The context matters, a post said "starting in SV will net you $100k when you leave SV versus $50k/y if you don't start from SV", then someone said "No, you won't get $100k/yr just by being from SV" and I was replying that you could probably get $100k/yr, regardless of SV or not.
But in answer to your question, yes, $100k/year is a lot of money. US median *household* income is $60k (including a lot of multi-income households). One salary being nearly double the median is a lot of money, relatively speaking. I certainly feel like I have a lot more money than others, and I don't really want for anything.
They have the last laugh. Little do you know they put the sensors *right in the tinfoil*. You *thought* you were protecting yourself but you just played right into their hands.
I think the assertion that some places would only offer $50k underestimates the state of affairs in the rest of the market. Sure, having a *median* of over $200k is unlikely outside of California, but 100k isn't too outrageous, regardless of whether the person came from one of the "big names" or not.
The problem being that if NK is the least bit insincere about their intentions, they may be able to roll over SK and Japan in such a case.
Of course, it does seem imbalanced and rightfully worrisome for the *US* to be doing most of the presence, and a more internationally balanced force might be able to do the same. Of course that means a lot of nations have to pony up some investment to make that happen, but if it did, that could save the US a lot of money.
I suspect that may be a bit too far a bridge to cross. Sudden feel-good let's get along rhetoric is certainly welcome, but I don't think the world is going to trust the sincerity of those words quite yet. Only way I could see that would be commitment for the UN to replace with equivalent non-US forces. If non-US coutnries were to pony up, that would mean SK would remain protected *and* NK regime would have a nice narrative consistent with their propaganda to evolve things from (propaganda has always been the *US* is the enemy, so driving them out of the peninsula could be proclaimed as a win, even if the reality is the same general global attitude.
1) Is contra-indicated by his behavior up until this year. Reportedly in some ways he was even more ruthless than his father. His rhetoric was even more aggressive.
2) More likely this, specifically the aftermath of the nuclear test site collapse seemed to be a key turning point. Not only would this have likely set back their program, perhaps beyond recovery, it also demonstrated how much damage their messing around could do to the geology, right on China's border.After that point, everything toned downed rapidly. A few weeks ago he suddenly was willing to meet.
Then a couple of weeks ago, presumable at China's insistance, Kim Jong Un went to Beijing. We are note privy to what happened in that meeting, but afterward, NK was much more concrete about terms to wind things down, though the general overtures were promising prior to that.
Trump's rhetoric *probably* wasn't it, perhaps the elevated sanctions contributed, but I suspect if not for the test site incident, they'd still be betting on threat of force by nukes to keep things going until they'd control South Korea on their terms. Now it seems they've decided to appease the international community in exchange for guarantees their internal affairs would be left alone (which the rest of the world has already seemed content to leave alone, regardless of severity of atrocity).
The software has copyright on it. Whether it is free or paid for, making a copy is a matter of law. Sure the law may be flawed and sure this may defy common sense, but no matter the label used, he made copies of MS software and distributed them to third parties without any agreement allowing him to do so. The trademark violation and efforts to deceive about country of origin and 'genuine' microsoft software are problems, but not required for him to be in trouble.
Even if the software is no-cost, there are terms and conditions relevant to entitlement to copy (you can make copies for personal backup reasons because the law permits it, but not for redistribution). Otherwise, GPL and BSD licenses would not have any means to enforce it.
For MS, this is going to be a tricky thing to spin in a good light. In their defense, if someone did this and they or the company that actually made the media put in a rootkit, not just a straight download of MS software, then MS could have a different PR problem, not doing enough to prevent malicious software and people assuming MS did it. Of course getting this story big and explaining this angle would work better than talking about "lost sales" (which clearly was not the case here) and perhaps asking for leniency for this case would have made for better PR moves.
Of course he was *charging* for it to get profit, so sympathy for the person isn't *that* well placed, even if under the guise of recycling.
Yeah, when we do tech interviews, we ask questions that we are certain they won't be able to answer, but want to see how they would think about the problem and what questions they ask to get more data and that they don't just fold up and say "well that's not the sort of problem I'd be thinking of" The examples aren't made up or anything, they are generally selection of real problems that were incredibly difficult that our company had faced before, that one may not think at first glance such a position would be faced with. Injecting guidance and explanations and evaluating how they react to that information.
There are of course a few sanity checks to make sure they have at least actually done the work indicated in their resume and that they aren't lying, but this is a relatively lower priotity
Here's another problem, if faced with a skilled team that says "this will take 6 months to do right" and a more naive team that says "oh, we can slap that together in a month", management goes with the latter. Then the security compromises occur, then the application fails due to pulling in an unvetted dependency update live into production. When the project grows to handling thousands instead of dozens of users and it starts mysteriously folding over and the dev team is at a loss, well ithe choice has been made and it must be easier to fix it than scrap it and redo it the way the experienced team advocated right??
It's not a "kids these days" sort of issue, it's *always* been the case that shameless, baseless self-promotion wins out over sincere skill without the self-promotion, because the people who control the money generally understand boasting more than they understand the technology. Yes it can happen that baseless boasts can be called out over time by a large enough mass of feedback from competent peers, but it takes a *lot* to overcome the tendency for them to have faith in the boasts.
It does correlate strongly with the flow of venture capital. Back in the late 90s, if you vaguely knew how to use microsoft frontpage and talked yourself up enough, boom you have a lucrative "webmaster" job (that's when people first started claiming "html" as a "programming language"). When the bubble burst then, the comapnies that were particularly infested with that went under and the problem became less severe, and with the resurgence of poorly vetted venture capital so too has the visibility and severity of the phenomenon increased again.
The whole "oh, NK is peaceful, they say they want reunification!" was an odd take on the sentiment. They've *always* wanted unification. Unification sounds all nice and happy, but that's also what a totally successful invasion would have looked like.
Well, the nuclear testing cave in that people are pretty sure happened probably contributed... I mean the change in tone seemed to happen very suddenly after that.
Either their testing damaged their capabilities to continue their program irreparably, or having a major seismic instability introduced on their border strained things too far with China inducing them to intervene...
I think they suddenly realized *they* needed to denuclearize, and better to make it seem like a favor to foreign relations than a defeat.
There's a lot of evidence that their nuke testing went badly (cave in destroying the site) and thus they may feel the need to give up on it. They may be trying to suddenly cash in their chips before everyone is 100% certain that they stopped testing because they had to. They presumed a successful nuclear program was within reach and the key to dominating through intimidation, and they had a reality check. Pivoting to saying "well.. we proved ourselves and we don't have anything to prove to anyone, so... uhh.. yeah we'll come to the table now... not because we see no other option, but because we want to... yeah that's it"
The reports of the cave in seemed to mark the change in rhetoric, the response to Trump's brinkmanship seemed to pay back the aggressive words with interest, right up until the incident.
Besides that, for me the difference between 2-day and 5-day isn't that significant to me. Either way it's not instant gratification and I have to order in advance of my need.
While it is true that slashdot not supporting unicode is silly, to say that " requires unicode is bizarre. Just because Apple devices think they *must* use unicode to render " doesn't mean you need unicode to do "
There is almost no such thing as a page with infinite content. I suppose you could have 'scroll for more digits of pi' sorts of things, but overwhelmingly you are scrolling through some record that does have an end, but the scrollbar is oblivious to where that end may be. It may be better if the scrollbar could be used to give the user some indication of how far into the available data they are, even if that data isn't loaded until close to being on the viewport.
Of course, another reality is that our brains will consume things in 'chunks', so some sort of pagination may make sense. Not the 'click next to see one more picture', but somewhere in the middle between having no idea how much farther things could go and having to contend with annoying pagination.
My point was that the 'how could there be a problem?' is the sentiment thrown around here, and that's a bad sentiment if you simultaneously care about the ability to enforce open source licenses.
On the being wrong, I suppose I meant it doesn't seem *right* that this is the way the law can work here. I've no doubt it is legal, but it seems wrong to me that this sort of behavior is a criminal rather than a civil matter. Of course that's a pretty subjective call...
Of course they don't necessarily care if those sorts of machines are competitive with 'anything' (they are pretty terrible experiences, regardless of OS), but they do want to curtail schools buying up those chromebooks and going all in on google infrastructure.
Their problems against ChromeOS and the related services of course cut much deeper. From a business perspective, schools are terrible for profit margin. As such a lot of companies have a hard time justifying efforts that focus on schools because the business case for near term seems weak.
However, long term those students grow up, and either they went through their formative years on a Microsoft platform, or they got used to what Google has to offer and living that way, and taking their spending along with them.
I take back what I said about this being sound. The 'damaged' party should be in the position of suing/not suing and the government shouldn't be doing criminal case for something like this. It seems because he imported the discs, it became a customs issue.
So there is an uproar that this guy is penalized for providing copies of software that could be gotten elsewhere for free. It's free, so how could there be a problem?
So let's extend this line of thought. How would any open source license ever be enforceable with that mindset? It's free to get a copy of GPL project, how could the copyright holder have any basis to sue a company for taking that and doing as they please?
As a matter of law, this seems sound. As a matter of good business, it may not be the best course to bring suit against this guy, and it may be good to have a license that explicitly allows for this sort of thing. Now if someone did have an argument that there were some permissive licensing that should have allowed him to do it, then ok, but let's not pretend copyright requires the holder to charge for the product.
Of course it says as *part* of trying to save that much money.
It's probably more along the lines of 200 million a year (total expense including benefits, payroll tax, etc) and a little on the low end because I wager that they are not going to include too many of their top people.
Ok, guess my experience was limited, I was setting up an xmpp to talk to google hangouts users, but I couldn't seem to make it work without having a google account.
Of course I could be recalling something incorrectly, it was a long time ago and ultimately abandoned the effort.
Slashdot Mirror
The context matters, a post said "starting in SV will net you $100k when you leave SV versus $50k/y if you don't start from SV", then someone said "No, you won't get $100k/yr just by being from SV" and I was replying that you could probably get $100k/yr, regardless of SV or not.
But in answer to your question, yes, $100k/year is a lot of money. US median *household* income is $60k (including a lot of multi-income households). One salary being nearly double the median is a lot of money, relatively speaking. I certainly feel like I have a lot more money than others, and I don't really want for anything.
They have the last laugh. Little do you know they put the sensors *right in the tinfoil*. You *thought* you were protecting yourself but you just played right into their hands.
I think the assertion that some places would only offer $50k underestimates the state of affairs in the rest of the market. Sure, having a *median* of over $200k is unlikely outside of California, but 100k isn't too outrageous, regardless of whether the person came from one of the "big names" or not.
The problem being that if NK is the least bit insincere about their intentions, they may be able to roll over SK and Japan in such a case.
Of course, it does seem imbalanced and rightfully worrisome for the *US* to be doing most of the presence, and a more internationally balanced force might be able to do the same. Of course that means a lot of nations have to pony up some investment to make that happen, but if it did, that could save the US a lot of money.
"withdrawl of US forces from SK"
I suspect that may be a bit too far a bridge to cross. Sudden feel-good let's get along rhetoric is certainly welcome, but I don't think the world is going to trust the sincerity of those words quite yet. Only way I could see that would be commitment for the UN to replace with equivalent non-US forces. If non-US coutnries were to pony up, that would mean SK would remain protected *and* NK regime would have a nice narrative consistent with their propaganda to evolve things from (propaganda has always been the *US* is the enemy, so driving them out of the peninsula could be proclaimed as a win, even if the reality is the same general global attitude.
1) Is contra-indicated by his behavior up until this year. Reportedly in some ways he was even more ruthless than his father. His rhetoric was even more aggressive.
2) More likely this, specifically the aftermath of the nuclear test site collapse seemed to be a key turning point. Not only would this have likely set back their program, perhaps beyond recovery, it also demonstrated how much damage their messing around could do to the geology, right on China's border.After that point, everything toned downed rapidly. A few weeks ago he suddenly was willing to meet.
Then a couple of weeks ago, presumable at China's insistance, Kim Jong Un went to Beijing. We are note privy to what happened in that meeting, but afterward, NK was much more concrete about terms to wind things down, though the general overtures were promising prior to that.
Trump's rhetoric *probably* wasn't it, perhaps the elevated sanctions contributed, but I suspect if not for the test site incident, they'd still be betting on threat of force by nukes to keep things going until they'd control South Korea on their terms. Now it seems they've decided to appease the international community in exchange for guarantees their internal affairs would be left alone (which the rest of the world has already seemed content to leave alone, regardless of severity of atrocity).
I think that's a misinterpretation as well.
The software has copyright on it. Whether it is free or paid for, making a copy is a matter of law. Sure the law may be flawed and sure this may defy common sense, but no matter the label used, he made copies of MS software and distributed them to third parties without any agreement allowing him to do so. The trademark violation and efforts to deceive about country of origin and 'genuine' microsoft software are problems, but not required for him to be in trouble.
Even if the software is no-cost, there are terms and conditions relevant to entitlement to copy (you can make copies for personal backup reasons because the law permits it, but not for redistribution). Otherwise, GPL and BSD licenses would not have any means to enforce it.
For MS, this is going to be a tricky thing to spin in a good light. In their defense, if someone did this and they or the company that actually made the media put in a rootkit, not just a straight download of MS software, then MS could have a different PR problem, not doing enough to prevent malicious software and people assuming MS did it. Of course getting this story big and explaining this angle would work better than talking about "lost sales" (which clearly was not the case here) and perhaps asking for leniency for this case would have made for better PR moves.
Of course he was *charging* for it to get profit, so sympathy for the person isn't *that* well placed, even if under the guise of recycling.
Yeah, when we do tech interviews, we ask questions that we are certain they won't be able to answer, but want to see how they would think about the problem and what questions they ask to get more data and that they don't just fold up and say "well that's not the sort of problem I'd be thinking of" The examples aren't made up or anything, they are generally selection of real problems that were incredibly difficult that our company had faced before, that one may not think at first glance such a position would be faced with. Injecting guidance and explanations and evaluating how they react to that information.
There are of course a few sanity checks to make sure they have at least actually done the work indicated in their resume and that they aren't lying, but this is a relatively lower priotity
Here's another problem, if faced with a skilled team that says "this will take 6 months to do right" and a more naive team that says "oh, we can slap that together in a month", management goes with the latter. Then the security compromises occur, then the application fails due to pulling in an unvetted dependency update live into production. When the project grows to handling thousands instead of dozens of users and it starts mysteriously folding over and the dev team is at a loss, well ithe choice has been made and it must be easier to fix it than scrap it and redo it the way the experienced team advocated right??
It's not a "kids these days" sort of issue, it's *always* been the case that shameless, baseless self-promotion wins out over sincere skill without the self-promotion, because the people who control the money generally understand boasting more than they understand the technology. Yes it can happen that baseless boasts can be called out over time by a large enough mass of feedback from competent peers, but it takes a *lot* to overcome the tendency for them to have faith in the boasts.
It does correlate strongly with the flow of venture capital. Back in the late 90s, if you vaguely knew how to use microsoft frontpage and talked yourself up enough, boom you have a lucrative "webmaster" job (that's when people first started claiming "html" as a "programming language"). When the bubble burst then, the comapnies that were particularly infested with that went under and the problem became less severe, and with the resurgence of poorly vetted venture capital so too has the visibility and severity of the phenomenon increased again.
I don't know your intent, but you may be bolstering their claim rather than countering it ;)
Seems the best answer for this class of systems would have been X32:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All the upsides of the 64-bit capabilties, without the wastefulness of 64-bit addressing (in the context of such a ram-limitied system).
The whole "oh, NK is peaceful, they say they want reunification!" was an odd take on the sentiment. They've *always* wanted unification. Unification sounds all nice and happy, but that's also what a totally successful invasion would have looked like.
Well, the nuclear testing cave in that people are pretty sure happened probably contributed... I mean the change in tone seemed to happen very suddenly after that.
Either their testing damaged their capabilities to continue their program irreparably, or having a major seismic instability introduced on their border strained things too far with China inducing them to intervene...
I think they suddenly realized *they* needed to denuclearize, and better to make it seem like a favor to foreign relations than a defeat.
There's a lot of evidence that their nuke testing went badly (cave in destroying the site) and thus they may feel the need to give up on it. They may be trying to suddenly cash in their chips before everyone is 100% certain that they stopped testing because they had to. They presumed a successful nuclear program was within reach and the key to dominating through intimidation, and they had a reality check. Pivoting to saying "well.. we proved ourselves and we don't have anything to prove to anyone, so... uhh.. yeah we'll come to the table now... not because we see no other option, but because we want to... yeah that's it"
The reports of the cave in seemed to mark the change in rhetoric, the response to Trump's brinkmanship seemed to pay back the aggressive words with interest, right up until the incident.
Besides that, for me the difference between 2-day and 5-day isn't that significant to me. Either way it's not instant gratification and I have to order in advance of my need.
While it is true that slashdot not supporting unicode is silly, to say that " requires unicode is bizarre. Just because Apple devices think they *must* use unicode to render " doesn't mean you need unicode to do "
Actually, he just said 'if the time is right', in other words he basically said nothing, not dismissive nor committed.
There is almost no such thing as a page with infinite content. I suppose you could have 'scroll for more digits of pi' sorts of things, but overwhelmingly you are scrolling through some record that does have an end, but the scrollbar is oblivious to where that end may be. It may be better if the scrollbar could be used to give the user some indication of how far into the available data they are, even if that data isn't loaded until close to being on the viewport.
Of course, another reality is that our brains will consume things in 'chunks', so some sort of pagination may make sense. Not the 'click next to see one more picture', but somewhere in the middle between having no idea how much farther things could go and having to contend with annoying pagination.
My point was that the 'how could there be a problem?' is the sentiment thrown around here, and that's a bad sentiment if you simultaneously care about the ability to enforce open source licenses.
On the being wrong, I suppose I meant it doesn't seem *right* that this is the way the law can work here. I've no doubt it is legal, but it seems wrong to me that this sort of behavior is a criminal rather than a civil matter. Of course that's a pretty subjective call...
Of course they don't necessarily care if those sorts of machines are competitive with 'anything' (they are pretty terrible experiences, regardless of OS), but they do want to curtail schools buying up those chromebooks and going all in on google infrastructure.
Their problems against ChromeOS and the related services of course cut much deeper. From a business perspective, schools are terrible for profit margin. As such a lot of companies have a hard time justifying efforts that focus on schools because the business case for near term seems weak.
However, long term those students grow up, and either they went through their formative years on a Microsoft platform, or they got used to what Google has to offer and living that way, and taking their spending along with them.
I take back what I said about this being sound. The 'damaged' party should be in the position of suing/not suing and the government shouldn't be doing criminal case for something like this. It seems because he imported the discs, it became a customs issue.
So there is an uproar that this guy is penalized for providing copies of software that could be gotten elsewhere for free. It's free, so how could there be a problem?
So let's extend this line of thought. How would any open source license ever be enforceable with that mindset? It's free to get a copy of GPL project, how could the copyright holder have any basis to sue a company for taking that and doing as they please?
As a matter of law, this seems sound. As a matter of good business, it may not be the best course to bring suit against this guy, and it may be good to have a license that explicitly allows for this sort of thing. Now if someone did have an argument that there were some permissive licensing that should have allowed him to do it, then ok, but let's not pretend copyright requires the holder to charge for the product.
Of course it says as *part* of trying to save that much money.
It's probably more along the lines of 200 million a year (total expense including benefits, payroll tax, etc) and a little on the low end because I wager that they are not going to include too many of their top people.
Ok, guess my experience was limited, I was setting up an xmpp to talk to google hangouts users, but I couldn't seem to make it work without having a google account.
Of course I could be recalling something incorrectly, it was a long time ago and ultimately abandoned the effort.