No CEO can afford to treat his/her workers as people if it impacts the bottom line, as the shareholders will crucify him/her.
Ah, but this is the "New Economy", don't you know...stock prices have nothing to do with the bottom line.
Sure, back in the olden days when people held on to stocks and companies paid dividends, the bottom line meant something to shareholders - it affected dividends! Now, though, stocks are just something to trade, with little more intrinsic value than baseball cards. (Indeed, after the latest corrections, there's a lot of baseball cards out there with a higher market value than those shares of Network Associates I've been holding on to...)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
I think $30 is too high
myself, but if Slashdot offered a membership for $10/yr, I'd gladly sign up and I think many others would as well,
Hmm. And how would such an ad-free membership work?
Username/password? 100 people could all use the same account. Heck, if I was feeling generous (or contrary) I could post my paid login for everyone to use, a la the famous cypherpunks/cypherpunks combo.
Send a "registered" cookie to my browser? Can easily be copied by the tech-savvy; and are the tech-non-savvy supposed to buy one subscription for home, one for work?
I just don't see how this idea would work, technically. Any ideas?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
I think that screen size falls under "function" and not "form". People with small screens need information (regardless of what it is) presented in a long tall format so they only have to scroll down, not side to side.
People with huge screens need information presented in a short wide format so they don't have to scroll at all.
Does no one remember that ancient mantra, "Trust The Browser"?
Way back when (you know, like four or five years ago), there was this idea that web servers would serve content. And web browsers would format it and display it. So, if my server was serving up, say, my resume, you could make your browser window skinny or fat or whatever and your browser would format it long and tall or wide-screen as needed.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Can you honestly say with a straight face that Bill Clinton was not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?
I can say that the high crimes he did commit were with the approval of Congress, and were of the same sort perpetrated by Bush the First and by Reagan. Just the usual assualts on basic civil liberties, illegal use of military force, things like that.
The sex scandal was bullshit, the fundraising hanky-panky was D.C. business-as-usual. None of it even approached the shadow of real high crimes like Iran-Contra and Watergate.
Is Clinton a scumbag? Of course! But with the possible exception of Carter, every U.S. president since the end of WWII has been morally deranged. Might as well give up and write in into the Constitution: "No person with a moral sense
shall be eligible to the office of President."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
If we spent as much time learning about how people interact with technology as we do learning about how to build bigger/faster/better tech, we'd be light years ahead of where we are now.
I keep hearing about how we need all this human factors research to make computers usable, that interfaces must be "intuitive" and, most of all, standardized.
Then I get in my car.
Almost every adult in the USA can operate a car with little difficulty. Yet the interface is not intuitive - press one pedal to make it go, another to make it stop? Turn a vertical wheel to change horizontal direction?
And the interface is not standardized - a car may have from two to five different foot controls (at least gas and brake, maybe also clutch, parking brake, and high-beam switch), the shifter for an automatic transmission can be on the steering column or the floor, the headlight switch can be on the directional signal switch or on the dash...
So how is it that most everyone can drive? (Well, can operate the vechicle. People have many driving problems that have nothing to do with operating the vehicle.)
Partly it's because everyone is familiar with the basics through cultural osmosis - we grow up riding in cars, we see them operated on TV and in movies. And partly we expect and accept that a certain amount of training is needed; few people balk at the idea that a few dozen hours of classroom instruction and supervised driving are a requirement for basic competence.
Why do we expect computer software to be different?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Liberating mankind from needing a physical place of work has got to count as innovation.
Sounds good...please let me know when it happens, so I can stop spending severals per week on the road just getting and and forth to my overcrowded office, ok?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
I keep hearing this--hearing that bugs are inevitable, and that bug-free software is impossible...Check out this article for proof to the contrary.
Even the shuttle software-meisters - fantastic job though they do - aren't 100% bug free. According to the linked article, "The last
11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors." Fantastic, amazing, well-done, but not perfect.
We have become FAR too accepting of bugs in commercial software. It's only because we accept it that the companies can get away with it.
It's not just a question of accepting it...it's a question of paying for it, in time and dollars.
They say "Fast, cheap, good - pick two", but it's more like pick one. The Space Shuttle avionics code has taken an enormous effort of time and dollars. They're still using machines with ferrite core memory, because a hardware change would mean massive software changes; try floating that idea to your boss - "We can't upgrade the server because doing so might introduce bugs. We have to stick with that 25 MHz '486 running NetBSD 0.9."
Admittedly, a lot of the upgrading going on is for the sake of flash, not substance; if we could beat it into PHB's heads that reliability is more important than special effects and dancing paperclips, we could proceed with greater focus.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
When I want to check out what I did, I open the HTML file from within Netscape. Any HTML file I have that I'm not trying to edit is typically owned by Netscape.
So some HTML files are "owned" by your editor, others by Netscape. Not at all what I would call "intuitive".
Your other three examples really don't fit the GUI mentality.
Well, it doesn't fit the standard GUI mentality of today's systems - but I submit that said mentality is badly broken in several ways. It is not, as is so often claimed, intuitive; it's limiting; it's inflexible (no, "skinning" is not flexibility).
Or maybe I'm just feeling especially curmudgeonly today. Maybe I'll go dig up that old Radio Shack Color Computer when I get home...who needs a GUI or CLI when you've got BASIC built right in? B-)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
This must be a strange and marvelous definition of "userfriendly". When did the complete and total loss of all data on the computer when something gets slightly out-of-whack and the whole damn system has to be reinstalled from scratch, or having to be rebooted several times a day, or having a pathetic notion of security, become "friendly"?
The Linux and BSD boxes I've used over the years have been my friends. It took some work to forge those friendships, but that's the way friendship is.
Even the Solaris, AIX, and HP-UXes, yes, even the Ultrix machines, have been allies, frustrating at times but still on my side. (Don't ask about that SCO CWM+ one, though...)
But the Windows machines, and even Macs, I find I just can't trust. And trust is the basis of friendship.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
When I use Windows, I never feel the need to switch to Linux to do something I find that I can't do properly in Window. The reverse isn't true.
Oh? I find the reverse true all the time. I'd gladly heave this damn Win2k box I have to use at work out the window and replace it with a good ol' Linux or BSD box. (Though Cygwin is helping somewhat.)
So the question is, why use Linux in the first place?
Because the difference between Linux and Windows is like the difference between a pocketknife and a fully equipped workshop. The pocketknife takes little training, can't hurt you too much if you screw up, and is ok if all you want to do is whittle; but if you want to Get Some Stuff Done, take the time to learn how to use the truly powerful tools.
The problem is, once you've done that, if you go somewhere where all that's available is a pocketknife (even though the pocketknife costs a lot of money and you can get the full workshop for free!), it's incredibly frustrating!
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Mac solves this problem nicely. Every file has a type and creator field. Type indicates what kind of data the content is. Creator indicates what program to open the document with. Simply double click a document, and it opens with the application that created it.
That's the very problem.
In a world of tools that do one thing and do it well, there's a very good chance that the program I want to run on that file is not the one that created it. It's thoroughly understood that I will want to run several different programs on any one file - no one program is regarded as having any more rights to the data than any other.
In the "so easy a gorilla can work it" world of certain GUIs, it's assumed that I will only ever want to access that file with one program. It's possible, but rather roundabout, to do otherwise - in fact, I'd bet that many users have no idea that a file could be opened with another program. The assumption of "one file, one program" means that each program has to be able to do everything that you would ever want to do on that file, leading to hideous bloat.
To an end user, these operations are intuitive side effects of the way applications naturally open and save documents.
This end user would appreciate it if "experts" would stop declaring what he should find intutitive. B-)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
(Basically, if the resource is empty, you go by file extention or ask the user, afterward, you already knows what the user wants this file to be open with. So you store it in the ADS)
See, that's just it - you don't know. You know what they wanted to open it with last time, not what they want to do with it last time.
Do I want to render that HTML? Edit it? View it's source? Grep it? Spellcheck it? Do a wordcount?
Data is data, and tying it to one specific program can be extremely annoying to a user with a reasonable amount of sophistication. In fact, it encourages poor application design, where each application has to try to do everything you might want on that data and thus ends up doing it poorly, and proprietary data formats, since each type of file only will be manipulated by one program.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
you'll never..feel a
sense of loyalty to your company or have your company trust and respect you.
Wake up, my friend. Your corporate stockholders have zero trust, respect, or loyalty to you and will stab you in the back in a second to make the books balance.
I learned this the hard way when, in the space of about a year, two "permanent" positions disappeared on me due to corporate restructuring.
Contractors may be first in line for the ax, but don't kid yourself - you're a close second.
Good companies don't like hiring contractors because they offer no loyalty but demand lots of money...
Yeah...I've only been able to work for crappy little companies like IBM, TRW, and Raytheon.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Say, a version of the Kernel which allows an app to play the latest Quicktime files flawlessly, but only if the user feeds a password to a remote server once a week.
Sure, it could and would be cracked within a month. That's why a new binary-only version would be a mandatory download every three weeks.
Your scenario doesn't make much sense. How would a download be "mandatory"?
The GPL and Open Source RELY on a
cooperative environment that the copyright laws permit to exist.
Half correct. Both the free software and open-source software movements rely on cooperation, however cooperation is not encouraged by copyright - government-created monopolies on copying hinder communication and cooperation.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
In their minds, copying music means less money, (that has proved otherwise as
napster's growth has meant an increase in CD sales) whereas smoking marijuana is a personal freedom, which, if decriminalized, would give profits to no major corporations until it was socially accepted.
Actually, the makers of pharmaceutical (like anti-depressant, mild tranquilizer, and anti-nausea drugs) and recreational drugs (like cigarettes and beer) are well aware that legal cannabis could compete with their products and lead to lower profits. In its heyday the "Partnership for a Drug-Free America's sponsors included alcohol and tobacco companies; it still takes money from pharmaceutical makers.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Similarly, any serious audiophile (and probably anyone else who listens for music quality) will be able to tell the difference between an MP3 and a CD.
...but for those of us who listen for music content, mp3 is usually ok. Disregarding occasional very distinct artifacts, it's certainly far better than the cassette tapes that used to comprise most of my music collection back in the 80s, and is certainly adequate for listening in a noisy environment.
MP3 is a lossy format. The question is, are you listening for what gets lost? Generally, you're not, so you don't miss it. Sometimes the algorithm mis-guesses what you're listening for, sometimes people decide to listen for different things, and then the loss is apparent.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
If these laws on distribution can be disregarded, there's nothing to stop commercial companies from stealing GPL'ed products left and right.
If laws on distribution could be disregarded, there would be no need for the GPL!
The GPL exists solely to preserve your natural right to use, modify, and share ideas, in the form of computer software. Only the forceful actions of the state - anti-distribution laws - can stop you from doing that. Absent such laws, commerical companies could not steal GPL'd products - when ideas are not regarded as property, there can be no theft.
Without copyright laws, all that commercial companies could do would be to make it hard for you to modify software by not making source available; and post-copyright, market forces would quickly squash anyone who tried to do so.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
I find it very frustrating to read about characters for hundreds of pages
and develop some empathy for them and then have the book rudely chopped off just before finding out how their personal situations were resolved.
Well, that's the way real life is; very rarely is everything all wrapped up and resolved at once. Any given day leaves lots of unresolved issues; in fact, most us us die with a lot of the "plot points" in our lives still hanging.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Very heavy duty apps are tied very explicitly to hardware and software components.
That may be true, but it's generally assumed that upgrading the HW or OS would therefore result in an increase in performance. This demonstrates that NT to Win2k isn't a vertical upgrade, it goes a little sideways too.
Which is ok. It's not something that should be hidden, and certainly not something that should be censored with the threat of lawsuits based on bogus EULAs.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
I wonder how many Windows users are actively waiting for Linux programs to use.
Well, for Unix hackers like me who are stuck with Windows on the desktop but only use it to run Exceed (to get to the real machines) and Netscape and (ugh) Lotus Notes (blech), this sounds great. Maybe now I can actully use this box for something useful.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Appartently many place have different rules for contractors; I'm contracting at IBM (their Annapolis telephony lab, where I the token long-haired freaky person) and wasn't asked to pee in a cup. (I was suppsoed to have to sign a paper saying I agreed to testing if they asked, but I was able to write in "I don't consent to any drug tests".)
(Of course, you can always refuse to participate in FORCED URINATION, and help make the world a better place in the process...)
Damn straight. I pee in a cup for no one except my physician.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
People around here got awfully excited when Katz suggested publishing a book with some comments from/. quoted in in. Did you really expect the music industry to react differently when you went around willy-nilly handing out copies of their work.
The huge difference being that the Katz suggestoin was to sell/. comments in book form.
You wanna copy stuff I wrote or recorded, hand out copies to your neighbors? Fine. (Though I would get pissed if you failed to credit me as the creator.) If you want to sell my stuff, however, you owe me a cut.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
1 - didn't care about education. Looked at it, but it wasn't a requirement for me, so I completely ignored whether the candidate had a degree/diploma or not
Well, you're probably in the minority there. If you've got a relevant degree, I suggest you list it. If you're fresh out of school, or still in school, go into a little bit of detail about the focus of your coursework.
2 - don't list everything. DO NOT make that mistake. Customize your resume for the job you're applying for.
At one place I worked, a resume came in that was ten pages long. It listed every single brand of PC hardware this guy had worked with!
But as for customizing...maybe it's the just the point I'm at in my career, maybe it's the state of the industry, but I'm rarely applying for a specific job. I keep my resume up on my website, and when I'm actively looking I post it on Monster, DICE, Net-Temps, and the like, and let recruiters come to me. Ergo, I keep the resume pretty general.
It's three pages in hardcopy, but all the important stuff (education, programming languages, and other technical skills) fits on the first two-thirds of a page; the rest just details my work experience. Every time I update it, I remove a bit of detail about older jobs, to keep the length down.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, back in the olden days when people held on to stocks and companies paid dividends, the bottom line meant something to shareholders - it affected dividends! Now, though, stocks are just something to trade, with little more intrinsic value than baseball cards. (Indeed, after the latest corrections, there's a lot of baseball cards out there with a higher market value than those shares of Network Associates I've been holding on to...)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Hmm. And how would such an ad-free membership work?
Username/password? 100 people could all use the same account. Heck, if I was feeling generous (or contrary) I could post my paid login for everyone to use, a la the famous cypherpunks/cypherpunks combo.
Send a "registered" cookie to my browser? Can easily be copied by the tech-savvy; and are the tech-non-savvy supposed to buy one subscription for home, one for work?
I just don't see how this idea would work, technically. Any ideas?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Does no one remember that ancient mantra, "Trust The Browser"?
Way back when (you know, like four or five years ago), there was this idea that web servers would serve content. And web browsers would format it and display it. So, if my server was serving up, say, my resume, you could make your browser window skinny or fat or whatever and your browser would format it long and tall or wide-screen as needed.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
I can say that the high crimes he did commit were with the approval of Congress, and were of the same sort perpetrated by Bush the First and by Reagan. Just the usual assualts on basic civil liberties, illegal use of military force, things like that.
The sex scandal was bullshit, the fundraising hanky-panky was D.C. business-as-usual. None of it even approached the shadow of real high crimes like Iran-Contra and Watergate.
Is Clinton a scumbag? Of course! But with the possible exception of Carter, every U.S. president since the end of WWII has been morally deranged. Might as well give up and write in into the Constitution: "No person with a moral sense shall be eligible to the office of President."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
I keep hearing about how we need all this human factors research to make computers usable, that interfaces must be "intuitive" and, most of all, standardized.
Then I get in my car.
Almost every adult in the USA can operate a car with little difficulty. Yet the interface is not intuitive - press one pedal to make it go, another to make it stop? Turn a vertical wheel to change horizontal direction?
And the interface is not standardized - a car may have from two to five different foot controls (at least gas and brake, maybe also clutch, parking brake, and high-beam switch), the shifter for an automatic transmission can be on the steering column or the floor, the headlight switch can be on the directional signal switch or on the dash...
So how is it that most everyone can drive? (Well, can operate the vechicle. People have many driving problems that have nothing to do with operating the vehicle.)
Partly it's because everyone is familiar with the basics through cultural osmosis - we grow up riding in cars, we see them operated on TV and in movies. And partly we expect and accept that a certain amount of training is needed; few people balk at the idea that a few dozen hours of classroom instruction and supervised driving are a requirement for basic competence.
Why do we expect computer software to be different?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Even the shuttle software-meisters - fantastic job though they do - aren't 100% bug free. According to the linked article, "The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors." Fantastic, amazing, well-done, but not perfect.
It's not just a question of accepting it...it's a question of paying for it, in time and dollars.
They say "Fast, cheap, good - pick two", but it's more like pick one. The Space Shuttle avionics code has taken an enormous effort of time and dollars. They're still using machines with ferrite core memory, because a hardware change would mean massive software changes; try floating that idea to your boss - "We can't upgrade the server because doing so might introduce bugs. We have to stick with that 25 MHz '486 running NetBSD 0.9."
Admittedly, a lot of the upgrading going on is for the sake of flash, not substance; if we could beat it into PHB's heads that reliability is more important than special effects and dancing paperclips, we could proceed with greater focus.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
So some HTML files are "owned" by your editor, others by Netscape. Not at all what I would call "intuitive".
Well, it doesn't fit the standard GUI mentality of today's systems - but I submit that said mentality is badly broken in several ways. It is not, as is so often claimed, intuitive; it's limiting; it's inflexible (no, "skinning" is not flexibility).
Or maybe I'm just feeling especially curmudgeonly today. Maybe I'll go dig up that old Radio Shack Color Computer when I get home...who needs a GUI or CLI when you've got BASIC built right in? B-)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
This must be a strange and marvelous definition of "userfriendly". When did the complete and total loss of all data on the computer when something gets slightly out-of-whack and the whole damn system has to be reinstalled from scratch, or having to be rebooted several times a day, or having a pathetic notion of security, become "friendly"?
The Linux and BSD boxes I've used over the years have been my friends. It took some work to forge those friendships, but that's the way friendship is.
Even the Solaris, AIX, and HP-UXes, yes, even the Ultrix machines, have been allies, frustrating at times but still on my side. (Don't ask about that SCO CWM+ one, though...)
But the Windows machines, and even Macs, I find I just can't trust. And trust is the basis of friendship.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Oh? I find the reverse true all the time. I'd gladly heave this damn Win2k box I have to use at work out the window and replace it with a good ol' Linux or BSD box. (Though Cygwin is helping somewhat.)
Because the difference between Linux and Windows is like the difference between a pocketknife and a fully equipped workshop. The pocketknife takes little training, can't hurt you too much if you screw up, and is ok if all you want to do is whittle; but if you want to Get Some Stuff Done, take the time to learn how to use the truly powerful tools.
The problem is, once you've done that, if you go somewhere where all that's available is a pocketknife (even though the pocketknife costs a lot of money and you can get the full workshop for free!), it's incredibly frustrating!
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
In a world of tools that do one thing and do it well, there's a very good chance that the program I want to run on that file is not the one that created it. It's thoroughly understood that I will want to run several different programs on any one file - no one program is regarded as having any more rights to the data than any other.
In the "so easy a gorilla can work it" world of certain GUIs, it's assumed that I will only ever want to access that file with one program. It's possible, but rather roundabout, to do otherwise - in fact, I'd bet that many users have no idea that a file could be opened with another program. The assumption of "one file, one program" means that each program has to be able to do everything that you would ever want to do on that file, leading to hideous bloat.
This end user would appreciate it if "experts" would stop declaring what he should find intutitive. B-)Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
See, that's just it - you don't know. You know what they wanted to open it with last time, not what they want to do with it last time. Do I want to render that HTML? Edit it? View it's source? Grep it? Spellcheck it? Do a wordcount?
Data is data, and tying it to one specific program can be extremely annoying to a user with a reasonable amount of sophistication. In fact, it encourages poor application design, where each application has to try to do everything you might want on that data and thus ends up doing it poorly, and proprietary data formats, since each type of file only will be manipulated by one program.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Wake up, my friend. Your corporate stockholders have zero trust, respect, or loyalty to you and will stab you in the back in a second to make the books balance.
I learned this the hard way when, in the space of about a year, two "permanent" positions disappeared on me due to corporate restructuring. Contractors may be first in line for the ax, but don't kid yourself - you're a close second.
Yeah...I've only been able to work for crappy little companies like IBM, TRW, and Raytheon.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Your scenario doesn't make much sense. How would a download be "mandatory"?
Half correct. Both the free software and open-source software movements rely on cooperation, however cooperation is not encouraged by copyright - government-created monopolies on copying hinder communication and cooperation.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
...but for those of us who listen for music content, mp3 is usually ok. Disregarding occasional very distinct artifacts, it's certainly far better than the cassette tapes that used to comprise most of my music collection back in the 80s, and is certainly adequate for listening in a noisy environment.
MP3 is a lossy format. The question is, are you listening for what gets lost? Generally, you're not, so you don't miss it. Sometimes the algorithm mis-guesses what you're listening for, sometimes people decide to listen for different things, and then the loss is apparent.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
If laws on distribution could be disregarded, there would be no need for the GPL!
The GPL exists solely to preserve your natural right to use, modify, and share ideas, in the form of computer software. Only the forceful actions of the state - anti-distribution laws - can stop you from doing that. Absent such laws, commerical companies could not steal GPL'd products - when ideas are not regarded as property, there can be no theft.
Without copyright laws, all that commercial companies could do would be to make it hard for you to modify software by not making source available; and post-copyright, market forces would quickly squash anyone who tried to do so.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Is this a troll, FUD, or ignorance?
There's nothing about this siutation that involves violation of someone else's licence. Nothing.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
That may be true, but it's generally assumed that upgrading the HW or OS would therefore result in an increase in performance. This demonstrates that NT to Win2k isn't a vertical upgrade, it goes a little sideways too.
Which is ok. It's not something that should be hidden, and certainly not something that should be censored with the threat of lawsuits based on bogus EULAs.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
The huge difference being that the Katz suggestoin was to sell /. comments in book form.
You wanna copy stuff I wrote or recorded, hand out copies to your neighbors? Fine. (Though I would get pissed if you failed to credit me as the creator.) If you want to sell my stuff, however, you owe me a cut.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Well, you're probably in the minority there. If you've got a relevant degree, I suggest you list it. If you're fresh out of school, or still in school, go into a little bit of detail about the focus of your coursework.
At one place I worked, a resume came in that was ten pages long. It listed every single brand of PC hardware this guy had worked with!
But as for customizing...maybe it's the just the point I'm at in my career, maybe it's the state of the industry, but I'm rarely applying for a specific job. I keep my resume up on my website, and when I'm actively looking I post it on Monster, DICE, Net-Temps, and the like, and let recruiters come to me. Ergo, I keep the resume pretty general.
It's three pages in hardcopy, but all the important stuff (education, programming languages, and other technical skills) fits on the first two-thirds of a page; the rest just details my work experience. Every time I update it, I remove a bit of detail about older jobs, to keep the length down.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/