I suspect it would be pretty difficult to find anything in the constitution that would go against using money from a bill that passed Congress to do what the bill specified.
Try the Tenth Amendment.
I'm not a Constitutional expert, but Article 1 section 8 gives the Congress the right to collect taxes to use "for the general welfare of the United States", so that wouldn't fall under the tenth amendment (which reserves rights NOT spelled out in the Constitution to the states). There are clearly limits on what Congress can do, but using taxes to invest in the economy doesn't seem to be one of them.
What you fail to take into account, is that every dollar the government "invests" is forcible extracted from someone who earned it. By trying to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace, the government distorts the market and creates inefficiencies.
-jcr
So your argument is against all taxation and government spending? American society has organized itself so that we elect representatives who determine how much and for what purpose tax money is collected. If you disagree you campaign against them and try to get them removed from office; failing that your only other options are to refuse to pay taxes (in which case you will go to jail), or to move elsewhere. If you agree to stay here and don't want to be prosecuted for tax evasion then the "forcible extraction" argument is a tough one to make. There are numerous countries around the world where you can live without paying taxes or dealing with a government (Somalia jumps to mind) but there are clearly trade-offs in not having basic services and security in those countries, both of which are benefits of money that (in your words) is "forcibly extracted" from citizens.
Then by all means, invest your money if you think it's worth doing. Using tax money for this is immoral, not to mention unconstitutional.
-jcr
I'm not sure if "unconstitutional" was a typo or not, but I suspect it would be pretty difficult to find anything in the constitution that would go against using money from a bill that passed Congress to do what the bill specified.
As to immoral, is the assumption that using taxpayer money for anything other than core government services (defense, courts, etc) is immoral? From a "get back to basics" standpoint the argument against using ANY taxpayer money for anything other than these core things would make sense, but otherwise I think it's fair to say that the role of government has evolved to include acting as an incubator for future economic success. NASA is not a core service, but it is kept alive because of the technology it generates (amongst other reasons). College loans are not a core government service, but the US benefits greatly from having an educated workforce. Similarly, providing incentives to automakers to develop new technologies drives the industry in a direction that offers great potential benefit, and I'm personally excited that the government is actually including smaller companies that could potentially change old industries in some of the most recent programs. Tesla may not succeed, but if they do then this $400 million loan may some day be regarded as one of the best uses of taxpayer money that the government has ever committed to. Provided you can include investing in the economy among the roles that the US government has then this would seem to be a very "moral" use of taxpayer money.
I should have clarified - I'm not suggesting that everyone run out and add graphics to the latest open source video game when they're trying to get a job building tax software, but I do think it's important to get involved with a project that you actually want to be involved with, otherwise you'll lose interest and probably not make any meaningful contribution. Most people won't want to do something that feels like work for several months, which is probably the minimum time required to help the project and gain useful experience. If instead they are working on something that they feel interested in they are more likely to contribute regularly over time and gain a deeper understanding.
Your point about contributing to a project that involves marketable skills is well made, but there are enough projects out there that it should be possible to find something that requires valuable skills while also being interesting work. It's important to show experience that demonstrates that you did more than just try to tick off another box on a resume, and I think that only by contributing to something that you can be involved with will a person achieve that goal.
As others have indicated, first find a project that interests you - don't work on something simply to get it on your resume, but work on it because you find it useful and interesting. Second, start by downloading and compiling the code; in many cases this will force a developer to gain some familiarity with a build system or version control system they might not otherwise have used. Third, play around with things to get some understanding of the code - add a "hello world" here and there. Join the mailing list, introduce yourself, and ask questions.
Finally, start going through the bug tracker and trying to fix or at least add more information to bugs. As you gain greater familiarity you can try adding features. It won't be an overnight process to become a part of a project, but if you demonstrate some commitment it will help you, help the project, and reflect well in job interviews.
Lie on your resume...but you better be able to keep the job once you have it.
REALLY bad idea. A competent interviewer will catch this, and if you came through a recruiter, when the recruiter follows up to say "how did it go" the feedback won't be good. Recruiters don't want to piss off companies, so you won't be working with that recruiter again.
If you don't go through a recruiter (and if it's been two years then you should consider finding one) then at best you won't get the job and won't be considered if an opening occurs in the future. At worst people will talk and there will be a number of other openings that aren't available to you.
Lying on your resume may work in some rare cases, especially if you're interviewing directly with an HR person who doesn't know better. But if you're interviewing with technical people, and you probably will be, odds are that they'll figure it out. Just don't do it.
"So join an open source project and do some real world programming."
Mod the parent up - without significant experience no one will hire you. When the company I work at is hiring people we generally get a ton of resumes, most of which are an alphabet soup of people who read a lot of O'Reilly books. In an interview it becomes apparent very quickly who actually understands the technology and who has merely crammed a bunch of knowledge. By joining an open source project you'll get some real-world experience that will force you to dig deep into a project, to make decisions about how best to solve a design problem, and force you to work with tools and technologies like Subversion, Tomcat, automated testing frameworks, etc.
In addition, when there are multiple candidates that are qualified for a job (and with the current economy there usually are) a company has the luxury of hiring people that are easy to work with, so make a good impression in the interview. Be friendly, be well groomed, and show some social skills. This aspect of an interview may not seem that important, but if you don't have strong experience then you'll need whatever help you can get, and making sure you project yourself as someone that people want to work with is a huge advantage.
Last of all, how are you looking for jobs? Consider asking friends for recommendations or going through a recruiter rather than just posting on Monster. Have a look at sites like dice.com - those are usually contract positions, but many companies will hire someone on a short contract and offer them a full-time job if things work out. If you really want a new job in today's economy try every possible avenue you can find and eventually one will pan out.
"In interviews it's very easy to figure out who learned Java simply to put it on a resume and who actually knows how to use the language, and the submitter seems like the latter."
Dammit, that should read "seems like the former". I even previewed...
"Come on now. I'm getting tired of all the "I'm thinking of learning $fooCommonThing and I need Slashdot to spoon feed me Google results." type questions."
As someone who has interviewed and hired a lot of Java developers I'd tend to agree with the parent. In interviews it's very easy to figure out who learned Java simply to put it on a resume and who actually knows how to use the language, and the submitter seems like the latter. Rather than setting out to put Java on your resume, pick a project, find the best tools, and then put that on your resume. For example, set up a personal web site and create a Java message board - you'll probably learn a bit of JSP, Tomcat setup, and JDBC in the process. Alternatively, set a goal of contributing to any one of the ten bazillion open source Java projects out there, or find some other project that interests you. But don't come on Slashdot and basically say "I want to get Java on my resume" - every resume I see has "Java" on it, and it's easy to tell the folks who have experience doing something with Java from those who read a couple of O'Reilly books thinking it would get them a job.
Greenpeace is to the environment and public safety as Pat Robertson is to Christianity.
This is a hugely important insight. Groups that are on the extreme in the environmental movement such as Greenpeace have unfortunately come to be the image that the general public thinks of when they think of environmentalism, despite the fact that many environmental groups are much more moderate; just one example (among many) is the Nature Conservancy, which makes a point of partnering with hunters, fisherman, loggers, ranchers and other groups that are typically viewed as "enemies" by the more extreme elements in the environmental movement.
Unfortunately the habit of stereotyping a group by its most extreme elements is common today. When people think of Republicans they think of Dick Cheney and John Boehner, not the Governator or John Warner; when they think of Democrats they think of Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi, not Jim Webb or Joe Biden.
Extremist make it much easier to discredit an entire movement, but just because a group like Greenpeace is making a huge racket about Apple as a publicity stunt (and that's what this is) doesn't mean that groups arguing for clean air, clean water, and open space are all fringe whackos. The same applies to politics, business, etc - despite the occasional extremist, on the whole the world contains much more of a nuanced mix than most people acknowledge, and taking the time to look past the fringe and towards the center can go a long way towards helping us all find some common ground.
The dispute is over whether copyright is a natural right, in the Enlightenment sense of Kant, Hobbes, Locke, and Rosseau.
Insomuch as life, liberty and property are natural rights it seems that my right to control my own creations (my property) would be a natural right. If I write a book, it's my property and I don't have to share it. No one else has a natural right (or any other right) to something that would not have existed had I not created it. The fine line is whether I have any right to choose how I share my property, and society has chosen to say that I do have that right. Whether that's a natural right is up to debate, but it is a right bestowed on me by society as an incentive to share my creations with others.
Abolishing copyright abolishes the ability to enforce GPL
Agreed. The linked article seems to me to be trying to defend theft of the hard work of others, and that's not cool. We live in a world that has decided it is beneficial to encourage people to create, and to do so creators are given the right to control their creations for a limited time. As a content creator, that is my right. If I create something and tell people they can use it under certain conditions, they have the choice to use my work or not to use it. That is their right. They don't have the right to take something that I've put days, weeks or years of effort into without the risk of legal consequences.
From the article:
Notice the rhetorical sleight-of-hand there: he presents copy control as a natural and uncontroversial "right" -- and then accuses his targets of simply not understanding (or refusing to admit) that copyright entails that right! But it is precisely this so-called "right" that copyright doubters are questioning in the first place. If he wants to argue that it should be a right, that's fine, but instead he just asserts the right as though it's a fact of nature, beyond reasonable dispute. And again, he conflates control of distribution with acknowledgement of authorship.
This misses the point entirely. In the world in which we live the law is that it is not your right to take something that I've created and made available to you, unless you agree to my terms of use. You either agree to my terms and use my work, you don't use my work, or you can choose to steal it and face possible consequences. That's what we've agreed on by living in society - we're all playing by the same rules. If you don't like the rules you can work to change them or find somewhere else to live. In the mean time I control work that I create. That's it. There isn't any misunderstanding here. If people want to change the laws they can do so, but until they do copyright is a right that is given to all content creators.
Well, imagine that you're a scientist being paid by the Sierra club to do global warming research, and you turn around and say to them "well, sorry guys, but it turns out all this global warming is actually just a product of increased solar activity".
As a member of the Sierra Club, if such a study was done and proven to be valid I think everyone would be extraordinarily happy. That said, if such a study was completed and then quickly de-bunked, that scientist would be (correctly) asked to do his job for someone else.
There seems to be a misconception that environmental groups are somehow capitalizing on global warming, and while much of their fundraising is currently promosted as "help fight global warming", there are no shortage of other environmental issues that they could use to raise money. It just so happens that global warming is seen as the number one long-term threat to the environment. Environmental groups aren't PRO global warming, they are trying to get the rest of society to do something to STOP it.
Agreed. The single best advice I've ever seen on comments comes from the Linux Kernel Coding Style guideline:
Comments are good, but there is also a danger of over-commenting. Never try to explain how your code works in a comment: it's much better to write the code so that the working is obvious, and it's a waste of time to explain badly written code.
Generally, you want your comments to tell what your code does, not how. Also, try to avoid putting comments inside a function body: if the function is so complex that you need to separately comment parts of it, you should probably go back to chapter 4 for a while. You can make small comments to note or warn about something particularly clever (or ugly), but try to avoid excess. Instead, put the comments at the head of the function, telling people what it does, and possibly why it does it.
And for the people that have posted that comments are unnecessary, try working on a team when the software being developed is going to be modified and extended over a period of years, and see if you still think comments are unnecessary. When your eyes are bleeding from spending several hours trying to figure out the what and why of thousands of lines of code written by inexperienced programmers you will offer sacrifices at the alter of well commented code.
I'd definitely like to own one -- more pixels, less image noise, turns on/wakes up faster, etc., etc. Of course, if money were no option I'd get the 1Ds Mark II and be shooting 16.6 million pixels. If money were no option.
Still, the 10D and its 6.3 million pixels produces shots that are good enough for magazine publication, and I like it way more than the film cameras I've owned. In another ten years we'll probably all be shooting with cameras that capture 50 million pixels and the 10D will seem like a dinosaur, but for the moment it's helped me to shoot some of the best photos I've ever taken.
They gain the most benefit by locking you into a certain piece of software and forcing you along their upgrade path.
Just to nitpick a bit, most of the professional photographers I know use the various plugins to Photoshop to work with RAW images, so technically they aren't being forced into an upgrade path by the camera manufacturers. I personally use a Canon 10D, and the Canon software is so awful that I always use other tools to convert and manipulate the images.
I fully agree with your point that it would be better if the camera manufacturers fully opened up their file formats, and I fail to see how keeping them closed provides them an actual competetive advantage. However, so long as there is no constraint against converting RAW images to another lossless format I'm not sure that this is a battle in which the camera companies can be accused of trying to pull a fast one on consumers; I think it's merely a case where they need to be educated about the further benefits of opening up their formats (ie open source developers can build free tools, etc).
And thus Google will control the design, content and other things... HELP... they are taking over the internet
Nice. Google proposes a way to help web site administrators have a bit more control over how their site is perceived by a search engine, releases this proposal under an open source license, and at least a few people on slashdot accuse them of (*pinky to corner of mouth*) taking over the internet.
Most of Google's recent actions have been good things -- sponsoring open source developers for the summer, proposing ways for site administrators to provide additional info about their site, and implementing a "nofollow" option to prevent spammers trying to increase their page ranking. However, if they constantly get criticized and second-guessed for doing good things, what incentive do they have to continue? If you give a charity $20 and they criticize you for not giving them $30, are ever going to give anything to that charity again?
Let's give Google the benefit of the doubt. Just like a person, they'll probably make some mistakes, but like a person I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong. Some corporations do actually do good things and still manage to be successful, and in those cases they should be supported, not attacked.
One thing I've noticed about free software that differs vastly from the projects I've worked on in the commercial world is that with free software there is usually a push to do something right, even if it means waiting a while for a feature. With the bounties I've seen thus far, the mentality seems to be the commercial "do it as quickly as possible" idea. Granted, a lot of the bounties are for stuff no one really wants to do, so something is probably better than nothing, but it might also be nice to have rewards for those who do things well.
Tasks like removing dead code, simplifying existing code, etc are tasks that the commercial world seldom does with its software ("if it ain't broke...") but it's something that keeps open source code maintainable. It might be a good idea to set up some of these bounties in terms of rewards, such that projects could once a year give something to people who not only added features to a project, but who improved the quality of a project. The bounties going out now are great, but expanding them to support quality and innovation would be really, really great.
>You biggest mistake is...... Linux is NOT Windows
And your biggest mistake is thinking that most people care if they're using Linux, Windows, or any other operating system. I could care less whether Linux has Windows features or vice versa, as long as it offers some way of doing things that are useful to me. If one desktop makes software installation easier, that's a plus, no matter what desktop it may be. If one makes it easier to get my work done, no matter how it does it, that's a plus. If one allows me to work without feeling guilty about supporting a company whose business practices are unethical, another plus. In the end most users add up the pluses and go with the one that they feel offers the most.
My original posting about KDE vs. Gnome vs. Windows was just meant to provide some insight on one person's opinion of the various desktops, and hopefully spark some intelligent conversation. Apologies to those who thought I was trolling or trying to denigrate something they believe in, but for those who did take offense, keep in mind that even topics that are typically fodder for flamewars can be discussed rationally, and those discussions are often quite interesting for both sides involved.
>I think that this is a Debian problem rather than a gnome problem.
My point was that this is a Linux desktop problem -- to install software in Windows I download a single file, run it, and when all is said and done the software is installed, there is an uninstall link in the control panel, and I can run the software by choosing it from the list of programs in the Start menu. While this is sometimes possible with Linux desktops, often even when a deb or RPM is available it may not install in an obvious way, and when the deb/RPM is not available, good luck.
The Linux desktops will solve this issue eventually, but Windows has a big advantage currently. Also, to the poster who said installed apps would be under the "Debian" menu, that wasn't always true. It's been more than a month since I tried and I can't remember the specific examples (there were several, and they were obvious packages), but I was confused after installing some new desktop apps and then not seeing them anywhere in either the Debian or Gnome menus.
Re:Future viability in question?
on
Gnome 2.10 Released
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I attempted to use KDE on my laptop recently because it felt more refined to me than Gnome. The menus that came up seemed to offer a more intuitive way of doing things, and the system as a whole just felt more polished. I got the sense that someone was working to make sure that the KDE experience had some consistency to it, which was much appreciated.
But I still wasn't as happy with the KDE desktop as I had been with Windows XP, so I figured I'd give Gnome a shot. After all, it had things like Beagle and Dashboard that sounded pretty cool. Plus, Hula and several other new applications were all being announced for Gnome. But I found that for a new user, there wasn't the same consistency to the Gnome experience as there was with KDE. Lots of things seemed (to me) to work differently from app to app. Changing settings could be done lots of different ways, it wasn't always clear what the preferred method of doing something was (true for the file manager, getting help, etc).
Consistency issues aside, my biggest difficulty with each of the desktops was that there wasn't an easy way to install new software. I use Debian, and apt-get is great, but half the time after choosing to install something new I couldn't find it by looking through the menus. I never even tried installing something that didn't have a Debian package, but can imagine it would have been pretty evil. I realize that the LSB and freedesktop.org are working to improve this situation, but at the moment Windows is worlds ahead with its simple software installations.
So in the end I went back to Windows XP for my desktop; I'm comfortable with it, it is stable (I've had fewer crashes/lockups with XP than I did with either Gnome or KDE), and I'm smart enough to be able to deal with the spyware & viruses. I still use Linux on my web server, and will try the Linux desktops again in the future, but for now I'll go with the evil empire simply because I like the product better. True, had I spent more time learning to use the Linux desktops I might have eventually preferred one of them, but for now the comfort factor just wasn't high enough to make me feel it was worth investing the effort.
>Say he has ~50 more years to live. How much will it >cost him to receive a deep-tissue massage >once/week, every week, for 50 years?
This is the gray area that is currently being exploited in the U.S. courts. There are two sides to it: for one, the guy might have more out-of-pocket expenses and potentially lower earnings as a result of the injury. Alternatively, where do you draw the line? Who's to say that he's actually going to live fifty more years and get a weekly deep tissue massage?
Reading through the discussion thus far, the idea of "loser pays" is great except that it makes it possible for a wealthy individual to use the threat of massive legal expenditures to intimidate the plaintiff. The option of vastly limiting the claim amounts is a good one, but there is a strong sympathy argument against that.
Who knows... maybe an alternative would be to give judges a much stronger authority to reject cases or to set damage amounts. Thus a judge could review a case when it is filed, and toss it immediately if it is without merit. You could potentially allow the case to be refiled with another judge... I'm just babbling now I guess; it sounds like no country currently has an ideal solution to this issue.
Are legal fees capped in some way? If someone is sued and decides to spend millions defending themselves, could the other party possibly be liable for the whole bill? It seems to me that any large corporation could then bully its way out of legitimate lawsuits by threatening to spend huge amounts.
Are payouts perhaps capped to an amount equal to the plaintiff's legal fees? Thus if I spend $10,000 on a case, but the defendent spends $2 million, I would be liable for only $10,000? Alternatively, if a ceiling was set for legal fees (perhaps $x dollars per day the case goes on), I would be liable only up to that ceiling?
Do other countries have frivilous lawsuits of this sort, or is it primarily a US-only thing? The idea that you can get rich by suing someone, or that misfortune entitles you to not just fair compensation but riches, is one that I wish could be changed. As an example of how these suits affect me personally, I hate that my health insurance costs are so high; perhaps the costs aren't all due to malpractice suits, but they definitely make up a significant part of it.
One thought I've had as to how these suits could be curbed is to allow judges in civil cases to set a bond, similar to what is done in criminal cases. Since lawyers currently take any case based on the fact that they get a (large) percentage of the settlement, there is no cost to sue, and a huge cost to defend. The person bringing the suit would have to put up the bond, and they would get it back when the case was settled or went to jury. If the case was later thrown out by the judge then the bond would not be returned, and might even go to the defendent to help with legal costs. In cases where obvious harm was done the judge could set the bond very low, but for trivial suits this could become a disincentive for bringing the suit in the first case.
Does any other country do this? How do other countries prevent frivilous lawsuits?
Actually I think I'm right. Employees aren't 100% productive. That's life. I would bet that 2.8 minutes is statistically negligible in terms of total time a person spends not 100% focused on their job each day. And even in your laser printer example, if I spend an hour not working because the laser printer is down, as long as I still complete the same amount of work that I would have completed had the printer been up, that laser printer outage did not cost the company any of my productivity for the day.
If spam gets so bad that a person has to factor in additional time in their day to deal with it, that's another issue. But the study's conclusion that 2.8 minutes, spread throughout the day, totals a loss to the economy of $22 billion, is misleading.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect it would be pretty difficult to find anything in the constitution that would go against using money from a bill that passed Congress to do what the bill specified.
Try the Tenth Amendment.
I'm not a Constitutional expert, but Article 1 section 8 gives the Congress the right to collect taxes to use "for the general welfare of the United States", so that wouldn't fall under the tenth amendment (which reserves rights NOT spelled out in the Constitution to the states). There are clearly limits on what Congress can do, but using taxes to invest in the economy doesn't seem to be one of them.
What you fail to take into account, is that every dollar the government "invests" is forcible extracted from someone who earned it. By trying to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace, the government distorts the market and creates inefficiencies.
-jcr
So your argument is against all taxation and government spending? American society has organized itself so that we elect representatives who determine how much and for what purpose tax money is collected. If you disagree you campaign against them and try to get them removed from office; failing that your only other options are to refuse to pay taxes (in which case you will go to jail), or to move elsewhere. If you agree to stay here and don't want to be prosecuted for tax evasion then the "forcible extraction" argument is a tough one to make. There are numerous countries around the world where you can live without paying taxes or dealing with a government (Somalia jumps to mind) but there are clearly trade-offs in not having basic services and security in those countries, both of which are benefits of money that (in your words) is "forcibly extracted" from citizens.
Then by all means, invest your money if you think it's worth doing. Using tax money for this is immoral, not to mention unconstitutional.
-jcr
I'm not sure if "unconstitutional" was a typo or not, but I suspect it would be pretty difficult to find anything in the constitution that would go against using money from a bill that passed Congress to do what the bill specified.
As to immoral, is the assumption that using taxpayer money for anything other than core government services (defense, courts, etc) is immoral? From a "get back to basics" standpoint the argument against using ANY taxpayer money for anything other than these core things would make sense, but otherwise I think it's fair to say that the role of government has evolved to include acting as an incubator for future economic success. NASA is not a core service, but it is kept alive because of the technology it generates (amongst other reasons). College loans are not a core government service, but the US benefits greatly from having an educated workforce. Similarly, providing incentives to automakers to develop new technologies drives the industry in a direction that offers great potential benefit, and I'm personally excited that the government is actually including smaller companies that could potentially change old industries in some of the most recent programs. Tesla may not succeed, but if they do then this $400 million loan may some day be regarded as one of the best uses of taxpayer money that the government has ever committed to. Provided you can include investing in the economy among the roles that the US government has then this would seem to be a very "moral" use of taxpayer money.
I should have clarified - I'm not suggesting that everyone run out and add graphics to the latest open source video game when they're trying to get a job building tax software, but I do think it's important to get involved with a project that you actually want to be involved with, otherwise you'll lose interest and probably not make any meaningful contribution. Most people won't want to do something that feels like work for several months, which is probably the minimum time required to help the project and gain useful experience. If instead they are working on something that they feel interested in they are more likely to contribute regularly over time and gain a deeper understanding.
Your point about contributing to a project that involves marketable skills is well made, but there are enough projects out there that it should be possible to find something that requires valuable skills while also being interesting work. It's important to show experience that demonstrates that you did more than just try to tick off another box on a resume, and I think that only by contributing to something that you can be involved with will a person achieve that goal.
As others have indicated, first find a project that interests you - don't work on something simply to get it on your resume, but work on it because you find it useful and interesting. Second, start by downloading and compiling the code; in many cases this will force a developer to gain some familiarity with a build system or version control system they might not otherwise have used. Third, play around with things to get some understanding of the code - add a "hello world" here and there. Join the mailing list, introduce yourself, and ask questions.
Finally, start going through the bug tracker and trying to fix or at least add more information to bugs. As you gain greater familiarity you can try adding features. It won't be an overnight process to become a part of a project, but if you demonstrate some commitment it will help you, help the project, and reflect well in job interviews.
Lie on your resume...but you better be able to keep the job once you have it.
REALLY bad idea. A competent interviewer will catch this, and if you came through a recruiter, when the recruiter follows up to say "how did it go" the feedback won't be good. Recruiters don't want to piss off companies, so you won't be working with that recruiter again.
If you don't go through a recruiter (and if it's been two years then you should consider finding one) then at best you won't get the job and won't be considered if an opening occurs in the future. At worst people will talk and there will be a number of other openings that aren't available to you.
Lying on your resume may work in some rare cases, especially if you're interviewing directly with an HR person who doesn't know better. But if you're interviewing with technical people, and you probably will be, odds are that they'll figure it out. Just don't do it.
Mod the parent up - without significant experience no one will hire you. When the company I work at is hiring people we generally get a ton of resumes, most of which are an alphabet soup of people who read a lot of O'Reilly books. In an interview it becomes apparent very quickly who actually understands the technology and who has merely crammed a bunch of knowledge. By joining an open source project you'll get some real-world experience that will force you to dig deep into a project, to make decisions about how best to solve a design problem, and force you to work with tools and technologies like Subversion, Tomcat, automated testing frameworks, etc.
In addition, when there are multiple candidates that are qualified for a job (and with the current economy there usually are) a company has the luxury of hiring people that are easy to work with, so make a good impression in the interview. Be friendly, be well groomed, and show some social skills. This aspect of an interview may not seem that important, but if you don't have strong experience then you'll need whatever help you can get, and making sure you project yourself as someone that people want to work with is a huge advantage.
Last of all, how are you looking for jobs? Consider asking friends for recommendations or going through a recruiter rather than just posting on Monster. Have a look at sites like dice.com - those are usually contract positions, but many companies will hire someone on a short contract and offer them a full-time job if things work out. If you really want a new job in today's economy try every possible avenue you can find and eventually one will pan out.
Dammit, that should read "seems like the former". I even previewed...
As someone who has interviewed and hired a lot of Java developers I'd tend to agree with the parent. In interviews it's very easy to figure out who learned Java simply to put it on a resume and who actually knows how to use the language, and the submitter seems like the latter. Rather than setting out to put Java on your resume, pick a project, find the best tools, and then put that on your resume. For example, set up a personal web site and create a Java message board - you'll probably learn a bit of JSP, Tomcat setup, and JDBC in the process. Alternatively, set a goal of contributing to any one of the ten bazillion open source Java projects out there, or find some other project that interests you. But don't come on Slashdot and basically say "I want to get Java on my resume" - every resume I see has "Java" on it, and it's easy to tell the folks who have experience doing something with Java from those who read a couple of O'Reilly books thinking it would get them a job.
This is a hugely important insight. Groups that are on the extreme in the environmental movement such as Greenpeace have unfortunately come to be the image that the general public thinks of when they think of environmentalism, despite the fact that many environmental groups are much more moderate; just one example (among many) is the Nature Conservancy, which makes a point of partnering with hunters, fisherman, loggers, ranchers and other groups that are typically viewed as "enemies" by the more extreme elements in the environmental movement.
Unfortunately the habit of stereotyping a group by its most extreme elements is common today. When people think of Republicans they think of Dick Cheney and John Boehner, not the Governator or John Warner; when they think of Democrats they think of Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi, not Jim Webb or Joe Biden.
Extremist make it much easier to discredit an entire movement, but just because a group like Greenpeace is making a huge racket about Apple as a publicity stunt (and that's what this is) doesn't mean that groups arguing for clean air, clean water, and open space are all fringe whackos. The same applies to politics, business, etc - despite the occasional extremist, on the whole the world contains much more of a nuanced mix than most people acknowledge, and taking the time to look past the fringe and towards the center can go a long way towards helping us all find some common ground.
The dispute is over whether copyright is a natural right, in the Enlightenment sense of Kant, Hobbes, Locke, and Rosseau.
Insomuch as life, liberty and property are natural rights it seems that my right to control my own creations (my property) would be a natural right. If I write a book, it's my property and I don't have to share it. No one else has a natural right (or any other right) to something that would not have existed had I not created it. The fine line is whether I have any right to choose how I share my property, and society has chosen to say that I do have that right. Whether that's a natural right is up to debate, but it is a right bestowed on me by society as an incentive to share my creations with others.
Agreed. The linked article seems to me to be trying to defend theft of the hard work of others, and that's not cool. We live in a world that has decided it is beneficial to encourage people to create, and to do so creators are given the right to control their creations for a limited time. As a content creator, that is my right. If I create something and tell people they can use it under certain conditions, they have the choice to use my work or not to use it. That is their right. They don't have the right to take something that I've put days, weeks or years of effort into without the risk of legal consequences.
From the article:
This misses the point entirely. In the world in which we live the law is that it is not your right to take something that I've created and made available to you, unless you agree to my terms of use. You either agree to my terms and use my work, you don't use my work, or you can choose to steal it and face possible consequences. That's what we've agreed on by living in society - we're all playing by the same rules. If you don't like the rules you can work to change them or find somewhere else to live. In the mean time I control work that I create. That's it. There isn't any misunderstanding here. If people want to change the laws they can do so, but until they do copyright is a right that is given to all content creators.
Well, imagine that you're a scientist being paid by the Sierra club to do global warming research, and you turn around and say to them "well, sorry guys, but it turns out all this global warming is actually just a product of increased solar activity".
As a member of the Sierra Club, if such a study was done and proven to be valid I think everyone would be extraordinarily happy. That said, if such a study was completed and then quickly de-bunked, that scientist would be (correctly) asked to do his job for someone else.
There seems to be a misconception that environmental groups are somehow capitalizing on global warming, and while much of their fundraising is currently promosted as "help fight global warming", there are no shortage of other environmental issues that they could use to raise money. It just so happens that global warming is seen as the number one long-term threat to the environment. Environmental groups aren't PRO global warming, they are trying to get the rest of society to do something to STOP it.
And for the people that have posted that comments are unnecessary, try working on a team when the software being developed is going to be modified and extended over a period of years, and see if you still think comments are unnecessary. When your eyes are bleeding from spending several hours trying to figure out the what and why of thousands of lines of code written by inexperienced programmers you will offer sacrifices at the alter of well commented code.
What do you think of the 20D?
I'd definitely like to own one -- more pixels, less image noise, turns on/wakes up faster, etc., etc. Of course, if money were no option I'd get the 1Ds Mark II and be shooting 16.6 million pixels. If money were no option.
Still, the 10D and its 6.3 million pixels produces shots that are good enough for magazine publication, and I like it way more than the film cameras I've owned. In another ten years we'll probably all be shooting with cameras that capture 50 million pixels and the 10D will seem like a dinosaur, but for the moment it's helped me to shoot some of the best photos I've ever taken.
They gain the most benefit by locking you into a certain piece of software and forcing you along their upgrade path.
Just to nitpick a bit, most of the professional photographers I know use the various plugins to Photoshop to work with RAW images, so technically they aren't being forced into an upgrade path by the camera manufacturers. I personally use a Canon 10D, and the Canon software is so awful that I always use other tools to convert and manipulate the images.
I fully agree with your point that it would be better if the camera manufacturers fully opened up their file formats, and I fail to see how keeping them closed provides them an actual competetive advantage. However, so long as there is no constraint against converting RAW images to another lossless format I'm not sure that this is a battle in which the camera companies can be accused of trying to pull a fast one on consumers; I think it's merely a case where they need to be educated about the further benefits of opening up their formats (ie open source developers can build free tools, etc).
And thus Google will control the design, content and other things... HELP... they are taking over the internet
Nice. Google proposes a way to help web site administrators have a bit more control over how their site is perceived by a search engine, releases this proposal under an open source license, and at least a few people on slashdot accuse them of (*pinky to corner of mouth*) taking over the internet.
Most of Google's recent actions have been good things -- sponsoring open source developers for the summer, proposing ways for site administrators to provide additional info about their site, and implementing a "nofollow" option to prevent spammers trying to increase their page ranking. However, if they constantly get criticized and second-guessed for doing good things, what incentive do they have to continue? If you give a charity $20 and they criticize you for not giving them $30, are ever going to give anything to that charity again?
Let's give Google the benefit of the doubt. Just like a person, they'll probably make some mistakes, but like a person I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong. Some corporations do actually do good things and still manage to be successful, and in those cases they should be supported, not attacked.
One thing I've noticed about free software that differs vastly from the projects I've worked on in the commercial world is that with free software there is usually a push to do something right, even if it means waiting a while for a feature. With the bounties I've seen thus far, the mentality seems to be the commercial "do it as quickly as possible" idea. Granted, a lot of the bounties are for stuff no one really wants to do, so something is probably better than nothing, but it might also be nice to have rewards for those who do things well.
Tasks like removing dead code, simplifying existing code, etc are tasks that the commercial world seldom does with its software ("if it ain't broke...") but it's something that keeps open source code maintainable. It might be a good idea to set up some of these bounties in terms of rewards, such that projects could once a year give something to people who not only added features to a project, but who improved the quality of a project. The bounties going out now are great, but expanding them to support quality and innovation would be really, really great.
>You biggest mistake is... ... Linux is NOT Windows
And your biggest mistake is thinking that most people care if they're using Linux, Windows, or any other operating system. I could care less whether Linux has Windows features or vice versa, as long as it offers some way of doing things that are useful to me. If one desktop makes software installation easier, that's a plus, no matter what desktop it may be. If one makes it easier to get my work done, no matter how it does it, that's a plus. If one allows me to work without feeling guilty about supporting a company whose business practices are unethical, another plus. In the end most users add up the pluses and go with the one that they feel offers the most.
My original posting about KDE vs. Gnome vs. Windows was just meant to provide some insight on one person's opinion of the various desktops, and hopefully spark some intelligent conversation. Apologies to those who thought I was trolling or trying to denigrate something they believe in, but for those who did take offense, keep in mind that even topics that are typically fodder for flamewars can be discussed rationally, and those discussions are often quite interesting for both sides involved.
>I think that this is a Debian problem rather than a gnome problem.
My point was that this is a Linux desktop problem -- to install software in Windows I download a single file, run it, and when all is said and done the software is installed, there is an uninstall link in the control panel, and I can run the software by choosing it from the list of programs in the Start menu. While this is sometimes possible with Linux desktops, often even when a deb or RPM is available it may not install in an obvious way, and when the deb/RPM is not available, good luck.
The Linux desktops will solve this issue eventually, but Windows has a big advantage currently. Also, to the poster who said installed apps would be under the "Debian" menu, that wasn't always true. It's been more than a month since I tried and I can't remember the specific examples (there were several, and they were obvious packages), but I was confused after installing some new desktop apps and then not seeing them anywhere in either the Debian or Gnome menus.
I attempted to use KDE on my laptop recently because it felt more refined to me than Gnome. The menus that came up seemed to offer a more intuitive way of doing things, and the system as a whole just felt more polished. I got the sense that someone was working to make sure that the KDE experience had some consistency to it, which was much appreciated.
But I still wasn't as happy with the KDE desktop as I had been with Windows XP, so I figured I'd give Gnome a shot. After all, it had things like Beagle and Dashboard that sounded pretty cool. Plus, Hula and several other new applications were all being announced for Gnome. But I found that for a new user, there wasn't the same consistency to the Gnome experience as there was with KDE. Lots of things seemed (to me) to work differently from app to app. Changing settings could be done lots of different ways, it wasn't always clear what the preferred method of doing something was (true for the file manager, getting help, etc).
Consistency issues aside, my biggest difficulty with each of the desktops was that there wasn't an easy way to install new software. I use Debian, and apt-get is great, but half the time after choosing to install something new I couldn't find it by looking through the menus. I never even tried installing something that didn't have a Debian package, but can imagine it would have been pretty evil. I realize that the LSB and freedesktop.org are working to improve this situation, but at the moment Windows is worlds ahead with its simple software installations.
So in the end I went back to Windows XP for my desktop; I'm comfortable with it, it is stable (I've had fewer crashes/lockups with XP than I did with either Gnome or KDE), and I'm smart enough to be able to deal with the spyware & viruses. I still use Linux on my web server, and will try the Linux desktops again in the future, but for now I'll go with the evil empire simply because I like the product better. True, had I spent more time learning to use the Linux desktops I might have eventually preferred one of them, but for now the comfort factor just wasn't high enough to make me feel it was worth investing the effort.
>Say he has ~50 more years to live. How much will it
>cost him to receive a deep-tissue massage
>once/week, every week, for 50 years?
This is the gray area that is currently being exploited in the U.S. courts. There are two sides to it: for one, the guy might have more out-of-pocket expenses and potentially lower earnings as a result of the injury. Alternatively, where do you draw the line? Who's to say that he's actually going to live fifty more years and get a weekly deep tissue massage?
Reading through the discussion thus far, the idea of "loser pays" is great except that it makes it possible for a wealthy individual to use the threat of massive legal expenditures to intimidate the plaintiff. The option of vastly limiting the claim amounts is a good one, but there is a strong sympathy argument against that.
Who knows... maybe an alternative would be to give judges a much stronger authority to reject cases or to set damage amounts. Thus a judge could review a case when it is filed, and toss it immediately if it is without merit. You could potentially allow the case to be refiled with another judge... I'm just babbling now I guess; it sounds like no country currently has an ideal solution to this issue.
Are legal fees capped in some way? If someone is sued and decides to spend millions defending themselves, could the other party possibly be liable for the whole bill? It seems to me that any large corporation could then bully its way out of legitimate lawsuits by threatening to spend huge amounts.
Are payouts perhaps capped to an amount equal to the plaintiff's legal fees? Thus if I spend $10,000 on a case, but the defendent spends $2 million, I would be liable for only $10,000? Alternatively, if a ceiling was set for legal fees (perhaps $x dollars per day the case goes on), I would be liable only up to that ceiling?
Do other countries have frivilous lawsuits of this sort, or is it primarily a US-only thing? The idea that you can get rich by suing someone, or that misfortune entitles you to not just fair compensation but riches, is one that I wish could be changed. As an example of how these suits affect me personally, I hate that my health insurance costs are so high; perhaps the costs aren't all due to malpractice suits, but they definitely make up a significant part of it.
One thought I've had as to how these suits could be curbed is to allow judges in civil cases to set a bond, similar to what is done in criminal cases. Since lawyers currently take any case based on the fact that they get a (large) percentage of the settlement, there is no cost to sue, and a huge cost to defend. The person bringing the suit would have to put up the bond, and they would get it back when the case was settled or went to jury. If the case was later thrown out by the judge then the bond would not be returned, and might even go to the defendent to help with legal costs. In cases where obvious harm was done the judge could set the bond very low, but for trivial suits this could become a disincentive for bringing the suit in the first case.
Does any other country do this? How do other countries prevent frivilous lawsuits?
>No, you are wrong.
Actually I think I'm right. Employees aren't 100% productive. That's life. I would bet that 2.8 minutes is statistically negligible in terms of total time a person spends not 100% focused on their job each day. And even in your laser printer example, if I spend an hour not working because the laser printer is down, as long as I still complete the same amount of work that I would have completed had the printer been up, that laser printer outage did not cost the company any of my productivity for the day.
If spam gets so bad that a person has to factor in additional time in their day to deal with it, that's another issue. But the study's conclusion that 2.8 minutes, spread throughout the day, totals a loss to the economy of $22 billion, is misleading.