First off, AIM stands for AOL Instant Messenger, so saying it stands for Asshole Insertion Magnet does two things. 1- it makes you sound like uber-troll, and 2- it automatically devalues everything you have to say after that.
Second off- Yes, GAIM formats packets that you send to AOL servers. The key being AOL servers. AOL has the right to accept or reject, and thus far it has been accepting. In the future, if it decides to reject--you've already said it has the right.
The issue isn't anything BUT that. The case we're discussing has two components. 1- the unauthorized use of AOL's network resources by software they don't want on their network. And 2- The unauthorized use of the AOL trademark name. Both of which AOL has the right to use "strongarm" tactics to halt.
By the way... You really like telling people their analogies are bad, don't you?
You can't bring your wife's Mitsubishi to the same Toyota Dealership that you bring your Toyota to for repairs. Toyota would not repair the Mitsubishi, even if you paid the same fees.
Other ISPs are like general car repair places, AOL is specialized. AOL sells their service with their software for a reason. It's their right to decide who gets to connect to it, or not.
Besides, there are other-cheaper-better ways to connect. Why use AOL? Yeez. I agree that AOL should be happy that someone is doing this, but they're not--so end of story. It's their right to decide, even if their decision is a godawfulstupid one.
Except for one thing. It allows the user to connect to AOL, bypassing AOL's software, bypassing AOL's control over their Online Service. It removes advertising, AOL's content, and other parts of the AOL user experience that AOL wants to provide.
If AOL wanted to provide Linux users with their software, they would. If AOL wanted to allow users to dial up to their OSP without using the AOL interface, they would. But they don't.
AOL is an Online Service Provider, not an ISP. They make part of their income off of fleecing companies and convincing them to join up. Anything that allows the end-user to avoid seeing the companies that have joined up, is effectively removing some of the selling power that AOL has.
On top of AOL's aims to provide a specific user experience, and get funding from various companies based on the number of eyes that will see their content, AOL is also required to defend their trademark--otherwise they will lose the right to defend their trademark, and it will become a term that lapses into common usage, thus usable in ways that AOL would not like.
AOLSucks is fine, it's a commentary site. It's non-competitive with AOL, and does not deny that AOL is a trademark. Pengaol is a violation of AOL's rights. Sucks, but it's true.
Actually, it is my problem. The skills I have are devalued because people put things like "MySQL Database Administration, Linux Administration, CCNA, MCSE, etc. etc. HTML, Javascript, etc. etc." on their resumes, even if they have never touched any of these things. So the fact that I DO know my stuff doesn't mean anything anymore, and the certifications I have don't mean anything anymore. Because the 'generation' is a bunch of lying trade-school graduates who don't know a Cat-5 cable from a USB cable.
So it absolutely IS my problem. However, I'm not going to whine about it and say how terrible it is. I'm gonna beef up my resume-writing skills, socialize with people, learn how to appeal to middle management and those doing the hiring, and practice crawling under shelves and into dusty spaces without tearing a hole in my new Business-Stockings, or getting my Business-Blazer-and-Business-Skirt dusty. Ie: I'm gonna learn to play the game, so that if I have to play the game, I'll play it damned good. 'Cuz that's just as valuable these days as technical skills.
That does suck, but guess what--the people who replaced you, with no technical experience, are the next in the long line of unemployed. If they can't do their job, then the bottom of the line is that they will not be able to keep it. If they are somehow able to keep it, then they'll quite likely bring the company down with them. Small consolation.
Yep. If you're not compentent, you don't get a job. If the economy sucks, the companies that do what they do badly fold. (good companies fold, too, unfortunately) and so those who are hiring get a bit more fussy about the skillset.
"Oh, you know HTML and Javascript and not much else? How... Nice... NEXT!"
The generalities I spoke of were the generalities that apply to the "generation" I don't want to be lumped in with. The idiots who did a little bit of something, and who are now approaching 30, and pissed off because they spent a whole 5 years of their life doing a little here and a little there, and expected to become rich off of it. I don't say that "Everyone of this generation is of the stupid wasteful generation"--just that a LARGE percentage of them are. And I dislike how that reflects upon the rest of us.
I don't ridicule the poor hardworking victims. I know a few of them, and I think that it sucks big time that the economy has gone to hell at an unfortunate time in their lives. The ones I ridicule are those who caused part of the problem--the people who went to a trade school for a few months one summer, got certified, and flooded the market with what has become the generalization. "They don't know shit, they can't do shit, they should get paid shit."
My own position is that I've learned enough to survive, and I don't live beyond my means, so if something happens to me and I lose my job, and find myself living on the streets, at least when I whine, it will be less noxious than the whines of people who put themselves 500k in debt with new cars, beer, and parties.
I'm in my 20's, and steadily employed with a job that is pretty much "guaranteed". I make a nice living, and don't PLAN on retiring. (The concept of it bores me.) But will be able to at a decent age, and expect to be able to live nicely after that.
Don't include me in the 'generation', either. The 'generation' that is refered to, for the most part, is all the guys who thought they could learn HTML and have a porsche-mansion-gorgeoussupermodelwife by the time they were 25, and retire at 30 to travel the world.
Yeah, some hard workers and brilliant minds got/are getting burned, but such is life... And for the most part, they realize "such is life". The ones doing the loudest complaining are those who wanted to retire after only working 5-10 years, and spent those 5-10 years buried in booze, women, and various electronic play-toys. I've got a few friends like that, and they spend all their time complaining and don't even look for a job now that they're unemployed. The world was "supposed" to do them a favor, and it didn't.
I hate people who got into tech stuff just because they wanted to become rich. It's like the doctors who don't give a damn about anything but their wallet. I'm happy the market crashed, it weeded out a bunch of the people who were just trying to get rich quick off of vapor-skills.
That was the 60's. Nowadays "Civil Disobedience" is chaining yourself to the gates at the whitehouse with your laptop and wireless connection, forming a wireless network with your geeky brethren, and hacking into the White house's connection to download songs from Gnutella.
An even fight where one party is backed by a law (even one as shifty as the DMCA) and the other is backed by...?
A financially-even fight is a losing fight if one party is backed by legislation. It's dubious that News.com would want to fight that fight, unless they're seeking to overthrow the DMCA. The "Freedom of speech" argument wouldn't really fly here, as they could have just as easily made that link into one that leads to a page DESCRIBING DeCSS. (I would have actually found that more appropriate. I clicked on the link in my needing-caffiene stupor, and was quite surprised to find out that I had just downloaded the software. Imagine my mother following the link.;)
Either way, it's a bit inappropriate for a mainstream publication to provide a direct link to software and not specifically state that it is a direct link to software, and not just a link to a page describing software. Particularly when the software performs an illegal activity. Imagine the panic that someone could feel when they're reading the article, click the link, and are confronted with the fact that they just downloaded something that the article clearly identifies as illegal, and (like most computer users) cannot figure out how to remove it from their system.;)
I doubt that News.com encourages their writers to break laws, even stupid ones like the DMCA. No company wants a writer who is a liability.
I think it's most likely that the author didn't know better. I mean- hey. How many people can keep up with what is and is not a permissable link? You'd think that an author writing about something like that would know, but... Stranger things have happened.
Another possibility is that Author emails article in to work, article is handed off to low-level drudge HTML markup person who enters it into the system and link-ifies anything that looks like it could be a link. Sees "DeCSS.exe" and thinks "Oh. what's that?" does a search for it on Google, finds a link, and enters the link.
I mean... Most authors can't even handle their own proofreading. Who says they create their own links?
More likely News.com will be notified that they are in violation of the DMCA, and asked to cease and desist. Upon recieving notification, the author of the article that linked to DeCSS will be fired and blacklisted. (Or whoever created the link. The author might have nothing to do with it being a link.)
I really believe that if the Most Important Person in the World(tm) himself, ie: the head of the RIAA, were to post a link to DeCSS, the rest of the RIAA would go after him like a herd of rabid bunnies on crack.
That said... Yes. News.com is a more 'valid' publication in the eyes of many than 2600 ever will be, and thus harder to go after for posting legitimate news... But "harder" doesn't mean "impossible". Remember, the RIAA is well-funded by all the CDs they overprice, and all the artists they rip off.
I agree with the Constitution trumping all laws. But not with the DMCA not being a "device".
I haven't read the DMCA (although I printed it out earlier today, and plan on it. Light bedtime reading with a highlighter.;)) so I don't know how it defines 'device', but the Merriam-Webster dictionary has quite a vague description of it, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the DMCA followed suit.
The music industry needs to talk with people who have had their children kidnapped or murdered, and KNOW who did it, but that don't have enough evidence to get an indictment and keep them in jail.
Due process is a bitch, but it's a reality, a necessity, and it's part of the reason people founded this damned country. (refering to the US) The RIAA wants to have super-rights that no one else has, and so far the DMCA has given them those rights. Hopefully the 'masses' will realize that it's not in their best interest, and convince the gov't to rule the DMCA unconstitutional.
Although... Isn't there a catch-22 here? The DMCA is a copyright protection device, ruling it unconstitutional would be circumventing a copyright protection device, thus illegal under the DMCA.
The DMCA isn't about protecting copyright holders. It's about UNFAIRLY protecting copyright holders, and allowing them certain powers that law enforcement, government officials, military, and citizens don't have.
It is worded ambiguously, gives nearly unlimited power to the holders of copyright, and takes away certain civil liberties that USAians have had virtually since the founding of the country.
I'm all for copyright... The DMCA is overboard, though.
The judge isn't saying it's pointless. The judge is merely saying that it is poorly worded, and that it will be hard to come to a decision either way in a timely manner.
This doesn't mean that the judge agrees with it or disagrees with it. Just that the judge doesn't like the way it's worded and would find it hard to rule either way while evaluating it the way judges are supposed to evaluate cases.
Newspaper work has very specific requirements. Quality of the print doesn't need to be amazing--no one will be able to tell the difference once it's in the paper anyway. Color doesn't have to be accurate. Time is essential. Etc.
In similar situations, digital will take over (and has taken over) like a firestorm. In other areas like fine art and advertising, the take-over will be a longer process. Film won't die overnight... And I'm hesitant to say it will ever die. There's something about being in a darkroom that makes even the most digital fanatics long for it. It's an artistic magic that doesn't have a digital equivilent. (Unless you start getting into things like 3D.)
Most professionals are used to paying an arm and a leg for their tools. When you look at pro cameras, $2,000 is not all that much for a camera. Of course, for a good cam you have to go higher than that, but the same is true with traditional film cameras. The biggest differences are with low-end consumer cameras. You can buy a good consumer film-cam for about $20-$50. The same quality digital camera runs more in the thousands range.
As for the lense issue--most cameras over the $900 range have non-fixed lenses. In fact, if I remember correctly--if you buy a Canon with non-fixed lenses and have a traditional Canon camera, the lenses you purchased for your Film-Canon will work with your Digi-Canon.
Depending on your needs, purchasing a new camera and goind digital may or may not make sense. If you have your own darkroom set up and can have your prints ready in not that much time, or if you live around the corner from a cheap 1 hour photo place, then obviously you have far less incentive to go digital. If you work in the advertising business and have clients changing deadlines on you all the time, then digital may make your life far easier.
Actually, it sounds more like the reveiwer is aware that it was for newbies, but disappointed that certain valuable things were not covered. Things that would be of value to anyone using the system, newbie or guru.
One of the things you mentioned (cron) is one of the things he said wasn't covered: "One such command, cron, makes my life easier for handling some tasks on my home computer. It's not even mentioned in this book, nor will you find much information on shell scripting or compiling UNIX code you might happen to find."---it sounds like some of the basic time-saving wonderful command-line tools that we all use are missing from the book.
I hope that they at least included a warning to NEVER type "rm -rf/" =]
As a law student, naturally you would like for everyone to have an attorney on retainer.;)
I would think that better advice would be: Know the law, know your options, and do some shopping every once in a while so that you'll know which attorneys are proficient in different areas, and you'll know how to look when you need one. No need to keep one on retainer... A lot of attorneys will allow you to contact them for consultation for a fee. If you're really worried, take that opportunity.
Personally, I would only worry about a lawyer if I got official notification that I was being taken to court. Too many people jump the gun and cry lawsuit without knowing all the details, and a carefully worded explanation of reality--paired up with links to relevant news items, definitions of terms, and other assorted goodness can most typically get them off your case quite quickly.
People don't like to appear stupid, if you explain things to them in the right terms, then they can walk away feeling a whole lot less stupid than they would otherwise. You don't need a lawyer for that! Chances are you could talk to the guy's lawyer yourself, and get him to reccomend to his client that he drop the suit. Lawyers don't like appearing dumb, either.
Good luck getting a lawyer who will agree to these terms. Lawyers are more likely to agree to jump off a really tall building with a parasol than they are to agree to something that potentially will not make them money.
And the lawyers who would agree to it, are probably not lawyers you would want in most cases.
"Retainer required" is the catch-phrase of the industry.
There's a reason why there are so many lawyer jokes.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, AIM stands for AOL Instant Messenger, so saying it stands for Asshole Insertion Magnet does two things. 1- it makes you sound like uber-troll, and 2- it automatically devalues everything you have to say after that.
Second off- Yes, GAIM formats packets that you send to AOL servers. The key being AOL servers. AOL has the right to accept or reject, and thus far it has been accepting. In the future, if it decides to reject--you've already said it has the right.
The issue isn't anything BUT that. The case we're discussing has two components. 1- the unauthorized use of AOL's network resources by software they don't want on their network. And 2- The unauthorized use of the AOL trademark name. Both of which AOL has the right to use "strongarm" tactics to halt.
By the way... You really like telling people their analogies are bad, don't you?
-Sara
You can't bring your wife's Mitsubishi to the same Toyota Dealership that you bring your Toyota to for repairs. Toyota would not repair the Mitsubishi, even if you paid the same fees.
Other ISPs are like general car repair places, AOL is specialized. AOL sells their service with their software for a reason. It's their right to decide who gets to connect to it, or not.
Besides, there are other-cheaper-better ways to connect. Why use AOL? Yeez. I agree that AOL should be happy that someone is doing this, but they're not--so end of story. It's their right to decide, even if their decision is a godawfulstupid one.
-Sara
Except for one thing. It allows the user to connect to AOL, bypassing AOL's software, bypassing AOL's control over their Online Service. It removes advertising, AOL's content, and other parts of the AOL user experience that AOL wants to provide.
If AOL wanted to provide Linux users with their software, they would. If AOL wanted to allow users to dial up to their OSP without using the AOL interface, they would. But they don't.
AOL is an Online Service Provider, not an ISP. They make part of their income off of fleecing companies and convincing them to join up. Anything that allows the end-user to avoid seeing the companies that have joined up, is effectively removing some of the selling power that AOL has.
On top of AOL's aims to provide a specific user experience, and get funding from various companies based on the number of eyes that will see their content, AOL is also required to defend their trademark--otherwise they will lose the right to defend their trademark, and it will become a term that lapses into common usage, thus usable in ways that AOL would not like.
AOLSucks is fine, it's a commentary site. It's non-competitive with AOL, and does not deny that AOL is a trademark. Pengaol is a violation of AOL's rights. Sucks, but it's true.
-Sara
Actually, it is my problem. The skills I have are devalued because people put things like "MySQL Database Administration, Linux Administration, CCNA, MCSE, etc. etc. HTML, Javascript, etc. etc." on their resumes, even if they have never touched any of these things. So the fact that I DO know my stuff doesn't mean anything anymore, and the certifications I have don't mean anything anymore. Because the 'generation' is a bunch of lying trade-school graduates who don't know a Cat-5 cable from a USB cable.
So it absolutely IS my problem. However, I'm not going to whine about it and say how terrible it is. I'm gonna beef up my resume-writing skills, socialize with people, learn how to appeal to middle management and those doing the hiring, and practice crawling under shelves and into dusty spaces without tearing a hole in my new Business-Stockings, or getting my Business-Blazer-and-Business-Skirt dusty. Ie: I'm gonna learn to play the game, so that if I have to play the game, I'll play it damned good. 'Cuz that's just as valuable these days as technical skills.
-Sara
That does suck, but guess what--the people who replaced you, with no technical experience, are the next in the long line of unemployed. If they can't do their job, then the bottom of the line is that they will not be able to keep it. If they are somehow able to keep it, then they'll quite likely bring the company down with them. Small consolation.
-Sara
Yep. If you're not compentent, you don't get a job. If the economy sucks, the companies that do what they do badly fold. (good companies fold, too, unfortunately) and so those who are hiring get a bit more fussy about the skillset.
"Oh, you know HTML and Javascript and not much else? How... Nice... NEXT!"
-Sara
The generalities I spoke of were the generalities that apply to the "generation" I don't want to be lumped in with. The idiots who did a little bit of something, and who are now approaching 30, and pissed off because they spent a whole 5 years of their life doing a little here and a little there, and expected to become rich off of it. I don't say that "Everyone of this generation is of the stupid wasteful generation"--just that a LARGE percentage of them are. And I dislike how that reflects upon the rest of us.
I don't ridicule the poor hardworking victims. I know a few of them, and I think that it sucks big time that the economy has gone to hell at an unfortunate time in their lives. The ones I ridicule are those who caused part of the problem--the people who went to a trade school for a few months one summer, got certified, and flooded the market with what has become the generalization. "They don't know shit, they can't do shit, they should get paid shit."
My own position is that I've learned enough to survive, and I don't live beyond my means, so if something happens to me and I lose my job, and find myself living on the streets, at least when I whine, it will be less noxious than the whines of people who put themselves 500k in debt with new cars, beer, and parties.
-Sara
I'm in my 20's, and steadily employed with a job that is pretty much "guaranteed". I make a nice living, and don't PLAN on retiring. (The concept of it bores me.) But will be able to at a decent age, and expect to be able to live nicely after that.
Don't include me in the 'generation', either. The 'generation' that is refered to, for the most part, is all the guys who thought they could learn HTML and have a porsche-mansion-gorgeoussupermodelwife by the time they were 25, and retire at 30 to travel the world.
Yeah, some hard workers and brilliant minds got/are getting burned, but such is life... And for the most part, they realize "such is life". The ones doing the loudest complaining are those who wanted to retire after only working 5-10 years, and spent those 5-10 years buried in booze, women, and various electronic play-toys. I've got a few friends like that, and they spend all their time complaining and don't even look for a job now that they're unemployed. The world was "supposed" to do them a favor, and it didn't.
I hate people who got into tech stuff just because they wanted to become rich. It's like the doctors who don't give a damn about anything but their wallet. I'm happy the market crashed, it weeded out a bunch of the people who were just trying to get rich quick off of vapor-skills.
-Sara
That was the 60's. Nowadays "Civil Disobedience" is chaining yourself to the gates at the whitehouse with your laptop and wireless connection, forming a wireless network with your geeky brethren, and hacking into the White house's connection to download songs from Gnutella.
;)
Hmm... How's October 30th?
-Sara
An even fight where one party is backed by a law (even one as shifty as the DMCA) and the other is backed by...?
;)
;)
A financially-even fight is a losing fight if one party is backed by legislation. It's dubious that News.com would want to fight that fight, unless they're seeking to overthrow the DMCA. The "Freedom of speech" argument wouldn't really fly here, as they could have just as easily made that link into one that leads to a page DESCRIBING DeCSS. (I would have actually found that more appropriate. I clicked on the link in my needing-caffiene stupor, and was quite surprised to find out that I had just downloaded the software. Imagine my mother following the link.
Either way, it's a bit inappropriate for a mainstream publication to provide a direct link to software and not specifically state that it is a direct link to software, and not just a link to a page describing software. Particularly when the software performs an illegal activity. Imagine the panic that someone could feel when they're reading the article, click the link, and are confronted with the fact that they just downloaded something that the article clearly identifies as illegal, and (like most computer users) cannot figure out how to remove it from their system.
-Sara
I doubt that News.com encourages their writers to break laws, even stupid ones like the DMCA. No company wants a writer who is a liability.
I think it's most likely that the author didn't know better. I mean- hey. How many people can keep up with what is and is not a permissable link? You'd think that an author writing about something like that would know, but... Stranger things have happened.
Another possibility is that Author emails article in to work, article is handed off to low-level drudge HTML markup person who enters it into the system and link-ifies anything that looks like it could be a link. Sees "DeCSS.exe" and thinks "Oh. what's that?" does a search for it on Google, finds a link, and enters the link.
I mean... Most authors can't even handle their own proofreading. Who says they create their own links?
-Sara
More likely News.com will be notified that they are in violation of the DMCA, and asked to cease and desist. Upon recieving notification, the author of the article that linked to DeCSS will be fired and blacklisted. (Or whoever created the link. The author might have nothing to do with it being a link.)
I really believe that if the Most Important Person in the World(tm) himself, ie: the head of the RIAA, were to post a link to DeCSS, the rest of the RIAA would go after him like a herd of rabid bunnies on crack.
That said... Yes. News.com is a more 'valid' publication in the eyes of many than 2600 ever will be, and thus harder to go after for posting legitimate news... But "harder" doesn't mean "impossible". Remember, the RIAA is well-funded by all the CDs they overprice, and all the artists they rip off.
-Sara
I agree with the Constitution trumping all laws. But not with the DMCA not being a "device".
;)) so I don't know how it defines 'device', but the Merriam-Webster dictionary has quite a vague description of it, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the DMCA followed suit.
I haven't read the DMCA (although I printed it out earlier today, and plan on it. Light bedtime reading with a highlighter.
-Sara
The music industry needs to talk with people who have had their children kidnapped or murdered, and KNOW who did it, but that don't have enough evidence to get an indictment and keep them in jail.
Due process is a bitch, but it's a reality, a necessity, and it's part of the reason people founded this damned country. (refering to the US) The RIAA wants to have super-rights that no one else has, and so far the DMCA has given them those rights. Hopefully the 'masses' will realize that it's not in their best interest, and convince the gov't to rule the DMCA unconstitutional.
Although... Isn't there a catch-22 here? The DMCA is a copyright protection device, ruling it unconstitutional would be circumventing a copyright protection device, thus illegal under the DMCA.
-Sara
The DMCA isn't about protecting copyright holders. It's about UNFAIRLY protecting copyright holders, and allowing them certain powers that law enforcement, government officials, military, and citizens don't have.
It is worded ambiguously, gives nearly unlimited power to the holders of copyright, and takes away certain civil liberties that USAians have had virtually since the founding of the country.
I'm all for copyright... The DMCA is overboard, though.
-Sara
The judge isn't saying it's pointless. The judge is merely saying that it is poorly worded, and that it will be hard to come to a decision either way in a timely manner.
This doesn't mean that the judge agrees with it or disagrees with it. Just that the judge doesn't like the way it's worded and would find it hard to rule either way while evaluating it the way judges are supposed to evaluate cases.
-Sara
And the photoshop generation will be a bunch of hunchbacked-nearsighted radioactive happy-guys, themselves. =]
:p
Either way, it's a dangerous world.
-Sara
Err.. I was refering to the experience, not to the capabilities.
:p
Besides... Some of us LIKE the chemicals.
-Sara
Newspaper work has very specific requirements. Quality of the print doesn't need to be amazing--no one will be able to tell the difference once it's in the paper anyway. Color doesn't have to be accurate. Time is essential. Etc.
In similar situations, digital will take over (and has taken over) like a firestorm. In other areas like fine art and advertising, the take-over will be a longer process. Film won't die overnight... And I'm hesitant to say it will ever die. There's something about being in a darkroom that makes even the most digital fanatics long for it. It's an artistic magic that doesn't have a digital equivilent. (Unless you start getting into things like 3D.)
-Sara
Most professionals are used to paying an arm and a leg for their tools. When you look at pro cameras, $2,000 is not all that much for a camera. Of course, for a good cam you have to go higher than that, but the same is true with traditional film cameras. The biggest differences are with low-end consumer cameras. You can buy a good consumer film-cam for about $20-$50. The same quality digital camera runs more in the thousands range.
As for the lense issue--most cameras over the $900 range have non-fixed lenses. In fact, if I remember correctly--if you buy a Canon with non-fixed lenses and have a traditional Canon camera, the lenses you purchased for your Film-Canon will work with your Digi-Canon.
Depending on your needs, purchasing a new camera and goind digital may or may not make sense. If you have your own darkroom set up and can have your prints ready in not that much time, or if you live around the corner from a cheap 1 hour photo place, then obviously you have far less incentive to go digital. If you work in the advertising business and have clients changing deadlines on you all the time, then digital may make your life far easier.
What it all comes down to is "personal choice".
-Sara
Rich people still get their portraits done... And artists in Central Park, and 34th street make a killing doing caricatures and portraits of tourists.
Not quite dead... Just not as popular as it once was.
-Sara
Not necessarily true. If something exists that is better, then Mac users might use it.
;) Then they'd be on PCs, right? ;)
Err. Oops.
Sorry- couldn't resist.
-Sara
Actually, it sounds more like the reveiwer is aware that it was for newbies, but disappointed that certain valuable things were not covered. Things that would be of value to anyone using the system, newbie or guru.
/" =]
One of the things you mentioned (cron) is one of the things he said wasn't covered: "One such command, cron, makes my life easier for handling some tasks on my home computer. It's not even mentioned in this book, nor will you find much information on shell scripting or compiling UNIX code you might happen to find."---it sounds like some of the basic time-saving wonderful command-line tools that we all use are missing from the book.
I hope that they at least included a warning to NEVER type "rm -rf
-Sara
As a law student, naturally you would like for everyone to have an attorney on retainer. ;)
I would think that better advice would be: Know the law, know your options, and do some shopping every once in a while so that you'll know which attorneys are proficient in different areas, and you'll know how to look when you need one. No need to keep one on retainer... A lot of attorneys will allow you to contact them for consultation for a fee. If you're really worried, take that opportunity.
Personally, I would only worry about a lawyer if I got official notification that I was being taken to court. Too many people jump the gun and cry lawsuit without knowing all the details, and a carefully worded explanation of reality--paired up with links to relevant news items, definitions of terms, and other assorted goodness can most typically get them off your case quite quickly.
People don't like to appear stupid, if you explain things to them in the right terms, then they can walk away feeling a whole lot less stupid than they would otherwise. You don't need a lawyer for that! Chances are you could talk to the guy's lawyer yourself, and get him to reccomend to his client that he drop the suit. Lawyers don't like appearing dumb, either.
-Sara
Uh.
Good luck getting a lawyer who will agree to these terms. Lawyers are more likely to agree to jump off a really tall building with a parasol than they are to agree to something that potentially will not make them money.
And the lawyers who would agree to it, are probably not lawyers you would want in most cases.
"Retainer required" is the catch-phrase of the industry.
There's a reason why there are so many lawyer jokes.
-Sara