The thing about doing organ transplants, though, is that the playing field is leveled by the unavailibility of donors willing to have a pre-college amateur take a hack at them (not to mention numerous laws). Computers, however, are (comparitively) more abundant, and a particularily motivated person can learn to program long before their formal education. So, if you didn't learn earlier, that's what you have to compete with.
The only problem with this would be its definitiveness. You'd have to make totally sure that you expressed that it was for non-definitive explanatory purposes only, and did not purport to be a legal reference, etc., etc., cover your butt... Otherwise you'd be in trouble if your definition wasn't "right on" enough, and the discrepancy ended up getting someone in legal trouble.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea, though, just that it would have to be sufficiently disclaimered.
Hmm... so if you convert your life savings to cash (or perhaps gold, or some other commodity), and structurally (but removably) build it into your primary residential house... what a dodge!
I, and I imagine most people, would find the "Image Writer", a virtual CD-R that you can use to make only Nero images (.nra). You can do all the things you can do with any other CD-R drive with that, burn a "disc", copy a disc, etc. It only supports.nra, though.
There is, however, a menu-item, "Save Track", that will let you save ISO images, utilizing one of the most confusing and hackneyed file chooser ever.
Nero does support burning from ISOs in the same fashion as.NRA archives.
"Wait, so you sort of care, and I read the whole topic on Slashdot, but not TFA..." "Jack?" "...and the engineers probably care, but then..." "Jack!!" "Yes?" "Jack... I'm having a baby, and I think it's yours."
( !!! Dramatic chord !!! )
"What? It can't be! Wait... so if you kind of care about the board, does that mean we can assume the child will? We've got six so far, should I just say 'six or seven', or 'Six-point-five'? How heavy is a baby?" "No... Jack... I... You... I can't listen to this. You're not making sense! That's integer madness you're speaking of! That's it, Jack, I'm leaving!" (Door slam)
However, even if the status as a trade secret is lost, if it is lost through an actionable means, the fact that it is no longer secret is no bar to prosecution of the person responsible for the loss of that status.
For many residential homes, the outgoing mail is placed into the same mailbox that the incoming mail goes to. The postman just swaps out the outgoing for the incoming, although appearantly there are some problems with that, in that if the postman has no incoming mail to deliver, they just skip over the box, not checking it for outgoing.
It's the RIAA/CD-burner theory. Photoshop is sufficiently faster and more effective at photographic manipulation than a conventionally-working human, that the software is legally valued more than a human life.
Legally, at what point does a Trade Secret not become protectable as Secret anymore? IIRC, there is some sort of trademark-esque principle that if the secret is not protected (and becomes disseminated too widely), the protected status can be lost.
Then again, I might be completely wrong... I only vaguely remember reading this somewhere.
Although the idea of a corporation is legislative, the government does not supply structure or support to any-given-corporation enough to make it a government institution covered under "Congress shall make no law".
By that logic, a "taxpayer" is a government institution, and telling someone to STFU would be government-endorsed oppression.
And, of course, anonymize well. I use a pseudonym (FLEB) online, but I use it so uniformly that anyone can easily trace it back to all the information about me just short of my bank account and SSN.
Of course, I could use a new pseudonym, but I'd have to watch out that I didn't mention enough info for an enlightened reader to be able to track me. Mention something about your window office view, the crap on your desk, any unique points of your job, a link to the wallpaper you're using, or even "I talked to my boss today and they said...", and it's no great stretch for someone in your office to narrow down who you are.
Of course, I've basically "turned myself over" to the idea of years of logs of everything I've ever written being openly available and connected to me. Can't do much but "swim with the tide, only faster" with this one. Of course, I have the courtesy not to openly gripe about people unless I know they can take it, and I know enough not to post sensitive work-related information without getting permission. (Of course, I always push for the clause in freelance contracts to allow me to "post revisions for comment or critique".)
Personally, I think a balance needs to be struck. It's easy to say that people posting publically griping about their company get what's coming to them. On the other hand, however, history has never seen such a widespread ability to "publish".
Publication is so ubiquitous that someone's "publications" may only be intended (loosely) for certain audiences, but technology allows employers to easily search and build a "dossier" on someone, with no regard to ethical considerations, which themselves have not even been fully created yet.
I think that the growing ubiquity of publishing, and the ease with which an employer can find out what a person ACTUALLY THINKS (gasp!) means that employers need to just *chill out* to a certain degree, since I'm certain that no person is really that squeaky clean when you put them under a microscope... it's just that now, there are microscopes.
Others know that legally, they don't have that right.
Clarification, before 2 or 3 people call me on something I am aware of: Yes, I know that you do have the right to talk about your work (barring NDA/Trade Secrets), but you don't have the right to duck reprocussions.
(Editor's note: The remainder is just a rant, and mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. Read at own risk.)
Personally, I'd be happy if business owners and stockholders would stop being such profit-hungry, penny-pinching assholes, and have a little pride and recognition for their workforce. That, unfortunately, is not an option for many in landscapes where it's in both the interest and the power of the "big players" to make crunchy bits of anyone who doesn't want to play that hard of hardball.
Still, though, I'm really suprised that nobody's stepped up to the plate to advertise that "We might cost more, but we're not evil". Saturn tried that in the '90s, but they kind of fizzled out. I want to see someone take off the gloves. Start naming names and calling people out. Go at it with all the vitriol and spite of a mudslinging political campaign.
Well, many people think they have the right, online, to bitch about their company. Others know that legally, they don't have that right. Since the topic regards having rights, online, affirmative or no, the topic is quite well suited to YRO.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about doing organ transplants, though, is that the playing field is leveled by the unavailibility of donors willing to have a pre-college amateur take a hack at them (not to mention numerous laws). Computers, however, are (comparitively) more abundant, and a particularily motivated person can learn to program long before their formal education. So, if you didn't learn earlier, that's what you have to compete with.
See: humor.
Yeah, but what've you got on your localhost?
The only problem with this would be its definitiveness. You'd have to make totally sure that you expressed that it was for non-definitive explanatory purposes only, and did not purport to be a legal reference, etc., etc., cover your butt... Otherwise you'd be in trouble if your definition wasn't "right on" enough, and the discrepancy ended up getting someone in legal trouble.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea, though, just that it would have to be sufficiently disclaimered.
This is basic tort law and any lawyer who passed bar...
And, ya see, that's where we get into the problem...
Hmm... so if you convert your life savings to cash (or perhaps gold, or some other commodity), and structurally (but removably) build it into your primary residential house... what a dodge!
Just turn down your TV's "Color" knob all the way... was it really that difficult?
Yea, but the first way would just go to the original server, not nyud. Once the URL hits the first slash, that's the server you're on.
Look at the rack of computer headset/mic combos sometime. I've seen a lot of them marked "Skype Approved" or such.
Remind me to steal your stuff.
Way to go. Now it's five words.
Jerk.
in the barn that has it all. Hmmm...
I want your barn.
There are traps.
It's a bit hidden away.
.nra, though.
.NRA archives.
(My experience is relevant to Nero v5. YMMV.)
I, and I imagine most people, would find the "Image Writer", a virtual CD-R that you can use to make only Nero images (.nra). You can do all the things you can do with any other CD-R drive with that, burn a "disc", copy a disc, etc. It only supports
There is, however, a menu-item, "Save Track", that will let you save ISO images, utilizing one of the most confusing and hackneyed file chooser ever.
Nero does support burning from ISOs in the same fashion as
"Wait, so you sort of care, and I read the whole topic on Slashdot, but not TFA..."
"Jack?"
"...and the engineers probably care, but then..."
"Jack!!"
"Yes?"
"Jack... I'm having a baby, and I think it's yours."
( !!! Dramatic chord !!! )
"What? It can't be! Wait... so if you kind of care about the board, does that mean we can assume the child will? We've got six so far, should I just say 'six or seven', or 'Six-point-five'? How heavy is a baby?"
"No... Jack... I... You... I can't listen to this. You're not making sense! That's integer madness you're speaking of! That's it, Jack, I'm leaving!" (Door slam)
"Integer Madness" That's going into my vocabulary. Not sure when I'd use it, but...
However, even if the status as a trade secret is lost, if it is lost through an actionable means, the fact that it is no longer secret is no bar to prosecution of the person responsible for the loss of that status.
Good point.
For many residential homes, the outgoing mail is placed into the same mailbox that the incoming mail goes to. The postman just swaps out the outgoing for the incoming, although appearantly there are some problems with that, in that if the postman has no incoming mail to deliver, they just skip over the box, not checking it for outgoing.
It's the RIAA/CD-burner theory. Photoshop is sufficiently faster and more effective at photographic manipulation than a conventionally-working human, that the software is legally valued more than a human life.
Legally, at what point does a Trade Secret not become protectable as Secret anymore? IIRC, there is some sort of trademark-esque principle that if the secret is not protected (and becomes disseminated too widely), the protected status can be lost.
Then again, I might be completely wrong... I only vaguely remember reading this somewhere.
And... no one would care.
Government construction? I'm gonna say "no".
Although the idea of a corporation is legislative, the government does not supply structure or support to any-given-corporation enough to make it a government institution covered under "Congress shall make no law".
By that logic, a "taxpayer" is a government institution, and telling someone to STFU would be government-endorsed oppression.
And, of course, anonymize well. I use a pseudonym (FLEB) online, but I use it so uniformly that anyone can easily trace it back to all the information about me just short of my bank account and SSN.
Of course, I could use a new pseudonym, but I'd have to watch out that I didn't mention enough info for an enlightened reader to be able to track me. Mention something about your window office view, the crap on your desk, any unique points of your job, a link to the wallpaper you're using, or even "I talked to my boss today and they said...", and it's no great stretch for someone in your office to narrow down who you are.
Of course, I've basically "turned myself over" to the idea of years of logs of everything I've ever written being openly available and connected to me. Can't do much but "swim with the tide, only faster" with this one. Of course, I have the courtesy not to openly gripe about people unless I know they can take it, and I know enough not to post sensitive work-related information without getting permission. (Of course, I always push for the clause in freelance contracts to allow me to "post revisions for comment or critique".)
Personally, I think a balance needs to be struck. It's easy to say that people posting publically griping about their company get what's coming to them. On the other hand, however, history has never seen such a widespread ability to "publish".
Publication is so ubiquitous that someone's "publications" may only be intended (loosely) for certain audiences, but technology allows employers to easily search and build a "dossier" on someone, with no regard to ethical considerations, which themselves have not even been fully created yet.
I think that the growing ubiquity of publishing, and the ease with which an employer can find out what a person ACTUALLY THINKS (gasp!) means that employers need to just *chill out* to a certain degree, since I'm certain that no person is really that squeaky clean when you put them under a microscope... it's just that now, there are microscopes.
Others know that legally, they don't have that right.
Clarification, before 2 or 3 people call me on something I am aware of: Yes, I know that you do have the right to talk about your work (barring NDA/Trade Secrets), but you don't have the right to duck reprocussions.
(Editor's note: The remainder is just a rant, and mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. Read at own risk.)
Personally, I'd be happy if business owners and stockholders would stop being such profit-hungry, penny-pinching assholes, and have a little pride and recognition for their workforce. That, unfortunately, is not an option for many in landscapes where it's in both the interest and the power of the "big players" to make crunchy bits of anyone who doesn't want to play that hard of hardball.
Still, though, I'm really suprised that nobody's stepped up to the plate to advertise that "We might cost more, but we're not evil". Saturn tried that in the '90s, but they kind of fizzled out. I want to see someone take off the gloves. Start naming names and calling people out. Go at it with all the vitriol and spite of a mudslinging political campaign.
Well, many people think they have the right, online, to bitch about their company. Others know that legally, they don't have that right. Since the topic regards having rights, online, affirmative or no, the topic is quite well suited to YRO.