anything that your employer says regarding reimbursement (ha) or training materials (double ha) is in writing and well established and agreed to before the fact. The up side to paying for it yourself is, that when you're finished, you'll already have experience doing the tasks that in theory you're in training to learn how to do, and can quickly find another job without having to pay your current employer back for any training expenses. Also, the training should (in theory) be easier to pass since you're hands-on with it already.
Interesting that you posted as an AC.
Of course, if you hold these opinions, the NSA probably already has surveillance on you through your ISP. After all, if you're not with us, you're against us. See you in the carrot patch.