It depends. Are you smart? Or did you choose a degree path based on expected income? Sounds like you fall into the first camp, so you're pretty safe. There are plenty of tough problem solving positions out there. They're hard to fill because most people are not smart. You may have to work a few jobs before you find the one that fits you, where you're really challenged and appreciated. BTW, most of what you learned in school is at least 5 years old, which means get ready to throw it out and learn how to do this stuff all over again. Just sayin'.
I can't help it, this article reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where the certified public accountant wants to become a lion tamer. Dude, if you spent the last four years of your life qualifying to work in an industry you now consider too boring to consider... Look, I got no sympathy.
The Conservative viewpoint is constructed around the basic principle that there are certain things which it is vitally important not to appear to condone.
You're missing the point. Technically I think you're missing several, but who's counting? Regardless of your personal beliefs about the definition of plagiarism, the "creators" of this work had a financial arrangement with others under the understanding that they personally created all the artwork contained within it. The pictures in the article make it clear that was a lie. So they told a lie solely for personal financial gain. Here in America, we call that fraud. Actually, they call that fraud in pretty much every English-speaking country. In the others, they call it something that translates into English as "fraud". Since you say you find nothing morally wrong with what they've done, I'm looking forward to your elaborate defense of this behavior.
Years ago I worked at the computer labs at a university, and the administration instituted a policy forbidding users to use the 'chfn' command to change their "Real Name" on the UNIX systems used by the students for email. This was done ostensibly for security reasons, but when you asked what specific security concern this would mitigate you got yourself a bad reputation. I'm given to understand that the new head of the department had received an email from one of the students who had changed his "Real Name" to Mickey Mouse, and that he'd been offended. Now around this time I happened to notice that the hostnames of the lab PCs from which the students would access the UNIX machines were all based on their location (the lab they were in and the number of the station, printed on the monitor). So if you walked into a lab and happened to notice a pretty girl you wanted to stalk, you could log into the UNIX system and if she was checking her email the list of who was online would tell you her name based on what workstation she was sitting at. When I raised that as a possible privacy concern, I was pretty much ignored.
So you leave the keys in your unlocked car outside your unlocked house at night? What was your address again? Keep in mind that not telling me represents security through obscurity. The point being that although no security is impenetrable, that's never been the point of security measures. Security measures exist to raise the difficulty of penetrating them to the point where the cost outweighs the reward. Where they fail is when an unforeseen approach reduces that difficulty to the point where the reward is worth the effort. Where they become security theatre is when the effort of creating the security measures actually outweighs the penalty if the measures were penetrated (spending $15 to keep $10 safe) and/or where the measures taken don't actually increase the difficulty of penetrating them significantly.
The guy you're referring to from the article is an astronomer, apparently respected in his field. I'm just guessing that that gives him some basis on which to discuss astronomy. But that's really not what he's discussing. He's referring to the theological implications of a certain field of astronomical study that is controversial. There's nothing about the science of astronomy discussed in the article.
Already done. No hard feelings, I hope. Actually, he was never excommunicated as is commonly believed. But the Church has subsequently conceded that he made some good points.
This is fun. Genesis is the story of the creation of life on Earth. Our Bible doesn't contain the story of the creation of life on other planets, probably because it wasn't considered relevant and might have been confusing. It says "God created the Heaven and the Earth," but note that it doesn't specify that He created nothing else. Adam and Eve were created without sin, but fell from grace through the abuse of their gift of free will, thus dooming their descendants to the burden of original sin. To say otherwise would be to attest that God Himself created sin, and you don't want to go there. Aliens wouldn't be affected since they presumably were also created without sin and do not descend from Eve. Christ appeared as a man on Earth to bear the burden of original sin on their behalf because the burden was too great for mortals to bear. We have no way of knowing whether the story of creation on any other planet in any alien Bible includes a similar fall from grace. Presumably, if it did, Christ would have appeared as an alien at some point to bear their burden as well.
Logic 101 tells us that if you start with a wrong assumption, every conclusion you derive from it is worse then false, it's meaningless. As, for example, your assumption that religion and theology have any meaningful relation to logic or the scientific method whatsoever? No offense, but while you're demanding that others examine the basic assumptions in their world-view... Perhaps you could examine the concept that something could be meaningful without being logical or scientific. Literature, for example, and music.
I could be wrong but it's my understanding that the cost of providing service for incoming calls to cellular phones in Europe is borne by the caller. That is to say, if you call a cell phone from a land line, you pay more for that call than if you were calling another land line. In the US, the cost lands on the owner of the cell phone. Regardless of whether the call is incoming or outgoing, it's the person with the cell phone who pays. So it makes sense that calling a US cell phone might be cheaper than calling a European cell phone, since you're not bearing the cost of the airtime. Someone please correct me if I got this wrong.
Let's just say for a minute that you could somehow convince yourself that the Windows business, which in the "disappointing" last quarter threw off $4 billion in operating profit, is at risk of drying up entirely. It's salutary to remember that this group only represents about 27% of company revenue. Microsoft has done a phenomenal job diversifying into a wide range of software businesses.
Says Gates: "Exchange is out there cleaning up, SharePoint is out there cleaning up, doing super, super well." He's referring to the company's messaging software product line as well as SharePoint, an unheralded and little-appreciated dark horse in the company's arsenal.
Which seems to suggest that if the Windows part of the company no longer existed, they'd somehow be able to continue selling Exchange. Which runs on Windows. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Re:Watch for criminal manslaughter charges....
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it seems more likely that Blizzard would sue the estate of the deceased over misuse of the software in order to avoid the conclusion you draw.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but this article seems to suggest that if nobody runs Windows anymore, Microsoft will still be doing just fine selling software that only runs on Windows?
Slashdot Mirror
It depends. Are you smart? Or did you choose a degree path based on expected income? Sounds like you fall into the first camp, so you're pretty safe. There are plenty of tough problem solving positions out there. They're hard to fill because most people are not smart. You may have to work a few jobs before you find the one that fits you, where you're really challenged and appreciated.
BTW, most of what you learned in school is at least 5 years old, which means get ready to throw it out and learn how to do this stuff all over again. Just sayin'.
I can't help it, this article reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where the certified public accountant wants to become a lion tamer.
Dude, if you spent the last four years of your life qualifying to work in an industry you now consider too boring to consider... Look, I got no sympathy.
Nah, that's just basic to human nature.
How very sad for you.
The Conservative viewpoint is constructed around the basic principle that there are certain things which it is vitally important not to appear to condone.
You're missing the point. Technically I think you're missing several, but who's counting? Regardless of your personal beliefs about the definition of plagiarism, the "creators" of this work had a financial arrangement with others under the understanding that they personally created all the artwork contained within it. The pictures in the article make it clear that was a lie. So they told a lie solely for personal financial gain. Here in America, we call that fraud. Actually, they call that fraud in pretty much every English-speaking country. In the others, they call it something that translates into English as "fraud". Since you say you find nothing morally wrong with what they've done, I'm looking forward to your elaborate defense of this behavior.
Bonus points for referencing a plot that Kurosawa borrowed and a plot that was borrowed from Kurosawa.
So you haven't seen the pictures then, I take it?
Like they need a reason.
Yeah, who does he think he is, anyway? Oh, wait... crap.
Years ago I worked at the computer labs at a university, and the administration instituted a policy forbidding users to use the 'chfn' command to change their "Real Name" on the UNIX systems used by the students for email. This was done ostensibly for security reasons, but when you asked what specific security concern this would mitigate you got yourself a bad reputation. I'm given to understand that the new head of the department had received an email from one of the students who had changed his "Real Name" to Mickey Mouse, and that he'd been offended.
Now around this time I happened to notice that the hostnames of the lab PCs from which the students would access the UNIX machines were all based on their location (the lab they were in and the number of the station, printed on the monitor). So if you walked into a lab and happened to notice a pretty girl you wanted to stalk, you could log into the UNIX system and if she was checking her email the list of who was online would tell you her name based on what workstation she was sitting at. When I raised that as a possible privacy concern, I was pretty much ignored.
So you leave the keys in your unlocked car outside your unlocked house at night? What was your address again? Keep in mind that not telling me represents security through obscurity.
The point being that although no security is impenetrable, that's never been the point of security measures. Security measures exist to raise the difficulty of penetrating them to the point where the cost outweighs the reward. Where they fail is when an unforeseen approach reduces that difficulty to the point where the reward is worth the effort. Where they become security theatre is when the effort of creating the security measures actually outweighs the penalty if the measures were penetrated (spending $15 to keep $10 safe) and/or where the measures taken don't actually increase the difficulty of penetrating them significantly.
He'd have to go inside for that.
The guy you're referring to from the article is an astronomer, apparently respected in his field. I'm just guessing that that gives him some basis on which to discuss astronomy. But that's really not what he's discussing. He's referring to the theological implications of a certain field of astronomical study that is controversial. There's nothing about the science of astronomy discussed in the article.
Already done. No hard feelings, I hope.
Actually, he was never excommunicated as is commonly believed. But the Church has subsequently conceded that he made some good points.
This is fun.
Genesis is the story of the creation of life on Earth. Our Bible doesn't contain the story of the creation of life on other planets, probably because it wasn't considered relevant and might have been confusing. It says "God created the Heaven and the Earth," but note that it doesn't specify that He created nothing else. Adam and Eve were created without sin, but fell from grace through the abuse of their gift of free will, thus dooming their descendants to the burden of original sin. To say otherwise would be to attest that God Himself created sin, and you don't want to go there. Aliens wouldn't be affected since they presumably were also created without sin and do not descend from Eve. Christ appeared as a man on Earth to bear the burden of original sin on their behalf because the burden was too great for mortals to bear. We have no way of knowing whether the story of creation on any other planet in any alien Bible includes a similar fall from grace. Presumably, if it did, Christ would have appeared as an alien at some point to bear their burden as well.
Oh, yes, we had religion once, long ago. We discovered a cure.
Obviously MS sent out a form letter. Other teams should expect to receive the same letter.
You may find a copy of Sun-Tzu's "Art of War" at your local Barnes and Noble... in the business section.
I could be wrong but it's my understanding that the cost of providing service for incoming calls to cellular phones in Europe is borne by the caller. That is to say, if you call a cell phone from a land line, you pay more for that call than if you were calling another land line. In the US, the cost lands on the owner of the cell phone. Regardless of whether the call is incoming or outgoing, it's the person with the cell phone who pays. So it makes sense that calling a US cell phone might be cheaper than calling a European cell phone, since you're not bearing the cost of the airtime.
Someone please correct me if I got this wrong.
See, the bit I'm looking at is where they say:
Let's just say for a minute that you could somehow convince yourself that the Windows business, which in the "disappointing" last quarter threw off $4 billion in operating profit, is at risk of drying up entirely. It's salutary to remember that this group only represents about 27% of company revenue. Microsoft has done a phenomenal job diversifying into a wide range of software businesses.
Says Gates: "Exchange is out there cleaning up, SharePoint is out there cleaning up, doing super, super well." He's referring to the company's messaging software product line as well as SharePoint, an unheralded and little-appreciated dark horse in the company's arsenal.
Which seems to suggest that if the Windows part of the company no longer existed, they'd somehow be able to continue selling Exchange. Which runs on Windows. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Actually, it seems more likely that Blizzard would sue the estate of the deceased over misuse of the software in order to avoid the conclusion you draw.
Yeah, if music was set back maybe 4 decades, that'd be pretty cool.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but this article seems to suggest that if nobody runs Windows anymore, Microsoft will still be doing just fine selling software that only runs on Windows?