Places like Best Buy can never let go of the bullshit because they need it to stay in business. Their sales model is built around having some stuff quite cheap and competitive but then gouging back the profit on accessories.
Dixons Group in the UK, owners of Currys and PC World, were getting a lot of bad publicity over the fact that their sales people are on commission. Can't expect them to offer any advice other than "line my pockets and buy this". They decided to stop the practice and put full page ads in national newspapers, but it was a lie. They just altered the scheme so that commission was paid on the performance of a store as a whole rather than individually. They just can't stop trying to bend you over and fuck you, it is so ingrained in their business model and culture.
Well, they only need to do it to some percentage of the population to make money. they'd just as soon the "I can get a better cable online crowd" stayed away and let them upset to the masses. Sometimes you can use it to your benefit, such as innocently asking about the "best" warranty protection you can buy; acting concerned obvert the price and seeing "if they can work on the price a bit." Usually they will reduce the items price (since the warranty only goes up to refunding the purchase price, not giving you a new item); at which point you buy both and then return the warranty (which, in the US at least, is governed by state law and generally allowed with a full refund if done immediately).
Since 1.4, there are only 5 differentes cables and correctly labelling them is REQUIRED by HDMI (there is a grace period until the end of 2011).
It's simple : 2 speeds (Normal or HighSpeed) and a feature (with or without Ethernet).
Basically, Normal supports up to 1080i and HighSpeed supports above.
The last category is about automative cabling so we can forget about it.
At last, it is FORBIDDEN to make reference to a HDMI version number for cables ("upgrade your 1.3 cables to 1.4" : those are the same - except for Ethernet but your pre-1.4 devices did not support it).
There's a difference, though, between specs and build quality. You can get a cable made in China for $1 if you don't care about build quality. While it may meet the HDMI specs, its durability and life span could be questionable. You don't want a cable whose end connector comes off the first time you unplug it or corrodes over time.
That said, there's a price point where all you are paying for is hype - an at the consumer end of the spectrum I'd guess it somewhere around the $10 - 20 dollar range (depending on length). For a professional setup where the cable cost is less important than absolute repeatable performance it may be more simply do to the QA requirements to ensure the cable works as needed.
Power conditioning power strips are worth while for the protection against over and under voltages as it seems they do extend the life of electronics. For a while there I was going through a DVD player every 6-8 months and I wasn't buying the cheep crap ones (you know the $5 ones) but was purchasing decent ones. About 2 years ago I bought a power conditioning power strip at the hardware store for $24 haven't any issues with electronics since. The computers are connected to a UPS so I never noticed issues there.
While I agree with your general comments on power conditioning, the real issue is often frequency fluctuations for AC devices. That can be a real killer if you aren't getting 60HZ power due to grid fluctuations or other supply issues.
You have stumbled upon the difference between music lovers and audiophiles. Music lovers listen to music, where audiophiles measurbate over tiny specification differences.
Visa and Mastercard are payment processors, it's not their place to decide where one can and can't buy things and it's not their place to make moral decisions on behalf of their clients. Given how there are only 4 major options and that American Express and Discover have much smaller networks and are frequently not accepted, I can't see how Visa and Mastercard can possibly be allowed to continue these shenanigans.
Any company, including payment processors, have the right to not do business with companies that violate the law. They aren't making a moral decision but a legal one.
That is a separate issue from whether wikiLeaks is violating the law; and I would guess the lawsuit would hinge on that issue.
Powerpoint doesn't work? Its your fault. Didn't embed that YouTube video correctly? Its your fault. Your laptop can't talk to the projector? Its your fault. The Projector doesn't work? Its your fault.
If you aren't professional enough to have your research paper backed up on a thumbdrive, a second laptop for your group presentation, or even/gasp!/ a paper copy, ITS YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.
Welcome to being a professional in the 21st century, where using technology is necessary, but knowing what to do when it fails is smart.
in the 20th century, you had to k ow how to change the build in an overhead, brought transparencies (your "slide deck") as a backup to PowerPoint in case the laptop or projector died (and had someone flip through the slides as you went so they were current if you needed them) and brought hardcopy.
It's always been YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.
As a side note, when I did a presentation in our MBA's presentation seminar (how to do a presentation) the lecturer was surprised when, after he said, "the projector build just went out - what do you do?" I turned of the overhead, opened the top, slide the bulb select lever and turned it back on and went on. I think he was disappointed that I ruined his "teaching moment" by not being a moron, though I guess moron / MBA is considered redundant on/.). I learned early on in my career to get there in time to see how the projector work, where the light and thermostat controls are so you are ready when it's showtime.
MDs, DOs, and Pharmacists don't have Masters programs after their main degree do they? I looked up PharmD, and apparently there are post-grad specialty degrees but those aren't a masters program, as for MDs and DOs, it appears that they can take parallel courses for research... but it still seems like the only Masters programs that require a doctorate-level degree for entry are LL.M. programs.
Ah, I misunderstood you to mean that JD was the only undergrad to doctorate degree path; not that a JD was a requirement for a LL.M. I stand corrected.
Last I read, only Washington state allows one to take the bar without attending law school. Yet you still have to operate as a paid clerk for a lawyer for 4-ish years under a lawyer... well, I guess it's just like the old apprentice system... The only other state that is close is Arizona, which has provisions for non-lawyers to do various tasks that only lawyers can do in other states.
Unless its changed, California, Vermont, Virginia, Maine, and New York all had ways to be admitted without a law degree - primarily through a combination of study under a lawyer and at a law school.
Oddly, when government rules in the US started saying that they were going to pay everyone based on the level of degree that they have, suddenly law schools started issuing Juris Doctor (Doctorates) instead of a trade degree. As such, it's the only academic program that awards a Doctorate before awarding a Master's.
Well, I would think MDs, DOs, Pharmacists (amongst others) would disagree - I'm surprised MBA's haven't decided to become DBAs instead as well.
I can hire someone and give them the title "vice-admiral" within the company, but that does not mean anything. Many things do not require an actual engineer's stamp on them, but it is the company's loss if the design is bad. Certain projects do require being sealed, and when an Engineer signs it he is taking responsibility for the design. Please refer to your own state's licensing board for more information.
I'm not sure what your point is other than to reinforce my statement that the engineering professions failure to require licensing in order to market your self as an engineer or provide engineering services results in more competition and leads to lower wages. Sure, a handful of engineering work requires a stamp but that is a very limited subset of what is considered "engineering."
I guess licensing matters if your a civil - where all you need to know is "Poop floats. Concrete must be reinforced. You can't push rope." and have a license to practice.
Many states say you can't sell your services (claim to be an engineer) or put "engineer" or related words in the name of your business unless you are a licensed engineer. Your employer can give you a title of engineer, but that is basically internal and meaningless.
And that's the issue - "engineer" is an essentially meaningless term from a professional standpoint.
"Professional Engineer" is a regulated term. See your state board for details. If you feel someone is misappropriating the term, you should report it - they may be subject to criminal charges, similar to someone pretending to be a lawyer.
True - but very few engineering jobs require a PE - and even then the PE often only has to sign off on work, not do the work. If the engineering profession had made having a PE a requirement to practice engineering salaries would be higher due to restricted supply. It would also limit firms from being able to import labor or export work because of the requirement for a PE.
Every occupation wants state-backed occupational licensure. They _tell_ you it is for reasons like
- only a licensed plumber has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you don't want to drink fecal matter
- only a licensed electrician has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you don't want to lick 2 or more live electrical conductors at once
- only a licensed pharmacist has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you do not take all of the pills in the bottle at once
-
While I agree that licensing laws protect wages, and in many cases are ridiculous - does it really matter if your barber is licensed? - there are also valid reason for licensing some professions
A license indicates a level of understanding of the basics of a profession - a plumber or electrician knows code and some of the reasons behind it so you get proper water seals and safe circuits installed. A pharmacists understands drug interactions and, assuming you use the same one, can catch incorrect prescriptions or potential adverse reactions with drugs you are already taking; they are a second line of defense to ensure your safety.
Of course, professions also seek licensing to minimize competition and increase barriers to entry.
No kidding - the twits filing the suit admits they weren't harmed by the service and just wants to reclaim their fees x3. This definitely qualifies as a top ten all time frivolous class action suit.
Actually I'd guess it's more a move by lawyers in Missouri to drive LZ out of the state by making it to expensive to do business there. For many attorneys, simple legal documents are there bread and butter and if people start using low-cost DIY sites the attorneys stand to lose money or will be forced to lower prices.
Attorneys have been good at fighting any move to introduce competition - years ago they fought over advertising and even now limit what can be said. They created the idea that law school, instead of the old apprentice system where you read the law under an experienced attorney, was needed to be admitted to the bar (although some states still allow you to take the bar without going to law school under certain circumstances).
Of course, what they are doing is not unique to the legal profession. I just wish engineers had been clever enough to figure out a way to do the same thing so that "Engineer" could only be used by a "real" engineer. Yes, there are P.E.s but in most engineering jobs a P.E. is just a fancy title, not a job requirement.
Which is of course utter nonsense, if the information of European citizens is being demanded by US authorities, that violates the stringent privacy laws in the EU. It comes down to whether or not Microsoft wants to do business in the EU. Handwaving about the cloud means nothing.
I believe there is a broader issue here - even though everyone seems to focus on the US - once information on EU citizens leaves the EU it will become fair game for the authorities in whatever state it comes to rest. A non-EU company has no obligation to follow EU rules; especially when faced with laws in their own country that run counter to EU law. EU citizens may think that the EU privacy laws provide them with strong protections against their information being shared with non-EU entities but I think, in the case of cloud storage at least, that they will find that EU law offers little if any protection.
It's not just a case of "Microsoft" doing business in the EU as there can be many different cooperate entities, wholly separate legally form each other, doing business there (as will be the case with many other companies). While the EU could make it hard for the EU entities, it will be messy and I think in the end privacy will lose out.
Yes, the US and EU agreed on some safe harbor protections; but they would not apply to any other country that gains access to the data and could conceivably do whatever they want with it. Quite frankly, I believe any "safe harbor" protections will be trumped, rightly or wrongly, by playing the "national security" or "criminal investigation" cards. Privacy protection was easier hen everything was hard copy - you could control who gets it and why - but with electronic data it simply is infinitely replicatable and you really have no control over where it goes or what happens to it once it leaves your server.
In the end, I think the EU will re-discover what intelligence agencies and others have known for years "Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead."
Er, presumably if there were such a National Security Letter, housing it yourself wouldnt give you much choice in the matter either; you would be forced to turn over the data regardless.
This article is basically an excuse to rail at the cloud and at the US government, but it really doesnt reveal any new information.
Actually, TFA has a snippet that is interesting:
Frazer explained that, as Microsoft is a U.S.-headquartered company, it has to comply with local laws (the United States, as well as any other location where one of its subsidiary companies is based).
While the focus is on the US Patriot Act; that quote implies that cloud based data is essentially subject to any local law and that privacy laws don't protect someone if the law requires access outside of the jurisdiction covered by privacy laws. A local subsidiary would cough up the information, as required by law, not the one where the data may have originated and is covered by privacy laws.
Carried to an extreme, MS is saying that loud based computing renders privacy laws moot. It also means that presumably protect information could be accessed by any state that wishes to pass laws granting itself access (if a company has a subsidiary in that state).
While the US may be at the vanguard, the implications go far beyond there.
Is it in the rules of these competitions that entries shall conform to the terms of software licenses?
If so, ban the cheater. (After establishing his code does in fact incorporate code from other sources and that he has violated the terms of the license on that code.)
If not, sounds like the situation Moryath described above. He was too good, so a few spoiled brats are taking their chess sets and going home.
Except of course he could comply with the OS license (assuming it's GPL'd) without any acknowledgment as long as he doesn't distribute it.
So I agree with you, unless the rules stipulated 100% original code, what's the issue other than he was better at refining code than the others who had eh same code available?
The US has long been a major source of funds, and a steady stream of politicians who need votes in norther industrial cities and law-enforcement guys named "Agent Murphey" had a completely surprising amount of difficulty cutting off the funding...
The Irish learned that to get Power you needed to be in the 4th P, Politics, along with the Priesthood, Police, and Prison.
Umm... Also, Irish Catholics have been blowing shit up since well before the days when Bin Laden and his Jihad buddies were still CIA contractors in the war against the Evil Empire. They did tend to avoid suicide bombing, preferring a mixture of rifle attacks, the occasional RPG, and mortar and bomb attacks of varying degrees of sophistication...
We Irish were also smart enough to get good PR and have a party time holiday in our honor. Never underestimate the power of marketing.
It may cost you, but I suggest anyone signing this detailed a contract go to a lawyer. Of course, this is likely non-negotiable, so you'll either accept the contract in front of you or say "Thanks, but no thanks" and go to the next job where it's likely you'll be faced with the variation on a theme.
I've never run into a job related contract that is non-negotiable - whether it's salary, benefits, or other details. The contract is the first offer - you need o decide if it's acceptable or not. I've done that and in most cases we come to an agreement on what works for both sides. If we run into an issue that can't be resolved the i simply walk away. It's better to do that up front than wind up suing.
Finally, this 'contracts-uber-alles' viewpoint strikes me as evil, pro-corporation, and anti-labor. I had hoped we had gotten away from that with child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and unions.
Funny you should mention unions in your anti-contracts rant. The collective bargaining agreement is held up to be "contract uber alles" whenever it suits the union. The sword cuts both ways, as it should.
Why am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who failed to read and understand the terms of the contract that he signed?
Empathy block - check.
Assumption that all humans are perfect rational entities - check.
Supremacy of the business contract - check.
Internet Libertarian Warrior mode engaged!
Jump to conclusions in reply to try to be snarky Check
Unfortunately, contracts and contract law are what matters here. If he was that concerned about his options and didn't have an attorney check his contract before he left, then it is hard to feel very sorry for him.
The spreadsheet is probably one of the most valuable software contributions in history -- it's used in sciences for data analysis, business for financial analysis, small clubs for keeping organized lists, small businesses as a data source for mail merges... the list is probably miles long.
While a student at Harvard Business School, Bricklin co-developed VisiCalc in 1979, making it the first electronic spreadsheet[dubious â" discuss]. It ran on an Apple II computer, and was considered a fourth generation software program. VisiCalc is widely credited for fueling the rapid growth of the personal computer industry. Instead of doing financial projections with manually calculated spreadsheets, and having to recalculate with every single cell in the sheet, VisiCalc allowed the user to change any cell, and have the entire sheet automatically recalculated. This turned 20 hours of work into 15 minutes and allowed for more creativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bricklin
Dan Bricklin didn't become super rich, but he literally changed the world. I saw a documentary once in which an accountant or some type of professional said that the first time he saw a computerized spreadsheet, he cried, because it took out so much drudgery it could make his work fun again.
If Bricklin had not been getting an MBA, would he have gotten the idea? I'm guessing he looked at hours of paper and pencil boredom recalculating cells, and realized that there was a better way to do it because of his computer background.
Moral: Bricklin's background in computer-science when coupled with exposure to an unrelated area, showed him a need and in the process, he changed the world.
Alternate Moral: If accountants and MBAs had stepped outside their study area and looked at computer-science, they could have changed the world themselves
Actually, many MBA's do step "outside their area" to get an MBA - they're engineers, English majors, scientists, teachers, etc. - who are pursuing an advanced degree. I realize MBA has a bad connotation here at/. but it broadens one's worldview, IMHO.
I don't recall the fine print of my TOS, but I would really wonder whether or not the contracts signed allowed for this bullshit, and whether or not such things would hold up in court.
You'll probably find a "we can alter the terms if we notify you" clause in the fine print. You're option would be to cancel the contract rather than accept the change.As a side note, that can be a way to get out of a contract with a termination fee without paying the fee.
if the do enter it given how cut throat that market is with regards to price.
The same way they do every other market they've entered. By producing a quality product that people are willing to pay for rather than catering to the lowest common denominator like everyone else?
I have no doubt that Apple can produce a quality product, the question is how will they differentiate it? Apple's challenge is that in their current markets they can differentiate their product based on factors beyond quality - people are willing to pay a premium for Macs because of OSX since you can only get it on an Apple. Similarly for the iPhone/Pad/Pod - a unique OS along with an infrastructure (iTunes / app Store) that you can't get with a competitor's product.
Quality alone in the TV market won't command a premium - you can already get high quality products relatively cheaply - will people pay a premium over them just for the the Apple brand? I doubt it. If iTunes access was very popular Apple TVs would be selling like mad - that Best Buy needs to discount them 10% says they aren't exactly flying out the door.
Some people understand that you get what you pay for, and when you go to buy a TV in that cutthroat market, its that way because everyone is trying to sell the absolute cheapest pile of shit they can, and thats what most ignorant people want. Forget the fact that they're screwing themselves over in the long run, most people don't think about tomorrow, only cost today.
On the other hand, some of us know that quality does matter, when you learn that, you'll find you spend a lot less by spending a little more.
True, but TV's are a commodity product that are hard to differentiate within a given quality / technology; so price becomes a hugh factor in the sales decision. A market can be just as cutthroat at the $3000 - 5000 level as at the $100 level. It's not like Apple can offer some feature that's really popular that no other manufacturer has, and unlike computers where OS and apps matter, manufacturers can reduce price to shift the buying decision to them vs. Apple. Apple could have some really net new idea to wow people, but absent that entering the TV market is a risky move.
The news bit linked only says they've stopped producing a car, intended to be low volume, to focus on a sedan designed of higher volume. While they may or not be successful, nothing ITFA says "there business model has failed."
It'd be nice if some actually read the submission before... oh wait, this is/.
Apple could license the AppleTV interface and hardware to manufacturers to build in AppleTV functionality; and then sell content off of iTunes. This lets the TV manufacturers fight it out in the marketplace and no matter who wins, Apple wins. Once enough AppleTV capable sets are out there, Apple would be in a great position to get more content providers to move to iTunes. Ultimately, they could move users from cable TV to an a la cart and / or subscription model from iTunes. It would also make as sea change in how advertising is sold on TV.; and give Apple, with it's in depth knowledge of each iTunes customer, the ability to create a very lucrative ad revenue stream as well.
TV viewing habits have changed a lot over the last 20 years - from watching it "live" to time shifting via DVR and TiVO to on-demand via cable or internet. People are conditioned to watch what they want when they want it, and AppleTV / iTunes is a very good model to deliver that to them even more conveniently and cheaply. The money that now goes to TiVO and cable companies can start flowing to Apple instead.
Which is why I think cable companies are starting to introduced tiered pricing via speed and bandwidth caps - they realize they could just become a pipe and see their cable revenue dry up while they provide their competitors with the entry point to their customers.
To me, the real razor and blade model is Apple buying a wireless internet service provider with large coverage across the US (or simply buying a bucket load of bandwidth to resell) and bringing a relatively cheap pipe to AppleTV users to give people a chance to spend more on iTunes.
Slashdot Mirror
Places like Best Buy can never let go of the bullshit because they need it to stay in business. Their sales model is built around having some stuff quite cheap and competitive but then gouging back the profit on accessories.
Dixons Group in the UK, owners of Currys and PC World, were getting a lot of bad publicity over the fact that their sales people are on commission. Can't expect them to offer any advice other than "line my pockets and buy this". They decided to stop the practice and put full page ads in national newspapers, but it was a lie. They just altered the scheme so that commission was paid on the performance of a store as a whole rather than individually. They just can't stop trying to bend you over and fuck you, it is so ingrained in their business model and culture.
Well, they only need to do it to some percentage of the population to make money. they'd just as soon the "I can get a better cable online crowd" stayed away and let them upset to the masses. Sometimes you can use it to your benefit, such as innocently asking about the "best" warranty protection you can buy; acting concerned obvert the price and seeing "if they can work on the price a bit." Usually they will reduce the items price (since the warranty only goes up to refunding the purchase price, not giving you a new item); at which point you buy both and then return the warranty (which, in the US at least, is governed by state law and generally allowed with a full refund if done immediately).
Directly from HDMI.org : http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/finding_right_cable.aspx http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/trademark_logo_pub.aspx
Since 1.4, there are only 5 differentes cables and correctly labelling them is REQUIRED by HDMI (there is a grace period until the end of 2011).
It's simple : 2 speeds (Normal or HighSpeed) and a feature (with or without Ethernet). Basically, Normal supports up to 1080i and HighSpeed supports above.
The last category is about automative cabling so we can forget about it.
At last, it is FORBIDDEN to make reference to a HDMI version number for cables ("upgrade your 1.3 cables to 1.4" : those are the same - except for Ethernet but your pre-1.4 devices did not support it).
There's a difference, though, between specs and build quality. You can get a cable made in China for $1 if you don't care about build quality. While it may meet the HDMI specs, its durability and life span could be questionable. You don't want a cable whose end connector comes off the first time you unplug it or corrodes over time.
That said, there's a price point where all you are paying for is hype - an at the consumer end of the spectrum I'd guess it somewhere around the $10 - 20 dollar range (depending on length). For a professional setup where the cable cost is less important than absolute repeatable performance it may be more simply do to the QA requirements to ensure the cable works as needed.
Power conditioning power strips are worth while for the protection against over and under voltages as it seems they do extend the life of electronics. For a while there I was going through a DVD player every 6-8 months and I wasn't buying the cheep crap ones (you know the $5 ones) but was purchasing decent ones. About 2 years ago I bought a power conditioning power strip at the hardware store for $24 haven't any issues with electronics since. The computers are connected to a UPS so I never noticed issues there.
While I agree with your general comments on power conditioning, the real issue is often frequency fluctuations for AC devices. That can be a real killer if you aren't getting 60HZ power due to grid fluctuations or other supply issues.
You have stumbled upon the difference between music lovers and audiophiles. Music lovers listen to music, where audiophiles measurbate over tiny specification differences .
There, fixed that for you.
Visa and Mastercard are payment processors, it's not their place to decide where one can and can't buy things and it's not their place to make moral decisions on behalf of their clients. Given how there are only 4 major options and that American Express and Discover have much smaller networks and are frequently not accepted, I can't see how Visa and Mastercard can possibly be allowed to continue these shenanigans.
Any company, including payment processors, have the right to not do business with companies that violate the law. They aren't making a moral decision but a legal one.
That is a separate issue from whether wikiLeaks is violating the law; and I would guess the lawsuit would hinge on that issue.
Powerpoint doesn't work? Its your fault. Didn't embed that YouTube video correctly? Its your fault. Your laptop can't talk to the projector? Its your fault. The Projector doesn't work? Its your fault. If you aren't professional enough to have your research paper backed up on a thumbdrive, a second laptop for your group presentation, or even /gasp!/ a paper copy, ITS YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.
Welcome to being a professional in the 21st century, where using technology is necessary, but knowing what to do when it fails is smart.
in the 20th century, you had to k ow how to change the build in an overhead, brought transparencies (your "slide deck") as a backup to PowerPoint in case the laptop or projector died (and had someone flip through the slides as you went so they were current if you needed them) and brought hardcopy.
It's always been YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.
As a side note, when I did a presentation in our MBA's presentation seminar (how to do a presentation) the lecturer was surprised when, after he said, "the projector build just went out - what do you do?" I turned of the overhead, opened the top, slide the bulb select lever and turned it back on and went on. I think he was disappointed that I ruined his "teaching moment" by not being a moron, though I guess moron / MBA is considered redundant on /.). I learned early on in my career to get there in time to see how the projector work, where the light and thermostat controls are so you are ready when it's showtime.
MDs, DOs, and Pharmacists don't have Masters programs after their main degree do they? I looked up PharmD, and apparently there are post-grad specialty degrees but those aren't a masters program, as for MDs and DOs, it appears that they can take parallel courses for research... but it still seems like the only Masters programs that require a doctorate-level degree for entry are LL.M. programs.
Ah, I misunderstood you to mean that JD was the only undergrad to doctorate degree path; not that a JD was a requirement for a LL.M. I stand corrected.
Last I read, only Washington state allows one to take the bar without attending law school. Yet you still have to operate as a paid clerk for a lawyer for 4-ish years under a lawyer... well, I guess it's just like the old apprentice system... The only other state that is close is Arizona, which has provisions for non-lawyers to do various tasks that only lawyers can do in other states.
Unless its changed, California, Vermont, Virginia, Maine, and New York all had ways to be admitted without a law degree - primarily through a combination of study under a lawyer and at a law school.
Oddly, when government rules in the US started saying that they were going to pay everyone based on the level of degree that they have, suddenly law schools started issuing Juris Doctor (Doctorates) instead of a trade degree. As such, it's the only academic program that awards a Doctorate before awarding a Master's.
Well, I would think MDs, DOs, Pharmacists (amongst others) would disagree - I'm surprised MBA's haven't decided to become DBAs instead as well.
I can hire someone and give them the title "vice-admiral" within the company, but that does not mean anything. Many things do not require an actual engineer's stamp on them, but it is the company's loss if the design is bad. Certain projects do require being sealed, and when an Engineer signs it he is taking responsibility for the design. Please refer to your own state's licensing board for more information.
I'm not sure what your point is other than to reinforce my statement that the engineering professions failure to require licensing in order to market your self as an engineer or provide engineering services results in more competition and leads to lower wages. Sure, a handful of engineering work requires a stamp but that is a very limited subset of what is considered "engineering."
I guess licensing matters if your a civil - where all you need to know is "Poop floats. Concrete must be reinforced. You can't push rope." and have a license to practice.
Many states say you can't sell your services (claim to be an engineer) or put "engineer" or related words in the name of your business unless you are a licensed engineer. Your employer can give you a title of engineer, but that is basically internal and meaningless.
And that's the issue - "engineer" is an essentially meaningless term from a professional standpoint.
"Professional Engineer" is a regulated term. See your state board for details. If you feel someone is misappropriating the term, you should report it - they may be subject to criminal charges, similar to someone pretending to be a lawyer.
True - but very few engineering jobs require a PE - and even then the PE often only has to sign off on work, not do the work. If the engineering profession had made having a PE a requirement to practice engineering salaries would be higher due to restricted supply. It would also limit firms from being able to import labor or export work because of the requirement for a PE.
Every occupation wants state-backed occupational licensure. They _tell_ you it is for reasons like
- only a licensed plumber has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you don't want to drink fecal matter - only a licensed electrician has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you don't want to lick 2 or more live electrical conductors at once - only a licensed pharmacist has taken the rigorous training required to understand that you do not take all of the pills in the bottle at once -
While I agree that licensing laws protect wages, and in many cases are ridiculous - does it really matter if your barber is licensed? - there are also valid reason for licensing some professions
A license indicates a level of understanding of the basics of a profession - a plumber or electrician knows code and some of the reasons behind it so you get proper water seals and safe circuits installed. A pharmacists understands drug interactions and, assuming you use the same one, can catch incorrect prescriptions or potential adverse reactions with drugs you are already taking; they are a second line of defense to ensure your safety.
Of course, professions also seek licensing to minimize competition and increase barriers to entry.
No kidding - the twits filing the suit admits they weren't harmed by the service and just wants to reclaim their fees x3. This definitely qualifies as a top ten all time frivolous class action suit.
Actually I'd guess it's more a move by lawyers in Missouri to drive LZ out of the state by making it to expensive to do business there. For many attorneys, simple legal documents are there bread and butter and if people start using low-cost DIY sites the attorneys stand to lose money or will be forced to lower prices.
Attorneys have been good at fighting any move to introduce competition - years ago they fought over advertising and even now limit what can be said. They created the idea that law school, instead of the old apprentice system where you read the law under an experienced attorney, was needed to be admitted to the bar (although some states still allow you to take the bar without going to law school under certain circumstances).
Of course, what they are doing is not unique to the legal profession. I just wish engineers had been clever enough to figure out a way to do the same thing so that "Engineer" could only be used by a "real" engineer. Yes, there are P.E.s but in most engineering jobs a P.E. is just a fancy title, not a job requirement.
Which is of course utter nonsense, if the information of European citizens is being demanded by US authorities, that violates the stringent privacy laws in the EU. It comes down to whether or not Microsoft wants to do business in the EU. Handwaving about the cloud means nothing.
I believe there is a broader issue here - even though everyone seems to focus on the US - once information on EU citizens leaves the EU it will become fair game for the authorities in whatever state it comes to rest. A non-EU company has no obligation to follow EU rules; especially when faced with laws in their own country that run counter to EU law. EU citizens may think that the EU privacy laws provide them with strong protections against their information being shared with non-EU entities but I think, in the case of cloud storage at least, that they will find that EU law offers little if any protection.
It's not just a case of "Microsoft" doing business in the EU as there can be many different cooperate entities, wholly separate legally form each other, doing business there (as will be the case with many other companies). While the EU could make it hard for the EU entities, it will be messy and I think in the end privacy will lose out.
Yes, the US and EU agreed on some safe harbor protections; but they would not apply to any other country that gains access to the data and could conceivably do whatever they want with it. Quite frankly, I believe any "safe harbor" protections will be trumped, rightly or wrongly, by playing the "national security" or "criminal investigation" cards. Privacy protection was easier hen everything was hard copy - you could control who gets it and why - but with electronic data it simply is infinitely replicatable and you really have no control over where it goes or what happens to it once it leaves your server.
In the end, I think the EU will re-discover what intelligence agencies and others have known for years "Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead."
Er, presumably if there were such a National Security Letter, housing it yourself wouldnt give you much choice in the matter either; you would be forced to turn over the data regardless.
This article is basically an excuse to rail at the cloud and at the US government, but it really doesnt reveal any new information.
Actually, TFA has a snippet that is interesting:
Frazer explained that, as Microsoft is a U.S.-headquartered company, it has to comply with local laws (the United States, as well as any other location where one of its subsidiary companies is based).
While the focus is on the US Patriot Act; that quote implies that cloud based data is essentially subject to any local law and that privacy laws don't protect someone if the law requires access outside of the jurisdiction covered by privacy laws. A local subsidiary would cough up the information, as required by law, not the one where the data may have originated and is covered by privacy laws.
Carried to an extreme, MS is saying that loud based computing renders privacy laws moot. It also means that presumably protect information could be accessed by any state that wishes to pass laws granting itself access (if a company has a subsidiary in that state).
While the US may be at the vanguard, the implications go far beyond there.
Is it in the rules of these competitions that entries shall conform to the terms of software licenses?
If so, ban the cheater. (After establishing his code does in fact incorporate code from other sources and that he has violated the terms of the license on that code.)
If not, sounds like the situation Moryath described above. He was too good, so a few spoiled brats are taking their chess sets and going home.
Except of course he could comply with the OS license (assuming it's GPL'd) without any acknowledgment as long as he doesn't distribute it.
So I agree with you, unless the rules stipulated 100% original code, what's the issue other than he was better at refining code than the others who had eh same code available?
The US has long been a major source of funds, and a steady stream of politicians who need votes in norther industrial cities and law-enforcement guys named "Agent Murphey" had a completely surprising amount of difficulty cutting off the funding...
The Irish learned that to get Power you needed to be in the 4th P, Politics, along with the Priesthood, Police, and Prison.
Umm... Also, Irish Catholics have been blowing shit up since well before the days when Bin Laden and his Jihad buddies were still CIA contractors in the war against the Evil Empire. They did tend to avoid suicide bombing, preferring a mixture of rifle attacks, the occasional RPG, and mortar and bomb attacks of varying degrees of sophistication...
We Irish were also smart enough to get good PR and have a party time holiday in our honor. Never underestimate the power of marketing.
It may cost you, but I suggest anyone signing this detailed a contract go to a lawyer. Of course, this is likely non-negotiable, so you'll either accept the contract in front of you or say "Thanks, but no thanks" and go to the next job where it's likely you'll be faced with the variation on a theme.
I've never run into a job related contract that is non-negotiable - whether it's salary, benefits, or other details. The contract is the first offer - you need o decide if it's acceptable or not. I've done that and in most cases we come to an agreement on what works for both sides. If we run into an issue that can't be resolved the i simply walk away. It's better to do that up front than wind up suing.
Finally, this 'contracts-uber-alles' viewpoint strikes me as evil, pro-corporation, and anti-labor. I had hoped we had gotten away from that with child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and unions.
Funny you should mention unions in your anti-contracts rant. The collective bargaining agreement is held up to be "contract uber alles" whenever it suits the union. The sword cuts both ways, as it should.
Why am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who failed to read and understand the terms of the contract that he signed?
Empathy block - check.
Assumption that all humans are perfect rational entities - check.
Supremacy of the business contract - check.
Internet Libertarian Warrior mode engaged!
Jump to conclusions in reply to try to be snarky Check
Unfortunately, contracts and contract law are what matters here. If he was that concerned about his options and didn't have an attorney check his contract before he left, then it is hard to feel very sorry for him.
The spreadsheet is probably one of the most valuable software contributions in history -- it's used in sciences for data analysis, business for financial analysis, small clubs for keeping organized lists, small businesses as a data source for mail merges ... the list is probably miles long.
Dan Bricklin didn't become super rich, but he literally changed the world. I saw a documentary once in which an accountant or some type of professional said that the first time he saw a computerized spreadsheet, he cried, because it took out so much drudgery it could make his work fun again. If Bricklin had not been getting an MBA, would he have gotten the idea? I'm guessing he looked at hours of paper and pencil boredom recalculating cells, and realized that there was a better way to do it because of his computer background. Moral: Bricklin's background in computer-science when coupled with exposure to an unrelated area, showed him a need and in the process, he changed the world. Alternate Moral: If accountants and MBAs had stepped outside their study area and looked at computer-science, they could have changed the world themselves
Actually, many MBA's do step "outside their area" to get an MBA - they're engineers, English majors, scientists, teachers, etc. - who are pursuing an advanced degree. I realize MBA has a bad connotation here at /. but it broadens one's worldview, IMHO.
Just as GET courses do for engineers or cs types.
I don't recall the fine print of my TOS, but I would really wonder whether or not the contracts signed allowed for this bullshit, and whether or not such things would hold up in court.
You'll probably find a "we can alter the terms if we notify you" clause in the fine print. You're option would be to cancel the contract rather than accept the change.As a side note, that can be a way to get out of a contract with a termination fee without paying the fee.
if the do enter it given how cut throat that market is with regards to price.
The same way they do every other market they've entered. By producing a quality product that people are willing to pay for rather than catering to the lowest common denominator like everyone else?
I have no doubt that Apple can produce a quality product, the question is how will they differentiate it? Apple's challenge is that in their current markets they can differentiate their product based on factors beyond quality - people are willing to pay a premium for Macs because of OSX since you can only get it on an Apple. Similarly for the iPhone/Pad/Pod - a unique OS along with an infrastructure (iTunes / app Store) that you can't get with a competitor's product.
Quality alone in the TV market won't command a premium - you can already get high quality products relatively cheaply - will people pay a premium over them just for the the Apple brand? I doubt it. If iTunes access was very popular Apple TVs would be selling like mad - that Best Buy needs to discount them 10% says they aren't exactly flying out the door.
Some people understand that you get what you pay for, and when you go to buy a TV in that cutthroat market, its that way because everyone is trying to sell the absolute cheapest pile of shit they can, and thats what most ignorant people want. Forget the fact that they're screwing themselves over in the long run, most people don't think about tomorrow, only cost today.
On the other hand, some of us know that quality does matter, when you learn that, you'll find you spend a lot less by spending a little more.
True, but TV's are a commodity product that are hard to differentiate within a given quality / technology; so price becomes a hugh factor in the sales decision. A market can be just as cutthroat at the $3000 - 5000 level as at the $100 level. It's not like Apple can offer some feature that's really popular that no other manufacturer has, and unlike computers where OS and apps matter, manufacturers can reduce price to shift the buying decision to them vs. Apple. Apple could have some really net new idea to wow people, but absent that entering the TV market is a risky move.
John D Rockefeller was a swell guy too!
Yes
The news bit linked only says they've stopped producing a car, intended to be low volume, to focus on a sedan designed of higher volume. While they may or not be successful, nothing ITFA says "there business model has failed."
It'd be nice if some actually read the submission before... oh wait, this is /.
Apple could license the AppleTV interface and hardware to manufacturers to build in AppleTV functionality; and then sell content off of iTunes. This lets the TV manufacturers fight it out in the marketplace and no matter who wins, Apple wins. Once enough AppleTV capable sets are out there, Apple would be in a great position to get more content providers to move to iTunes. Ultimately, they could move users from cable TV to an a la cart and / or subscription model from iTunes. It would also make as sea change in how advertising is sold on TV.; and give Apple, with it's in depth knowledge of each iTunes customer, the ability to create a very lucrative ad revenue stream as well.
TV viewing habits have changed a lot over the last 20 years - from watching it "live" to time shifting via DVR and TiVO to on-demand via cable or internet. People are conditioned to watch what they want when they want it, and AppleTV / iTunes is a very good model to deliver that to them even more conveniently and cheaply. The money that now goes to TiVO and cable companies can start flowing to Apple instead.
Which is why I think cable companies are starting to introduced tiered pricing via speed and bandwidth caps - they realize they could just become a pipe and see their cable revenue dry up while they provide their competitors with the entry point to their customers.
To me, the real razor and blade model is Apple buying a wireless internet service provider with large coverage across the US (or simply buying a bucket load of bandwidth to resell) and bringing a relatively cheap pipe to AppleTV users to give people a chance to spend more on iTunes.