Some people use their PCs for several years before buying a new box.
Windows 95, 98, 2000, and XP came out in pretty quick succession. A couple of years ago someone running still running '98/2000 could be easily enticed to install the pirated version of XP they downloaded or were offered from their techie relative/buddy.
He includes a false implication (implying erasing HDs would actually destroy evidence) in his attempt at humor and gets modded up for being funny. I correct him and getting modded as a troll.
Insightful moderation.
It's never the college kids that are downloading illegal copies that are busted (unlike w/ music). It's the kids and adults that contribute to the warez community that provides it for download.
Granted it's not as if the warez community doesn't use the software they steal, but it's because of them that hundreds of people do not purchase a game or software package.
Why anyone should think they ought to get a free ride just because this or that may be percieved as worse does not hold water.
ProVation Medical is the leader in a new industry. They only have a couple "competitors" that can muster a single specialty while ProVation MD spans multiple specialties. They also have partnerships with several big players in the industry like Medtronic and Linvatec.
Yes, if your hobbies include things that you can boast actual accomplishments about (did well at a certain sport, learning sign language is an accomplishment in itself, knowing how to play an instrument) then you have something to talk about. Those show committment to a skill/task and go towards proving your character and worth as an employee.
On the other hand, boasting about your Star Wars/Trek memorabilia collection or your Wayne Gretzky rookie cards isn't necessarily going to get you anywhere (sure there is "committment" involved but not exactly the kind that woos employeers). Not that you should lie if asked in an interview, but since I don't think it really helps (i.e. just takes up space better used for something else), I wouldn't volunteer it on my resume.
I combine my love of hockey (hobby) with the fact that I host/run my own site and am Assistant Commish of an online fantasy hockey league. I'm the webmaster and do other tasks/responsibilities such as interview and hire new GMs.
Of course I feel the need to temper that, especially if spoken about during the interview, by adding in with a few "real world" activities (e.g. season ticket holder) in order to make sure they don't think I just spend 24/7 on the computer.
It all depends on what sort of job you're interviewing for, as well as your ability to impress them with your communication skills. IMO, if you communicate well during the interview, they care a lotless if your resume reeks of "nerd."
Although obviously you still have to get the interview:)
Dont... 1: Try and sound interesting in your Hobbies / Interests section, you'll just come across as a twat. Be honest. And DON'T mention Stanley Kubrick. Everyone does that!
I would agree, unless your hobbies/interests include computer related issues.
This can be especially useful in interviews. In my experience, they like to hear about the wireless LAN you have at home running off a Linux box you built from scratch, etc.
This tells them you're not just some 'tard that went to college and got a degree in computers because everyone lied to you and said there would be guys lined up with bags of money after you graduate. You actually have genuine interest...or so they'll think...
I've bought several games (and/or sequels to games) that I've had "the extended demo" of previously. I've also convinced my friends to buy games that I previously had pirated copies of and enjoyed.
Also, in my personal experience, I would have never payed money for any of the songs/CDs I've downloaded, so the record industry is losing nada off of me.
I grew up on Windows software...that's the exactly reason why I wouldn't recommend it in the corporate world.:)
Teachers should get on the kids' case for it. They do need to learn to read and write "normally" for future development purposes.
However, it should be scolded in the context of simply not being acceptable for assignments. Some computer typing shortcuts are useful and can be used to help kids (e.g. writing notes compactly).
Is your point that Sun's effort will likely only have a short-lived impact?
That may be true, but there is a difference between, back in the day, being locked into entirely different hardware (Mac vs PC) & the software that goes with it vs. just switching ones Office software.
In any event, this is getting way off topic as his original post said...
Fact. The USA has never been to WAR over something that didn't make us money. We have never went to WAR for a GOOD CAUSE.
Perhaps you don't, but I see a difference between doing something to make money (which is what he's saying) and doing something to not lose money (i.e. keep the status quo) or to just plain survive.
And if one doesn't see a difference between making money and keeping the status quo then he has no point because few (if any) wars are fought with the purpose of losing money.
Besides, I'll also point out that wars are good for the economy in general, especially when they're not being fought on your own soil, or even your own hemisphere, and WW2 is what wound up bootstraping the States out of the Depression
Historically this has been true but it's also not a formula for success and therefore I think it holds very little water. I don't think when FDR was pondering whether to declare war on Japan & Germany he was sitting in his wheelchair thinking how great it would be years later to have a better economy at the expense of many thousands of American lives.
But war ALWAYS has economic factors as a very large part of it's core.
If you break it down that way, exactly.
Which is why the original poster I was responding to made little point by saying the US entered war for profit (i.e. when you get down to it, people have a tendency to do things that benefit them, at least in some way).
Yet despite the implications for the possible axis' world domination of the economy (had they won), don't you honestly think the US was far more worried about the implications for the axis' world domination in general. That is, the fact that two very large hostile forces would have no reason not to annihilate them (the US)?
Somehow I think that was a lot more prevalent on peoples' minds than a difficult trading future.
On a side note, I do think you take the delay by the US for declaring war a little skewed. People forget, but the US has historically been extremely unprepared for conflict and the public has also histically been very anti-conflict. President Wilson promised everyone he wouldn't get into WWI and needed those sinkings (more so the death of Americans) in order to sway public opinion and allow himself (via Congress) to declare war in the first place.
I'd not say that, in those two instances, economics was the primary factor, but I'd say they were a major factor.
Perhaps the sinking of oceanliners before WWI can be considered "a major economic factor" (arguable but it's a point).
Yet I don't see where economics became a major factor for entering WWII, unless not wanting to be bombed, invaded and conquered by the Emperialistic Japanese counts. In which case, name any war/conflict that didn't have major economic factors involved...
Every war contains people, land and materials.
But I didn't see the USA entering WWII for profit (to gain materials/land/people). That was about survival.
Russia took half of Germany, and what did we do? We flew in tons of supplies at our own expense, something called the Marshall Plan.
But we were in it to help our economy? For no good reason (Pearl Harbor)?
Not only did we initiate this incident, as someone else previously stated, but more Japanese citizens died because of the incendiary bombing of Toyko than the nuke over Hiroshima.
Of course this doesn't take into consideration the other factors (Japan brought us into the war, we were at war, Japan was beaten but would not surrender, Japan was forewarned of impending doom, and the bombs arguably prevented a mainland invasion estimated at causing 250,000 to 1 million U.S. casualties, not to mention the deaths of all those Japanese kids and women fighting with bambo sticks).
Japan only surrendered because their Emperor (Hirohito) stepped out of his traditional spiritual and political boundaries and forced the stubborn military members of the council to accept it. Even then there was a failed coo attempt to stop his pre-recorded surrender broadcast from airing to the Japanese people.
Uh ok, so I'm getting a little off topic but the point is that "Little Boy" arguably saved more lives than it killed and certainly wasn't any more tragic than some of the other events of War in the Pacific (Tokyo).
Slashdot Mirror
Vizzini: Inconceivable!
I agree that the Supreme Court will likely keep things as is and move on, but once this issue gets to Congress, watch out...
Then it becomes entirely about who is lining whose pockets. The RIAA, with the help of some of its friends, has a decent shot at buying what it wants.
Granted there are opponents w/ money, but the RIAA has proven to be very motivated.
EA probably owns the Shoreline Center, or will by Feb 12th.
That way they can get an idea of which company to buy up next.
Some people use their PCs for several years before buying a new box.
Windows 95, 98, 2000, and XP came out in pretty quick succession. A couple of years ago someone running still running '98/2000 could be easily enticed to install the pirated version of XP they downloaded or were offered from their techie relative/buddy.
Newegg has copies of XP pro for about $150.00 with the purchase of any hardware, which is a far cry from their $300.00 MSRP.
Or you can use your MSDN OS License from work...:)
Does anyone think there will be real conversation taking place or will it simply be a FUDfest?
He includes a false implication (implying erasing HDs would actually destroy evidence) in his attempt at humor and gets modded up for being funny. I correct him and getting modded as a troll.
Insightful moderation.
It's never the college kids that are downloading illegal copies that are busted (unlike w/ music). It's the kids and adults that contribute to the warez community that provides it for download. Granted it's not as if the warez community doesn't use the software they steal, but it's because of them that hundreds of people do not purchase a game or software package. Why anyone should think they ought to get a free ride just because this or that may be percieved as worse does not hold water.
...formatting your HDs was actually destroying evidence.
ProVation Medical is the leader in a new industry. They only have a couple "competitors" that can muster a single specialty while ProVation MD spans multiple specialties. They also have partnerships with several big players in the industry like Medtronic and Linvatec.
the worlds best procedure documentation and coding compliance software is converting to .NET.
www.provationmedical.com
Although there may certainly be some egregious privacy issues found by Google search, he provides little solid evidence.
It seems he was far more concerned with making his 5 cents per word than providing a compelling case.
Obligatory M$ quote: Yeah, because you can't trust your data with anything that you get for free... *lightbulb*
On the other hand, boasting about your Star Wars/Trek memorabilia collection or your Wayne Gretzky rookie cards isn't necessarily going to get you anywhere (sure there is "committment" involved but not exactly the kind that woos employeers). Not that you should lie if asked in an interview, but since I don't think it really helps (i.e. just takes up space better used for something else), I wouldn't volunteer it on my resume.
I combine my love of hockey (hobby) with the fact that I host/run my own site and am Assistant Commish of an online fantasy hockey league. I'm the webmaster and do other tasks/responsibilities such as interview and hire new GMs.
Of course I feel the need to temper that, especially if spoken about during the interview, by adding in with a few "real world" activities (e.g. season ticket holder) in order to make sure they don't think I just spend 24/7 on the computer.
It all depends on what sort of job you're interviewing for, as well as your ability to impress them with your communication skills. IMO, if you communicate well during the interview, they care a lotless if your resume reeks of "nerd."
Although obviously you still have to get the interview :)
I would agree, unless your hobbies/interests include computer related issues.
This can be especially useful in interviews. In my experience, they like to hear about the wireless LAN you have at home running off a Linux box you built from scratch, etc.
This tells them you're not just some 'tard that went to college and got a degree in computers because everyone lied to you and said there would be guys lined up with bags of money after you graduate. You actually have genuine interest...or so they'll think...
Also, in my personal experience, I would have never payed money for any of the songs/CDs I've downloaded, so the record industry is losing nada off of me.
I grew up on Windows software...that's the exactly reason why I wouldn't recommend it in the corporate world. :)
But your warez XP will run a warez XP SP. Trust me on this ;)
However, it should be scolded in the context of simply not being acceptable for assignments. Some computer typing shortcuts are useful and can be used to help kids (e.g. writing notes compactly).
No. That's why I said "good for them."
Is your point that Sun's effort will likely only have a short-lived impact?
That may be true, but there is a difference between, back in the day, being locked into entirely different hardware (Mac vs PC) & the software that goes with it vs. just switching ones Office software.
It's difficult not to say, good for them.
In any event, this is getting way off topic as his original post said...
Perhaps you don't, but I see a difference between doing something to make money (which is what he's saying) and doing something to not lose money (i.e. keep the status quo) or to just plain survive.
And if one doesn't see a difference between making money and keeping the status quo then he has no point because few (if any) wars are fought with the purpose of losing money.
If you break it down that way, exactly.
Which is why the original poster I was responding to made little point by saying the US entered war for profit (i.e. when you get down to it, people have a tendency to do things that benefit them, at least in some way).
Yet despite the implications for the possible axis' world domination of the economy (had they won), don't you honestly think the US was far more worried about the implications for the axis' world domination in general. That is, the fact that two very large hostile forces would have no reason not to annihilate them (the US)?
Somehow I think that was a lot more prevalent on peoples' minds than a difficult trading future.
On a side note, I do think you take the delay by the US for declaring war a little skewed. People forget, but the US has historically been extremely unprepared for conflict and the public has also histically been very anti-conflict. President Wilson promised everyone he wouldn't get into WWI and needed those sinkings (more so the death of Americans) in order to sway public opinion and allow himself (via Congress) to declare war in the first place.
The same goes for WWII and Pearl Harbor.
Perhaps the sinking of oceanliners before WWI can be considered "a major economic factor" (arguable but it's a point).
Yet I don't see where economics became a major factor for entering WWII, unless not wanting to be bombed, invaded and conquered by the Emperialistic Japanese counts. In which case, name any war/conflict that didn't have major economic factors involved...
Every war contains people, land and materials.
But I didn't see the USA entering WWII for profit (to gain materials/land/people). That was about survival.
Russia took half of Germany, and what did we do? We flew in tons of supplies at our own expense, something called the Marshall Plan.
But we were in it to help our economy? For no good reason (Pearl Harbor)?
Not only did we initiate this incident, as someone else previously stated, but more Japanese citizens died because of the incendiary bombing of Toyko than the nuke over Hiroshima.
Of course this doesn't take into consideration the other factors (Japan brought us into the war, we were at war, Japan was beaten but would not surrender, Japan was forewarned of impending doom, and the bombs arguably prevented a mainland invasion estimated at causing 250,000 to 1 million U.S. casualties, not to mention the deaths of all those Japanese kids and women fighting with bambo sticks).
Japan only surrendered because their Emperor (Hirohito) stepped out of his traditional spiritual and political boundaries and forced the stubborn military members of the council to accept it. Even then there was a failed coo attempt to stop his pre-recorded surrender broadcast from airing to the Japanese people.
Uh ok, so I'm getting a little off topic but the point is that "Little Boy" arguably saved more lives than it killed and certainly wasn't any more tragic than some of the other events of War in the Pacific (Tokyo).