While this is fairly obvious/easy to figure out stuff, it's nice to see my university in the news. It even has my thesis adviser as one of the authors. =)
Clearly this new discovery gives anyone who already had any kind of interest in Afghanistan a reason to launch a full-blown invasion. Anyone want to guess how long it takes the US to conjure up some retrofitted justification for a full-on invasion of Afghanistan?
As much as I want to believe you, laws and charters will simply be changed to accommodate whatever the collective government wants to push through. Also, who will you take the government to court to? The press? World opinion? The governments of the world have long since stopped acting on behalf of their population. One might wonder who they are acting for, because some of these things seem way to insane for there to be a singular personal interest for...
Even if the interns hadn't been working on multiple parallel projects, as have been pointed out my many already, since when does anecdotal evidence constitute proof?
You'd think that things that are part of public record, especially things people have to know (how can I keep from breaking the law if I don't know what the laws are?) would be free for anyone. Sure, some reproduction cost is acceptable ($200 for a set of CDs isn't "some", though), but otherwise completely free.
How can you just consider something your property without any legal basis for ownership? Can I just consider the images on a webpage my property just because they are currently stored on disk or in memory on my computer? Furthermore, can a bank consider their customer's assets their (the bank's) property?
So, if you have to pay a fee for blank media and media players; does that imply that you do NOT have to pay a fee when you purchase the music? I mean, why should you be forced to pay twice for something?
I almost mistook the FSF for the EFF, and thought to myself; "this seems out of character for them".
Realizing, of course, that this organization is run by that lunatic Stallman makes this perfectly understandable. Bullshit, but understandable.
IKEA sells these. As do, I'm sure, any hardware store. The IKEA ones have a diameter of about 2cm, and come in 5 meter packs. I can't imagine they cost more than a couple of euros per pack, if even that.
Too bad switzerland probably won't let you in (certainly not give you a citizenship), and that most people I know who live or have lived in switzerland say that the people are terrible. But, that aside, it is an incredibly beautiful country.
Why would a pirate, who currently doesn't pay for the work he/she redistributes, pay for a work with a license allowing him/her to do it? If the reason for not paying is that you don't want to pay, then you will not want to pay, regardless of the reimbursement model.
It's nice that we have laws governing things like this, and that we can take companies to court when we believe that they have broken them. Supposedly government can be taken to court as well. However, it's rare that anything ever comes from it. When a company is wrong, they get punished. When the government is wrong, the law is amended to make them right. In the odd case where the government can't get the laws amended, they simply continue doing what they were doing before, it's just that they don't tell anyone. Not that they were telling anyone to begin with, but that's the government for you.
If you *like* being at university, stay and do the master. If you don't particularly like it, go looking for a job. Too many people see the master (or university as a hole) only as a means to an end. A painful experience you have to get through until you get a job. My view is different. I believe that going to university should be a rewarding experience, and not just as some diploma on the wall and potentially a higher salary. The act of going to university should be fun, otherwise you have nothing there to do. You can't possibly expect to benefit fully from something you hate doing, if you're doing it every day for several years.
I have a master's degree. I got it in a different country than where I got my bachelors degree. I thought doing my M.Sc. was well worth the time and effort I spend. I honestly don't care if it makes me more attractive in the workplace or not, but I suspect that it can't really make me less attractive. Compared to the two years of working experience, that depends entirely on where you work. 2 years working experience can be several times more rewarding and interesting than 2 years of master study, but it *can* also be utter crap if you do it at the wrong company, or if they are not taking care of you properly.
In the end, since neither path can *guarantee* that you get what you want, I would recommend that you choose the path that seems like the most fun.
So, next time I go running in Brussels, the filthiest city in Europe, I'll do it barefoot. I'm sure that's perfectly healthy and safe. And warm. And doesn't wear the skin on my feet. And doesn't increase the shock my joins are subjected to.
It may be better to run barefoot, if you do it under optimal conditions. If you have to content with the urban jungle, to use a tired term, I would still recommend some footwear. I know that getting a new pair of shoes made all the difference in the world for my running. Not performance wise, mind you, but injury and pleasure. I much prefer to run in the shoes that I have now compared to the crappy ones I had before.
Regarding the correlation that shoe cost implies injury rate probably doesn't take in to account that you're more likely a serious runner if you buy expensive shoes, which implies that you run more, which in turn applies that you are exposed to risk of injury more. (This seems like a solid implication to me, but I could of course be wrong, as I'm sure many of you will point out).
Now, I haven't RTFA, but on the surface of things, it seems a bit too coincidental. I can only speak from my own experience.
Slashdot Mirror
That shed is simply the cost of doing business. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs (or sheds, as it were). =)
This is what a science education lets you do. Stay in school kids!
What tab plugin is that that you're using?
While this is fairly obvious/easy to figure out stuff, it's nice to see my university in the news. It even has my thesis adviser as one of the authors. =)
Did no-one catch that those were 3 things?
Actually, Paul published this on his blog probably a bit over a year ago. I remember it well, it's a very nice presentation.
Clearly this new discovery gives anyone who already had any kind of interest in Afghanistan a reason to launch a full-blown invasion. Anyone want to guess how long it takes the US to conjure up some retrofitted justification for a full-on invasion of Afghanistan?
Just use picasa. It does everything you want, has automatic face recognition/tagging, is file-based, works on both windows and unix, is free...
As much as I want to believe you, laws and charters will simply be changed to accommodate whatever the collective government wants to push through. Also, who will you take the government to court to? The press? World opinion? The governments of the world have long since stopped acting on behalf of their population. One might wonder who they are acting for, because some of these things seem way to insane for there to be a singular personal interest for...
It was on their blog just the other day, coincidentally: clusto@digg
Why the moral panic? So what if people see some breasts? Male or female. I don't get why this is even an issue.
Even if the interns hadn't been working on multiple parallel projects, as have been pointed out my many already, since when does anecdotal evidence constitute proof?
You'd think that things that are part of public record, especially things people have to know (how can I keep from breaking the law if I don't know what the laws are?) would be free for anyone. Sure, some reproduction cost is acceptable ($200 for a set of CDs isn't "some", though), but otherwise completely free.
How can you just consider something your property without any legal basis for ownership? Can I just consider the images on a webpage my property just because they are currently stored on disk or in memory on my computer? Furthermore, can a bank consider their customer's assets their (the bank's) property?
It's Secure Socket Lawyer!
So, if you have to pay a fee for blank media and media players; does that imply that you do NOT have to pay a fee when you purchase the music? I mean, why should you be forced to pay twice for something?
I almost mistook the FSF for the EFF, and thought to myself; "this seems out of character for them". Realizing, of course, that this organization is run by that lunatic Stallman makes this perfectly understandable. Bullshit, but understandable.
IKEA sells these. As do, I'm sure, any hardware store.
The IKEA ones have a diameter of about 2cm, and come in 5 meter packs.
I can't imagine they cost more than a couple of euros per pack, if even that.
Too bad switzerland probably won't let you in (certainly not give you a citizenship), and that most people I know who live or have lived in switzerland say that the people are terrible.
But, that aside, it is an incredibly beautiful country.
Search engine
Why would a pirate, who currently doesn't pay for the work he/she redistributes, pay for a work with a license allowing him/her to do it? If the reason for not paying is that you don't want to pay, then you will not want to pay, regardless of the reimbursement model.
It's nice that we have laws governing things like this, and that we can take companies to court when we believe that they have broken them. Supposedly government can be taken to court as well. However, it's rare that anything ever comes from it. When a company is wrong, they get punished. When the government is wrong, the law is amended to make them right. In the odd case where the government can't get the laws amended, they simply continue doing what they were doing before, it's just that they don't tell anyone. Not that they were telling anyone to begin with, but that's the government for you.
If you *like* being at university, stay and do the master. If you don't particularly like it, go looking for a job. Too many people see the master (or university as a hole) only as a means to an end. A painful experience you have to get through until you get a job. My view is different. I believe that going to university should be a rewarding experience, and not just as some diploma on the wall and potentially a higher salary. The act of going to university should be fun, otherwise you have nothing there to do. You can't possibly expect to benefit fully from something you hate doing, if you're doing it every day for several years.
I have a master's degree. I got it in a different country than where I got my bachelors degree. I thought doing my M.Sc. was well worth the time and effort I spend. I honestly don't care if it makes me more attractive in the workplace or not, but I suspect that it can't really make me less attractive. Compared to the two years of working experience, that depends entirely on where you work. 2 years working experience can be several times more rewarding and interesting than 2 years of master study, but it *can* also be utter crap if you do it at the wrong company, or if they are not taking care of you properly.
In the end, since neither path can *guarantee* that you get what you want, I would recommend that you choose the path that seems like the most fun.
This very issue was addressed on VG cats in the last strip
So, next time I go running in Brussels, the filthiest city in Europe, I'll do it barefoot. I'm sure that's perfectly healthy and safe. And warm. And doesn't wear the skin on my feet. And doesn't increase the shock my joins are subjected to.
It may be better to run barefoot, if you do it under optimal conditions. If you have to content with the urban jungle, to use a tired term, I would still recommend some footwear. I know that getting a new pair of shoes made all the difference in the world for my running. Not performance wise, mind you, but injury and pleasure. I much prefer to run in the shoes that I have now compared to the crappy ones I had before.
Regarding the correlation that shoe cost implies injury rate probably doesn't take in to account that you're more likely a serious runner if you buy expensive shoes, which implies that you run more, which in turn applies that you are exposed to risk of injury more. (This seems like a solid implication to me, but I could of course be wrong, as I'm sure many of you will point out).
Now, I haven't RTFA, but on the surface of things, it seems a bit too coincidental. I can only speak from my own experience.