Just wondering, but why do you need a long battery life? Are you out in the middle of the woods with no power source for days at a time? Do you talk for hundreds of minutes a day? Because, my phone easily lasts several days using it less than an hour a day, and any more than a few hours talk time/10 hours standby time is overkill. Between access to power outlets and access to my car's lighter connection, I'm almost never somewhere that I can't plug in my phone for more than a day.
As for other features, I have to admit there's not a lot that my current phone has over my original one. It has a GPS in it, but apparently I can't even access that information, which makes it pretty much useless unless I happen to need to call 911. I use the voice dialing occassionally, and it's kind of nice having different rings for different people, but since my phone is usually in silent mode I don't really use that feature. I've got a calendar, which I use occassionally.
I can't really think of anything else. Which isn't to say that my phone doesn't support some cool features that my old phone didn't. But almost all of those features it supports are add-ons with monthly or per-usage charges. And while the features are cool, they're not cool enough to be worth the extra fees.
Well, I wasn't really talking about grad school, I was talking about undergrad.
And yes, maybe I'm the exception, but if so I know a lot of other people who are the exception too. And moreover, in my opinion it's the exceptions that are the people you want to be hiring. Those who struggle through 4 years of college to "learn" basic logic skills aren't going to be very good workers. Maybe it's possible to pound something like that into someone's brain, but from what I've seen it seems you've either got it or you don't (at least, once you've reached the age that people attend college).
If you think my argument is true about anything, then I don't think you understand my argument. I'm not just saying that you can learn from books. I'm saying there's just not that much to learn in the first place. Sure, I could learn quantum physics from a book, but it'd take years. With software engineering, once you know how a computer works, most of the rest is just being taught the algorithms which either 1) you could have eventually come up with yourself, or 2) are complicated enough that you're not going to memorize them anyway. In addition there's learning the languages themselves, but most computer programmers agree that once you know one it's really easy to switch to any of the major languages. This is fortunate, since I didn't learn a single line of C from any of my college courses.
Anyway, I think there are a lot of industries which overemphasize the degree. In some the emphasis is even required by law. Right now I'd really like to work toward my CPA, but it turns out I need about 2 years of college credit before I can even think about taking the exam. And in order to be admitted into the classes I need, I have to take a few introductory courses on top of that, so, joy, I get to learn the stuff I already know from reading and following SEC reports and being a professional tax preparer for several years (fortunately the government doesn't regulate that). For the potential independence it might be worth it, but there's gotta be a better way.
Back on the topic, my point is there's a big overemphasis of the degree when hiring software engineers. Not only is 4 years of college not necessary for all people, it's least necessary for the most qualified people. Now combine this with the Mythical Man-Month, and I think we're spending a whole lot of resources training people to either make late projects later or to not be able to get a job at all. Just one more comment:
Even at the entry level, the programmers we look for better have good and logic math skills.
While there might be kids who have not gone to school with these skills, it is more likely that kids who have indeed gone to school have these skills.
I'll assume you mean "college" by "school", since almost everyone in the US old enough to work has gone to school, and I just have to disagree. Logic math skills are learned by the time you graduate from high school. If you don't have them by then, you're never going to be very good.
I'm really not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about an entry level IT job.
They teach theoretical computer science, advanced OS design, architecture, graph theory, complexity and stuff in highschool these days? Wow!:)
I was responding to your comments on architecture and graph theory, both of which are taught in high school these days. Advanced OS design, no, but if you decide to be a kernel hacker straight out of college OS Design is only one class, and it's not really something you can't pick up with hands-on training.
If you can score a 5 on the AP test you know as much about algorithms as most CS graduates.
I'm sorry, they would hardly be able to make head or tail of the order of a loop or to assess the complexity of an algorithm.
They might be a little smart, but let's not stretch.
Who, most CS graduates, or most people who got a 5 on the AP test? I knew about loops and O notation before I went to college. I'm trying to think what classes I took in college actually were useful. I mean, I took an algorithms class, and an OS design class, and a systems architecture class, and they were useful. Then I took a bunch of pretty much useless (for what I later went into) math classes. And I took a database design class, which I didn't use in my first job at all. Oh yeah, I took I took some class where we learned scheme, but maybe that was the algorithms class. I took a class in internet technologies, where we learned out to build a web server and all. Very neat, but ultimately useless for my first job (and something I could have easily learned on-the-job anyway). Oh yeah, I took some class where we learned assembly language and how a machine actually works - that was probably the most useful class I took in college, CS-wise.
Then all the gen ed classes, the classes for my minor, all the time I wasted learning java, and scheme, and prolog, and Latin. Fortunately I managed to take the right classes so I could get out of there in 3 years, but that's still 2 years I wasted on bullshit.
Well, see - that doesn't mean you can generalize it. You're making a classic logical fallcy in deduction.
How, by saying that there shouldn't be so much emphasis on a degree? By saying that my Computer Science classes were a joke? What is the false generalization I'm making, and what do you presume is the logic I'm using to make that generalization?
No, you're mistaking a piece of paper for skill
Are you saying I'm not skilled? Because I'm specifically not mistaking a piece of paper for skill. I'm actually saying the exact opposite. The piece of paper is meaningless.
you slacked off and assume that everybody does the same.
Not at all. I wouldn't even say I "slacked off". I didn't go to the classes which were unnecessary, but that's not the same as slacking off.
Well, to a large extent those things can't be taught in a classroom environment. To the extent they can, hey, I admit I got a good year's worth of education out of college.
Which school did you go to, mate?
Oh, trust me, I went to shit schools. The whole purpose after my first year was just to get the piece of paper as quickly and easily as possible so I could get a job in the real world. Anyway, I spent my first year at the University of Massachusetts and my next two at Rutgers.
Most good schools I know of have a rigorous program in those things.
To the extent they can be taught in a classroom environment.
Where you are not only taught those things, but also asked to work on real hard projects implementing what you learnt.
Yeah, that's all great, if you're going to work in a school the rest of your life (and hey, some people do, it's not a bad job). But in the real world when you've got
Huh? Alan Greenspan? What exactly did he do, again?
He raised interest rates and cried about "irrational exuberance" until his prophecy fulfilled itself and the market came crashing down.
Say what you want about the president, but Alan Greenspan is the chairman of the federal reserve, and he served under Clinton, too.
I'm fully aware of this. In fact, he made some of his biggest mistakes during Clinton's presidency.
Sure, he guides interest rates that are fundamental to the very basic underlying economics of business and investment, but to say that he's responsible for people losing their jobs is a bit of a stretch.
You don't think the very basic underlying economics of business and investment have any effect on whether or not people lose their jobs?
If you're just looking at how he makes rate adjustments, he's actually got a very soft touch.
He made a huge mistake(*) in 1999 and 2000, raising rates 6 or 7 times including a half point kicker at the end which helped send the economy spiriling down into a deep recession.
(*) A mistake from the point of view of the economy, anyway. If you look at it from the point of view of a banker trying to squeeze as much profit out of the economy as possible, then I guess you could argue he did pretty well.
If you disagree with his reasons for periodically adjusting the federal funds rate in one direction or the other, you have to admit that he's been able to control inflation very very well during his tenure
Sure, he's done a good job at keeping the rich bankers rich. And really that's something any moron could have done. The internet economy which Greenspan stunted by all his rate increases is extremely efficient, and it's largely these market efficiencies which are keeping the rates down. In fact, Greenspan is currently at it again, raising rates beyond what the market wants them to be, and we're seeing a flattening yield curve as Greenspan has little control over the long term rates which are coming down as the short terms are going up.
and aid in increasing the supply of cheap capital that individuals and businesses use to create jobs rather than destroy them.
No, he artificially raised the rates too high which decreased the supply of cheap capital.
But that's a meaningless statement. Hey, any Windows program is cross-platform if you have Wine, right?
It used to be slow. Current implementations just aren't.
Like I said, they're slightly slower running, and a lot slower starting up.
JIT helps a lot, and GC uses much better techniques.
Maybe JIT is why they're so slow starting up. I don't know enough about the internals of Java to say why, but I've experienced the speed decrease first hand.
Like I said, that basic education takes less than a year to obtain.
Sure, you can learn all you want from books on algorithms and graph theory, but how many folks will?
That's one or two classes, and they're classes that are offered by a lot of high schools. If you can score a 5 on the AP test you know as much about algorithms as most CS graduates. Sure, I admit I learned a little bit more in my 3 years of college, but most of it was fluff. I mean, hey, if I went to 20% of my classes, and I graduated from college after 3 years, that means I could have done it in 3/5 of a year, right?
Writing good quality code that is fast and is optimized takes effort.
It takes a little bit of effort and a whole lot of skill. But it's largely a skill which can't be taught. You either think that way, or you don't.
Besides, there is more to IT than merely programming. System design, architecture, project management and the like take a lot of effort and know-how.
Well, to a large extent those things can't be taught in a classroom environment. To the extent they can, hey, I admit I got a good year's worth of education out of college.
Yeah, I almost went to law school. Turns out I got a job in accounting instead. But still, you only need to get a job in the industry for one or two years to make up for that $30,000.
I was with you up until the end. Yeah, the software programming side of IT is not very stable (systems administration is much more stable, but I assume you're talking about software engineering). But that isn't going to stop the industry from being able to attract people. Look at the market for actors, or baseball players, or artists. I think this is where software engineering is headed. A relatively small number of superstars paid really big bucks, and the rest working a grunt job for low wages with no job security.
In that sense, yeah, if you want to quickly settle down and have a family, software engineering probably isn't for you unless you're really really really into it.
The other problem with software engineering is it is highly location dependent. This also isn't true for the systems administration side of things, and you can probably get a consulting gig just about anywhere, but if you've really got a passion for building software and expect to get paid what you're actually worth there are relatively few places you can reasonably live. I've personally pretty much given up on software engineering for this reason, above all others. Maybe one day I'll go back to it, but probably not as long as I'm living in Tampa.
I'm not sure why we require a degree for IT in the first place. Sure, there are some people who could benefit from a degree, but as a percentage IT workers is pretty small. My Computer Science classes were a joke. I went to about 20% of my classes, and I could have easily learned as much as I learned in less than one year.
In my experience those who are good at programming are going to pick it up very easily. And those who aren't are going to make a project take longer to complete (see the mythical man-month), no matter how many years of schooling they've had.
Now that we have serious horsepower the likes of 8-way dual core processors as well as the natural evolution of the JDK/JRE as well - not to mention kernel evolution..... we should be able to put the 'java is slow' meme to rest fairly easily.
Not all of us have 8-way dual core processors, though.
In my own experience, Java programs are about the same as any other once they're actually loaded into memory. But it generally takes a lot longer to load up a java program than it does to load up a compiled program.
As for the "cross-platform" hype, that's really all it is, hype. Sure, if you're trying to build a cheap program in a month with 2 coders it's nice to just let Sun build you an interpreter and tell your customers "just download Java". But for any serious program the amount of platform specific code as a percentage of the entire program is going to be rather small anyway, at least if you ignore the parts of it which are already available as standard libraries in just about any language. And then, if you don't want your Java to look like Java, but like any other regular program, you're going to have to put about as much if not more platform specific code into the Java software.
I seriously doubt the number of people who lost their jobs due to outsourcing is anywhere near the numbers that lost their jobs due to good old Alan Greenspan and George W. Bush.
Anyway, I made enough in excess wages in the first year or two out of college to easily pay for my education. I'm not even in the industry any more, but the money was still well worth it.
You'd obviously have to have an e-cash account somewhere, but there's no reason there couldn't be multiple e-cash providers. Yeah, you'd need a new protocol, that's why it'd fail, but just having a protocol doesn't require a central agency.
Bottled spring water is not the same as tap water [...]
It is in every comparison I've ever seen done (assuming a place with at least somewhat modern infrastructure).
I live in Tampa, Florida, and bottled water doesn't even taste the same as the recycled crap that we get from our taps. So I guess we don't have a modern infrastructure here. Of course, this is besides the obvious difference that tap water doesn't come in a bottle.
I've yet to visit any remotely civilised area that had undrinkable tap water, or water that was dangerous.
I never said it was undrinkable or dangerous.
Certainly, I've visited many places where the water was somewhat distasteful, but a movie you download off a website usually doesn't look or sound as good as one you see in the cinema, either.
P2P doesn't directly threaten sales in the cinema, it threatens sales on DVD, which is potentially identical depending how much you're willing to spend on the P2P (and these prices come down every day, and if not stopped piracy using this method will get much easier as well).
So, you see, you go and grab and *empty bottle* or maybe a *canteen* and fill it up at the tap before you go outside.
And these empty bottles or canteens, they're free too?
The point here is that people are *happily* paying for stuff (water) they can get for "free" - something you insist could never happen.
No they're naively paying for stuff stuff that they could get a little bit cheaper with a certain amount of work and inconvenience.
You seem to be infected with the same ridiculous logic that the RIAA and friends are, where "less profits" == "losing money", ie: "not getting something you might have had" == "loss".
Most of the MPAA directors (let's not change the topic just yet) are stockholders in the member companies, so "less profits" does == "losing money", in a very real sense.
Less profits means you aren't making *as much* money, it doesn't mean you're *losing* money.
But now at least you're admitting what you're asking the MPAA to "focus on content" rather than "protecting crap", you're asking them to take a cut in their profits. It's clearly an irrational thing for them to do. Sure, if they could snap their fingers and produce better content they'd do it (and unlike your original suggestion, that would increase piracy, not reduce it). But in addition to creating better content, they have to work on stopping piracy, because if they just sat back and did nothing, we'd already have stopped buying DVDs. In fact, considering that the MPAA != the member movie companies, stopping piracy is and should be their main concern. Let the movie companies themselves focus on quality. For the most part, differences in quality aren't going to do anything but shift viewers from one movie company to the other anyway. The MPAA needs to focus on the broad concerns affecting the entire industry, and copyright infringement is number one. Without laws against copyright infringement, enforced both technically and legally, the member companies would quickly go out of business. As time progresses and P2P technologies get better, the technical and legal enforcement of the laws needs to get better and better in order to maintain the same level of profits. In fact, you seem to admit this yourself.
Oh don't get me wrong, there will still be people who will pay to watch movies. But whether you want to call that portion of the population "large" or "small" it's still only a fraction of the people who currently pay to watch movies.
And you base this assertion on what, exactly ?
Based on the fact that I personally won't pay to watch movies if I can easily download the movie for free. Therefore the portion isn't 1, so it's only a fraction.
To the extent that P2P provides a cheaper and more viable substitute, demand
Since both sides can't be blamed for making the copy (because then there'd be 2 copies made, and only 1 copy was made) it has been pointed out that the person providing the file for downloading is the one who is making the copy.
Actually, the parent's argument is that there isn't a copy being made at all, which I think is rather silly.
If you agree that a copy is being made, then I think it's obvious the copy is being made by the downloader, since the downloader is the one directing the computer to make the copy.
I should also note that it is possible for two people to be responsible (to blame) for making one copy. It's called "acting in concert", and it's defined as follows: "When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the state of mind required for the commission of that offense, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct."
They're the ones in "possession" of the file, they're the ones making it available, and they're the ones making a copy---that the download takes.
I just can't agree that they're the ones making the copy. I'm thinking here of traditional napster-like P2P. Maybe a different argument could be made for something like torrent, but there it's generally agreed that everyone is a downloader and an uploader. And of course there could in theory be a push-style P2P software, in which case I think the uploader would be making the copy. But traditional P2P, napster style, the person directing the computers to make the copy is the downloader, not the uploader. I think it's irrelevant who owns the computers, and likewise who is in possession of the "original" (I put original in quotes since it's quite rare that the copy in the person's possession is a legally obtained copy, as that would usually require downloading directly from a store-bought CD).
Presumably this would all be automated, and all you'd have to do is include the maximum amount you were willing to pay at the top of your email whenever you're sending email to someone you haven't previously established contact with (think buddy lists).
Under the right circumstances, any kind of infringement will suffice (what constitutes infringement is set forth by 501).
I was speaking within the context of P2P. But just like with your other response to me, about what's fair use and what isn't, you're correct, I was oversimplifying.
I don't dispute that, but asking for a file is NOT the same as asking for a copy of the file.
When you intend for the original file to stay where it is, and then a new copy to appear somewhere different, it certainly is.
Whether the machine provides a "copy" or the "original" is indistinguishable to the recipient, it's just a stream of bits.
It seems to me pretty easy to distinguish between driving a hard drive from one place to another and making a copy of the information on it. Besides that, people know that when you download something from P2P, the sender doesn't destroy the original. That's just common knowledge, and I defy you to convince a judge that you believed otherwise. And regardless, whether or not the recipient can distinguish the difference is irrelevant. What's important is that a copy has been made, not whether or not the recipient can distinguish it.
I have a painting right here - feel free to support your claim by posting a copy on the web and providing a URI.
I didn't say I can copy any painting. I said it is not necessary to have (possession) of a painting in order to make a copy of it.
You need to have direct physical access (photonic, not touch or possession) to the painting to make a copy.
Now it's "photonic physical access", whatever that means. I still don't see why using a wire, instead of a wireless medium, doesn't qualify. That's not in any definition of "copy" that I know of. But I really couldn't come up with an example without begging the question, you'd just say that in my example the thing isn't being copied.
I should of course note that photons are what carry the changes in the electromagnetic field of a wire. The photons are just much higher wavelength/lower frequency than visible light, and the photons are carried through a different medium, wires instead of the air. But that's irrelevant. When you create (or direct a machine to create) a material object that embodies the work in a fixed form, by referencing the work or a copy of the work, you've made a copy (or to use the exact terminology of copyright law, you've "reproduce[d] the copyrighted work". It's completely irrelevant whether or not you can "see" the original work.
If I email you a file, can you tell me whether it is an original or a copy? How?
It's a copy, because you can't send the original through email. If you were sending the original through mail, it'd be called snail mail, not email. Email is a "push" medium though, and I would say that the person making the copy is the person who initiates the email, in this case you. Now of course I can initiate the sending of an email to myself, and just because I use your account and your computer to send it doesn't mean you're responsible.
No, asking for a file does not necessarily equate to asking for a copy.
Directing a machine to copy the file does.
Unless I have the original, I can't make a copy.
Why not? If I take a photo of a painting, I've made a copy, but I don't need to "have" the painting to make the copy.
Your logic is equivalent to claiming that browsing the web is a constant copying of copyrighted content.
Well, it is.
I said nothing about public broadcasting.
Broadcasting is by definition public.
The FCC allows FM transmissions up to a certain level (50 mw?), and it's perfectly legal to use that technology to privately broadcast, say from a CD player so you can listen on a radio in another room, (wireless headphones are another example).
That's not broadcasting. A broadcast is a transmission to the public. It's also not distribution, because you're not sending it to someone else, and it's probably not copying. But even if it is any of those things, it's certainly fair use.
Are those illegal?
The devices certainly aren't illegal, and using them in the manner you describe isn't illegal, because it's fair use.
Are you claiming that IP based music streaming, such as the capability offered by Apple iTunes and hardware devices such as an Airport Express or Roku Soundbridge or a Squeezebox constitutes copyright infringement?
If you do it without permission of the copyright holder, and not for some fair use purpose, it's definitely copyright infringement. I can't remember the name of the company right now, but someone was successfully sued for doing exactly that. Apple had to get a license to offer their iTunes service.
How about if it's sent over 802.11?
If it's a broadcast, I believe there are some statutory licenses for digital audio transmission. If not, then you've got to either rely on fair use or get a license.
Is it copyright infringement to play music loudly enough that others can hear it (broadcasting via audio vs. RF)?
If it's not fair use, and you don't have a license, then yes.
What clearly defined distinction is there between loud music and RF transmission and Internet transmission?
There is essentially no distinction between loud music and RF transmission. If you play music in a bar or at a concert, you've got to pay for a public performance license. If you're just playing musically loudly for personal non-profit purposes, you're probably protected under fair use. Same thing with small scale RF transmission. On the other hand, if you're broadcasting to a wide area, then fair use probably doesn't apply, even if you are doing it for non-profit purposes. With internet transmission, the distinction is that it's necessarily a digital audio transmission (RF transmission might be digital, in which case it falls under the digital audio transmission rules).
Making a backup is also making a copy. Are you meaning to say that I don't have the right to use my backup if my original gets destroyed? Next you'll be saying that I can't make a backup of that backup, even after the original is destroyed.
Making a backup copy is fair use. Making a copy for a friend isn't.
the RIAA is filling civil suits in which you can collect DAMAGES, there is no $5 Damages + $149,995 Pain and Suffering.
No, but there are statutory damages.
"Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work."
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
In this case, the law is called copyright, and the act involved is *copying*, not *lending*.
Is it though? I would think the person doing the copying is the downloader, not the uploader. The exclusive right the uploader is infringing is "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"
Is it not equivalent "fair use" to let someone else play a CD I own, whether through loan of the CD itself, or by FM broadcast (using FCC legal levels), or by bits sent via network?
Oh yeah, and there's also an exclusive right given specifically to distribution by rental, lease, or lending.
The machine which sent me the file most likely copied it - reading a file from disk and then sending me bits.
No, the machine, unless it is sentient, didn't copy the file. You copied the file using the machine.
If it's the bits, then (except for fair use) simply playing a CD would be copying, since the bits are read from the CD and copied to RAM and then copied again to a DAC.
As you've answered with your next sentence, that's fair use.
Is it not equivalent "fair use" to let someone else play a CD I own, whether through loan of the CD itself, or by FM broadcast (using FCC legal levels), or by bits sent via network?
Broadcasting is not copying. The law is clear on that point. However, broadcasting is public performance, and broadcasting via the internet is public performance by means of a digital audio transmission, both of which are exclusive rights in addition to copying.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wondering, but why do you need a long battery life? Are you out in the middle of the woods with no power source for days at a time? Do you talk for hundreds of minutes a day? Because, my phone easily lasts several days using it less than an hour a day, and any more than a few hours talk time/10 hours standby time is overkill. Between access to power outlets and access to my car's lighter connection, I'm almost never somewhere that I can't plug in my phone for more than a day.
As for other features, I have to admit there's not a lot that my current phone has over my original one. It has a GPS in it, but apparently I can't even access that information, which makes it pretty much useless unless I happen to need to call 911. I use the voice dialing occassionally, and it's kind of nice having different rings for different people, but since my phone is usually in silent mode I don't really use that feature. I've got a calendar, which I use occassionally.
I can't really think of anything else. Which isn't to say that my phone doesn't support some cool features that my old phone didn't. But almost all of those features it supports are add-ons with monthly or per-usage charges. And while the features are cool, they're not cool enough to be worth the extra fees.
If it's cheap enough to add a phone to your TV for the people who want a phone on their TV, then it's free to you.
Huh? Being forced to pay for something whether you use it or not isn't exactly the same as that something being free.
Well, I wasn't really talking about grad school, I was talking about undergrad.
And yes, maybe I'm the exception, but if so I know a lot of other people who are the exception too. And moreover, in my opinion it's the exceptions that are the people you want to be hiring. Those who struggle through 4 years of college to "learn" basic logic skills aren't going to be very good workers. Maybe it's possible to pound something like that into someone's brain, but from what I've seen it seems you've either got it or you don't (at least, once you've reached the age that people attend college).
If you think my argument is true about anything, then I don't think you understand my argument. I'm not just saying that you can learn from books. I'm saying there's just not that much to learn in the first place. Sure, I could learn quantum physics from a book, but it'd take years. With software engineering, once you know how a computer works, most of the rest is just being taught the algorithms which either 1) you could have eventually come up with yourself, or 2) are complicated enough that you're not going to memorize them anyway. In addition there's learning the languages themselves, but most computer programmers agree that once you know one it's really easy to switch to any of the major languages. This is fortunate, since I didn't learn a single line of C from any of my college courses.
Anyway, I think there are a lot of industries which overemphasize the degree. In some the emphasis is even required by law. Right now I'd really like to work toward my CPA, but it turns out I need about 2 years of college credit before I can even think about taking the exam. And in order to be admitted into the classes I need, I have to take a few introductory courses on top of that, so, joy, I get to learn the stuff I already know from reading and following SEC reports and being a professional tax preparer for several years (fortunately the government doesn't regulate that). For the potential independence it might be worth it, but there's gotta be a better way.
Back on the topic, my point is there's a big overemphasis of the degree when hiring software engineers. Not only is 4 years of college not necessary for all people, it's least necessary for the most qualified people. Now combine this with the Mythical Man-Month, and I think we're spending a whole lot of resources training people to either make late projects later or to not be able to get a job at all. Just one more comment:
Even at the entry level, the programmers we look for better have good and logic math skills.
While there might be kids who have not gone to school with these skills, it is more likely that kids who have indeed gone to school have these skills.
I'll assume you mean "college" by "school", since almost everyone in the US old enough to work has gone to school, and I just have to disagree. Logic math skills are learned by the time you graduate from high school. If you don't have them by then, you're never going to be very good.
For some tasks, sure. Not for all tasks.
I'm really not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about an entry level IT job.
They teach theoretical computer science, advanced OS design, architecture, graph theory, complexity and stuff in highschool these days? Wow! :)
I was responding to your comments on architecture and graph theory, both of which are taught in high school these days. Advanced OS design, no, but if you decide to be a kernel hacker straight out of college OS Design is only one class, and it's not really something you can't pick up with hands-on training.
I'm sorry, they would hardly be able to make head or tail of the order of a loop or to assess the complexity of an algorithm.
They might be a little smart, but let's not stretch.
Who, most CS graduates, or most people who got a 5 on the AP test? I knew about loops and O notation before I went to college. I'm trying to think what classes I took in college actually were useful. I mean, I took an algorithms class, and an OS design class, and a systems architecture class, and they were useful. Then I took a bunch of pretty much useless (for what I later went into) math classes. And I took a database design class, which I didn't use in my first job at all. Oh yeah, I took I took some class where we learned scheme, but maybe that was the algorithms class. I took a class in internet technologies, where we learned out to build a web server and all. Very neat, but ultimately useless for my first job (and something I could have easily learned on-the-job anyway). Oh yeah, I took some class where we learned assembly language and how a machine actually works - that was probably the most useful class I took in college, CS-wise.
Then all the gen ed classes, the classes for my minor, all the time I wasted learning java, and scheme, and prolog, and Latin. Fortunately I managed to take the right classes so I could get out of there in 3 years, but that's still 2 years I wasted on bullshit.
Well, see - that doesn't mean you can generalize it. You're making a classic logical fallcy in deduction.
How, by saying that there shouldn't be so much emphasis on a degree? By saying that my Computer Science classes were a joke? What is the false generalization I'm making, and what do you presume is the logic I'm using to make that generalization?
No, you're mistaking a piece of paper for skill
Are you saying I'm not skilled? Because I'm specifically not mistaking a piece of paper for skill. I'm actually saying the exact opposite. The piece of paper is meaningless.
you slacked off and assume that everybody does the same.
Not at all. I wouldn't even say I "slacked off". I didn't go to the classes which were unnecessary, but that's not the same as slacking off.
Which school did you go to, mate?
Oh, trust me, I went to shit schools. The whole purpose after my first year was just to get the piece of paper as quickly and easily as possible so I could get a job in the real world. Anyway, I spent my first year at the University of Massachusetts and my next two at Rutgers.
Most good schools I know of have a rigorous program in those things.
To the extent they can be taught in a classroom environment.
Where you are not only taught those things, but also asked to work on real hard projects implementing what you learnt.
Yeah, that's all great, if you're going to work in a school the rest of your life (and hey, some people do, it's not a bad job). But in the real world when you've got
Huh? Alan Greenspan? What exactly did he do, again?
He raised interest rates and cried about "irrational exuberance" until his prophecy fulfilled itself and the market came crashing down.
Say what you want about the president, but Alan Greenspan is the chairman of the federal reserve, and he served under Clinton, too.
I'm fully aware of this. In fact, he made some of his biggest mistakes during Clinton's presidency.
Sure, he guides interest rates that are fundamental to the very basic underlying economics of business and investment, but to say that he's responsible for people losing their jobs is a bit of a stretch.
You don't think the very basic underlying economics of business and investment have any effect on whether or not people lose their jobs?
If you're just looking at how he makes rate adjustments, he's actually got a very soft touch.
He made a huge mistake(*) in 1999 and 2000, raising rates 6 or 7 times including a half point kicker at the end which helped send the economy spiriling down into a deep recession.
(*) A mistake from the point of view of the economy, anyway. If you look at it from the point of view of a banker trying to squeeze as much profit out of the economy as possible, then I guess you could argue he did pretty well.
If you disagree with his reasons for periodically adjusting the federal funds rate in one direction or the other, you have to admit that he's been able to control inflation very very well during his tenure
Sure, he's done a good job at keeping the rich bankers rich. And really that's something any moron could have done. The internet economy which Greenspan stunted by all his rate increases is extremely efficient, and it's largely these market efficiencies which are keeping the rates down. In fact, Greenspan is currently at it again, raising rates beyond what the market wants them to be, and we're seeing a flattening yield curve as Greenspan has little control over the long term rates which are coming down as the short terms are going up.
and aid in increasing the supply of cheap capital that individuals and businesses use to create jobs rather than destroy them.
No, he artificially raised the rates too high which decreased the supply of cheap capital.
Java for the desktop is cross-platform, period.
But that's a meaningless statement. Hey, any Windows program is cross-platform if you have Wine, right?
It used to be slow. Current implementations just aren't.
Like I said, they're slightly slower running, and a lot slower starting up.
JIT helps a lot, and GC uses much better techniques.
Maybe JIT is why they're so slow starting up. I don't know enough about the internals of Java to say why, but I've experienced the speed decrease first hand.
I thought you just got laid off along with your father... Get your stories straight, dude.
Good quality programming takes basic education.
Like I said, that basic education takes less than a year to obtain.
Sure, you can learn all you want from books on algorithms and graph theory, but how many folks will?
That's one or two classes, and they're classes that are offered by a lot of high schools. If you can score a 5 on the AP test you know as much about algorithms as most CS graduates. Sure, I admit I learned a little bit more in my 3 years of college, but most of it was fluff. I mean, hey, if I went to 20% of my classes, and I graduated from college after 3 years, that means I could have done it in 3/5 of a year, right?
Writing good quality code that is fast and is optimized takes effort.
It takes a little bit of effort and a whole lot of skill. But it's largely a skill which can't be taught. You either think that way, or you don't.
Besides, there is more to IT than merely programming. System design, architecture, project management and the like take a lot of effort and know-how.
Well, to a large extent those things can't be taught in a classroom environment. To the extent they can, hey, I admit I got a good year's worth of education out of college.
Yeah, I almost went to law school. Turns out I got a job in accounting instead. But still, you only need to get a job in the industry for one or two years to make up for that $30,000.
I was with you up until the end. Yeah, the software programming side of IT is not very stable (systems administration is much more stable, but I assume you're talking about software engineering). But that isn't going to stop the industry from being able to attract people. Look at the market for actors, or baseball players, or artists. I think this is where software engineering is headed. A relatively small number of superstars paid really big bucks, and the rest working a grunt job for low wages with no job security.
In that sense, yeah, if you want to quickly settle down and have a family, software engineering probably isn't for you unless you're really really really into it.
The other problem with software engineering is it is highly location dependent. This also isn't true for the systems administration side of things, and you can probably get a consulting gig just about anywhere, but if you've really got a passion for building software and expect to get paid what you're actually worth there are relatively few places you can reasonably live. I've personally pretty much given up on software engineering for this reason, above all others. Maybe one day I'll go back to it, but probably not as long as I'm living in Tampa.
I'm not sure why we require a degree for IT in the first place. Sure, there are some people who could benefit from a degree, but as a percentage IT workers is pretty small. My Computer Science classes were a joke. I went to about 20% of my classes, and I could have easily learned as much as I learned in less than one year.
In my experience those who are good at programming are going to pick it up very easily. And those who aren't are going to make a project take longer to complete (see the mythical man-month), no matter how many years of schooling they've had.
Now that we have serious horsepower the likes of 8-way dual core processors as well as the natural evolution of the JDK/JRE as well - not to mention kernel evolution..... we should be able to put the 'java is slow' meme to rest fairly easily.
Not all of us have 8-way dual core processors, though.
In my own experience, Java programs are about the same as any other once they're actually loaded into memory. But it generally takes a lot longer to load up a java program than it does to load up a compiled program.
As for the "cross-platform" hype, that's really all it is, hype. Sure, if you're trying to build a cheap program in a month with 2 coders it's nice to just let Sun build you an interpreter and tell your customers "just download Java". But for any serious program the amount of platform specific code as a percentage of the entire program is going to be rather small anyway, at least if you ignore the parts of it which are already available as standard libraries in just about any language. And then, if you don't want your Java to look like Java, but like any other regular program, you're going to have to put about as much if not more platform specific code into the Java software.
I seriously doubt the number of people who lost their jobs due to outsourcing is anywhere near the numbers that lost their jobs due to good old Alan Greenspan and George W. Bush.
Anyway, I made enough in excess wages in the first year or two out of college to easily pay for my education. I'm not even in the industry any more, but the money was still well worth it.
You'd obviously have to have an e-cash account somewhere, but there's no reason there couldn't be multiple e-cash providers. Yeah, you'd need a new protocol, that's why it'd fail, but just having a protocol doesn't require a central agency.
It is in every comparison I've ever seen done (assuming a place with at least somewhat modern infrastructure).
I live in Tampa, Florida, and bottled water doesn't even taste the same as the recycled crap that we get from our taps. So I guess we don't have a modern infrastructure here. Of course, this is besides the obvious difference that tap water doesn't come in a bottle.
I've yet to visit any remotely civilised area that had undrinkable tap water, or water that was dangerous.
I never said it was undrinkable or dangerous.
Certainly, I've visited many places where the water was somewhat distasteful, but a movie you download off a website usually doesn't look or sound as good as one you see in the cinema, either.
P2P doesn't directly threaten sales in the cinema, it threatens sales on DVD, which is potentially identical depending how much you're willing to spend on the P2P (and these prices come down every day, and if not stopped piracy using this method will get much easier as well).
So, you see, you go and grab and *empty bottle* or maybe a *canteen* and fill it up at the tap before you go outside.
And these empty bottles or canteens, they're free too?
The point here is that people are *happily* paying for stuff (water) they can get for "free" - something you insist could never happen.
No they're naively paying for stuff stuff that they could get a little bit cheaper with a certain amount of work and inconvenience.
You seem to be infected with the same ridiculous logic that the RIAA and friends are, where "less profits" == "losing money", ie: "not getting something you might have had" == "loss".
Most of the MPAA directors (let's not change the topic just yet) are stockholders in the member companies, so "less profits" does == "losing money", in a very real sense.
Less profits means you aren't making *as much* money, it doesn't mean you're *losing* money.
But now at least you're admitting what you're asking the MPAA to "focus on content" rather than "protecting crap", you're asking them to take a cut in their profits. It's clearly an irrational thing for them to do. Sure, if they could snap their fingers and produce better content they'd do it (and unlike your original suggestion, that would increase piracy, not reduce it). But in addition to creating better content, they have to work on stopping piracy, because if they just sat back and did nothing, we'd already have stopped buying DVDs. In fact, considering that the MPAA != the member movie companies, stopping piracy is and should be their main concern. Let the movie companies themselves focus on quality. For the most part, differences in quality aren't going to do anything but shift viewers from one movie company to the other anyway. The MPAA needs to focus on the broad concerns affecting the entire industry, and copyright infringement is number one. Without laws against copyright infringement, enforced both technically and legally, the member companies would quickly go out of business. As time progresses and P2P technologies get better, the technical and legal enforcement of the laws needs to get better and better in order to maintain the same level of profits. In fact, you seem to admit this yourself.
And you base this assertion on what, exactly ?
Based on the fact that I personally won't pay to watch movies if I can easily download the movie for free. Therefore the portion isn't 1, so it's only a fraction.
Since both sides can't be blamed for making the copy (because then there'd be 2 copies made, and only 1 copy was made) it has been pointed out that the person providing the file for downloading is the one who is making the copy.
Actually, the parent's argument is that there isn't a copy being made at all, which I think is rather silly.
If you agree that a copy is being made, then I think it's obvious the copy is being made by the downloader, since the downloader is the one directing the computer to make the copy.
I should also note that it is possible for two people to be responsible (to blame) for making one copy. It's called "acting in concert", and it's defined as follows: "When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the state of mind required for the commission of that offense, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct."
They're the ones in "possession" of the file, they're the ones making it available, and they're the ones making a copy---that the download takes.
I just can't agree that they're the ones making the copy. I'm thinking here of traditional napster-like P2P. Maybe a different argument could be made for something like torrent, but there it's generally agreed that everyone is a downloader and an uploader. And of course there could in theory be a push-style P2P software, in which case I think the uploader would be making the copy. But traditional P2P, napster style, the person directing the computers to make the copy is the downloader, not the uploader. I think it's irrelevant who owns the computers, and likewise who is in possession of the "original" (I put original in quotes since it's quite rare that the copy in the person's possession is a legally obtained copy, as that would usually require downloading directly from a store-bought CD).
Presumably this would all be automated, and all you'd have to do is include the maximum amount you were willing to pay at the top of your email whenever you're sending email to someone you haven't previously established contact with (think buddy lists).
Under the right circumstances, any kind of infringement will suffice (what constitutes infringement is set forth by 501).
I was speaking within the context of P2P. But just like with your other response to me, about what's fair use and what isn't, you're correct, I was oversimplifying.
I don't dispute that, but asking for a file is NOT the same as asking for a copy of the file.
When you intend for the original file to stay where it is, and then a new copy to appear somewhere different, it certainly is.
Whether the machine provides a "copy" or the "original" is indistinguishable to the recipient, it's just a stream of bits.
It seems to me pretty easy to distinguish between driving a hard drive from one place to another and making a copy of the information on it. Besides that, people know that when you download something from P2P, the sender doesn't destroy the original. That's just common knowledge, and I defy you to convince a judge that you believed otherwise. And regardless, whether or not the recipient can distinguish the difference is irrelevant. What's important is that a copy has been made, not whether or not the recipient can distinguish it.
I have a painting right here - feel free to support your claim by posting a copy on the web and providing a URI.
I didn't say I can copy any painting. I said it is not necessary to have (possession) of a painting in order to make a copy of it.
You need to have direct physical access (photonic, not touch or possession) to the painting to make a copy.
Now it's "photonic physical access", whatever that means. I still don't see why using a wire, instead of a wireless medium, doesn't qualify. That's not in any definition of "copy" that I know of. But I really couldn't come up with an example without begging the question, you'd just say that in my example the thing isn't being copied.
I should of course note that photons are what carry the changes in the electromagnetic field of a wire. The photons are just much higher wavelength/lower frequency than visible light, and the photons are carried through a different medium, wires instead of the air. But that's irrelevant. When you create (or direct a machine to create) a material object that embodies the work in a fixed form, by referencing the work or a copy of the work, you've made a copy (or to use the exact terminology of copyright law, you've "reproduce[d] the copyrighted work". It's completely irrelevant whether or not you can "see" the original work.
If I email you a file, can you tell me whether it is an original or a copy? How?
It's a copy, because you can't send the original through email. If you were sending the original through mail, it'd be called snail mail, not email. Email is a "push" medium though, and I would say that the person making the copy is the person who initiates the email, in this case you. Now of course I can initiate the sending of an email to myself, and just because I use your account and your computer to send it doesn't mean you're responsible.
No, asking for a file does not necessarily equate to asking for a copy.
Directing a machine to copy the file does.
Unless I have the original, I can't make a copy.
Why not? If I take a photo of a painting, I've made a copy, but I don't need to "have" the painting to make the copy.
Your logic is equivalent to claiming that browsing the web is a constant copying of copyrighted content.
Well, it is.
I said nothing about public broadcasting.
Broadcasting is by definition public.
The FCC allows FM transmissions up to a certain level (50 mw?), and it's perfectly legal to use that technology to privately broadcast, say from a CD player so you can listen on a radio in another room, (wireless headphones are another example).
That's not broadcasting. A broadcast is a transmission to the public. It's also not distribution, because you're not sending it to someone else, and it's probably not copying. But even if it is any of those things, it's certainly fair use.
Are those illegal?
The devices certainly aren't illegal, and using them in the manner you describe isn't illegal, because it's fair use.
Are you claiming that IP based music streaming, such as the capability offered by Apple iTunes and hardware devices such as an Airport Express or Roku Soundbridge or a Squeezebox constitutes copyright infringement?
If you do it without permission of the copyright holder, and not for some fair use purpose, it's definitely copyright infringement. I can't remember the name of the company right now, but someone was successfully sued for doing exactly that. Apple had to get a license to offer their iTunes service.
How about if it's sent over 802.11?
If it's a broadcast, I believe there are some statutory licenses for digital audio transmission. If not, then you've got to either rely on fair use or get a license.
Is it copyright infringement to play music loudly enough that others can hear it (broadcasting via audio vs. RF)?
If it's not fair use, and you don't have a license, then yes.
What clearly defined distinction is there between loud music and RF transmission and Internet transmission?
There is essentially no distinction between loud music and RF transmission. If you play music in a bar or at a concert, you've got to pay for a public performance license. If you're just playing musically loudly for personal non-profit purposes, you're probably protected under fair use. Same thing with small scale RF transmission. On the other hand, if you're broadcasting to a wide area, then fair use probably doesn't apply, even if you are doing it for non-profit purposes. With internet transmission, the distinction is that it's necessarily a digital audio transmission (RF transmission might be digital, in which case it falls under the digital audio transmission rules).
Making a backup is also making a copy. Are you meaning to say that I don't have the right to use my backup if my original gets destroyed? Next you'll be saying that I can't make a backup of that backup, even after the original is destroyed.
Making a backup copy is fair use. Making a copy for a friend isn't.
the RIAA is filling civil suits in which you can collect DAMAGES, there is no $5 Damages + $149,995 Pain and Suffering.
No, but there are statutory damages.
"Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work."
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
In this case, the law is called copyright, and the act involved is *copying*, not *lending*.
Is it though? I would think the person doing the copying is the downloader, not the uploader. The exclusive right the uploader is infringing is "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"
Is it not equivalent "fair use" to let someone else play a CD I own, whether through loan of the CD itself, or by FM broadcast (using FCC legal levels), or by bits sent via network?
Oh yeah, and there's also an exclusive right given specifically to distribution by rental, lease, or lending.
The machine which sent me the file most likely copied it - reading a file from disk and then sending me bits.
No, the machine, unless it is sentient, didn't copy the file. You copied the file using the machine.
If it's the bits, then (except for fair use) simply playing a CD would be copying, since the bits are read from the CD and copied to RAM and then copied again to a DAC.
As you've answered with your next sentence, that's fair use.
Is it not equivalent "fair use" to let someone else play a CD I own, whether through loan of the CD itself, or by FM broadcast (using FCC legal levels), or by bits sent via network?
Broadcasting is not copying. The law is clear on that point. However, broadcasting is public performance, and broadcasting via the internet is public performance by means of a digital audio transmission, both of which are exclusive rights in addition to copying.