No need to be sad if you accept the fact that people vary in their ability to tolerate the unknown.
Believing in mythological entities such as spirits gives an illusion
of understanding, and believing a myth is more comfortable than
acknowledging ignorance. -- unknown
Being unable to attribute causes to threatening phenomena creates anxiety, and until science can explain everything we will always be surrounded by people with a need to fill the void and extinguish their anxiety with something else.
It isn't skills training, it's subject matter training. Typically you and your replacement are both already competent developers. You however are 100% up to speed on the thousands of lines of source code you maintain -- on its history, its build and release process, it weaknesses, and its future directions. Your replacement is clueless about all of this. Here "training" is making this difference as close to zero as possible in the allowed time. Obviously if you were responsible for a small code niche then it won't take long to train your replacement and yes the reflection on your job is that it wasn't critical. Conversely if you have major responsibilty for a large strategic code base it's unlikely you'll be outsourced in the first place.
In short, training is simply getting another developer with similar skills aquainted with the code base. But trained != experienced, and therein lies some of the price difference and resulting labor arbitrage.
...function calls and features suggesting evil and otherwise pagan ideas would be changed.
abort(3)
kill(1)
references to "daemon"
NOTE: we do not believe words are inherently bad. We simply do not like these words because of their connotations in different contexts. You do not have to agree, but you will not change our minds.
Since when did you get appointed the Internet Piracy Rebuker? What grandiloquent fit of self-righteousness justified your creating a worm that hijacks the screens of 12,000 (and counting) presumptively innocent computer users?
If the injustice of software piracy is such a buring issue for you, face up to your desire: move to Afganistan, hang out in Taliban internet cafes, and amuptate the hands of illegal downloaders. You will find it far more gratifying, and they will be truly edified by your service to mankind.
Gibson cast some of the blame on the packet-based nature of Internet Protocol, which was not designed for foolproof delivery of messages. The protocol cannot guarantee delivery of e-mail, for instance.
...The commander wants to be able to send a message and have it delivered, completely, accurately and on time."
Is it just me or has the volume of posters who admit to not RTFA gone down lately? Perhaps the outrageous slant used to announce stories is having a salubrious effect...
Unethical perhaps, but illegal? Doubtful. Misrepresentation in this context is to parties outside of the transaction, and there are no direct material consequences on the receivers of their misstatements.
Furthermore, MS can credibly characterize their financial link to SCO as consisting only of the IP license deal because the other transaction was between MS and BayStar, not MS and SCO. Sure, it's a case of weasle words -- they're only telling what their direct financial links are. Not a lie, just a partial truth. Standard marcomm tactic.
Uh...ants are certainly ~10^-3 meters long, within the range you specify. And by your argument water molecules (~10^-9 meters) won't heat up either, but they clearly do. Think again...
It's more subtle than that. The mind comprises both conscious and unconscious processes. What I read in your post was that seeing and interpreting the physical effects of an injury is an essential part of registering the pain.
I don't doubt that the magnitude of pain can be influenced by conscious processes; I just wanted to point out that it doesn't generalize. The genesis of phantom limb pain is a brain process of which one is not ever aware -- the pain spontaneously arises in the mind without one ever having observed or reasoned about a source first. The pain, often excruciating, has a totally subconscious origin (in the brain structure, not Freudian, sense).
There are paticularly fascinating books about this. In "The Emotional Brain", LeDoux examines fear rather than other emotions because it presents a more tractable approach for research. He shows how the subconscous processing circuits for fear in the midbrain bring about somatic effects before you are even aware of feelings of fear. For phantom limb pain, blindsight, and other fascinating explanations of odd mind/body phenomena explained by basic brain structure, try "Phantoms in the Brain" by Ramachandran.
Posted by nlinecomputers on 19 February, 2004 - 15:35.
This logo
http://www.amstelveenweb.com/mandrake.jpg
is what is got them in trouble. It is Mandrake's first logo that when this lawsuit started they dropped.
When Mandrake was first started they DID try to base their logo on the Mandrake the magician character. This is not a coincidence. They chose to emulate it.[my emphasis] Amateur mistake that will cost the company big bucks. You can't do that anymore then I could create a Linux distro and call it Coke Linux put it in a red box with a white wave on it. Simply calling it Mandrake might have worked but the nitwit who approved the Tux/Magician logo made a big mistake.
It's doesn't take a photocopy-like physical resemblance to infringe a trademark. If you intentionally model your mark after identifying characteristics of an existing mark, you're hijacking its goodwill, and you're screwed.
The
1997 NET Act doesn't cover the specific case in your post (casual infringement of a single music CD). But it does criminalize copyright infringement under specific terms that do not require a terribly massive scale ($1,000.01 is enough), so there is a kind of copyright infringment that is definitely in the same "criminal" category as e.g. grand theft.
I do understand your objection to the term "theft" on legal grounds. I also deplore the disingenuous tactics used by some attempting to enforce copyrights. I merely find the implication in your posts that copyright infringement is not (ever) a criminal offense to be either disingenuous or misinformed.
Slashdot Mirror
No need to be sad if you accept the fact that people vary in their ability to tolerate the unknown.
Being unable to attribute causes to threatening phenomena creates anxiety, and until science can explain everything we will always be surrounded by people with a need to fill the void and extinguish their anxiety with something else.
Nor do we choose to pay for 100 cable channels two of which we'd actually enjoy watching.
It isn't skills training, it's subject matter training. Typically you and your replacement are both already competent developers. You however are 100% up to speed on the thousands of lines of source code you maintain -- on its history, its build and release process, it weaknesses, and its future directions. Your replacement is clueless about all of this. Here "training" is making this difference as close to zero as possible in the allowed time. Obviously if you were responsible for a small code niche then it won't take long to train your replacement and yes the reflection on your job is that it wasn't critical. Conversely if you have major responsibilty for a large strategic code base it's unlikely you'll be outsourced in the first place.
In short, training is simply getting another developer with similar skills aquainted with the code base. But trained != experienced, and therein lies some of the price difference and resulting labor arbitrage.
Fool! I am trying to sell this tire! Your statements are tortuous business interference. Prepare to have you mouth sued shut!
Yes, but it's actually called Jesux:
Although they don't specifically mention fsck...
Since when did you get appointed the Internet Piracy Rebuker? What grandiloquent fit of self-righteousness justified your creating a worm that hijacks the screens of 12,000 (and counting) presumptively innocent computer users?
If the injustice of software piracy is such a buring issue for you, face up to your desire: move to Afganistan, hang out in Taliban internet cafes, and amuptate the hands of illegal downloaders. You will find it far more gratifying, and they will be truly edified by your service to mankind.
Next on AP Newswire: reports of a hastily convened news conference where Yukon Pillinger declares,
We're pretty sure it corresponds to a smarter lawyer though.
Uh, ever heard of the two armies problem?
Apparently you've got enough exceptions to keep yourself out of trouble:
Hopefully wood carving and popping bottle caps aren't illegal yet.
It's a remote. He is leading a sing-along. Slides are lyrics:
Is it just me or has the volume of posters who admit to not RTFA gone down lately? Perhaps the outrageous slant used to announce stories is having a salubrious effect...
Welcome to Slantdot!
Unethical perhaps, but illegal? Doubtful. Misrepresentation in this context is to parties outside of the transaction, and there are no direct material consequences on the receivers of their misstatements.
Furthermore, MS can credibly characterize their financial link to SCO as consisting only of the IP license deal because the other transaction was between MS and BayStar, not MS and SCO. Sure, it's a case of weasle words -- they're only telling what their direct financial links are. Not a lie, just a partial truth. Standard marcomm tactic.
It is indeed ridiculous to even think the Navy could ever shoot down a civilian airliner.
Uh...ants are certainly ~10^-3 meters long, within the range you specify. And by your argument water molecules (~10^-9 meters) won't heat up either, but they clearly do. Think again...
You broke my googlewhack!
# 5. Debugging time is inversely proportional to coding time.
It is inversely proportional to design time.
It is exponentially proportional to coding time. :-)
It's more subtle than that. The mind comprises both conscious and unconscious processes. What I read in your post was that seeing and interpreting the physical effects of an injury is an essential part of registering the pain.
I don't doubt that the magnitude of pain can be influenced by conscious processes; I just wanted to point out that it doesn't generalize. The genesis of phantom limb pain is a brain process of which one is not ever aware -- the pain spontaneously arises in the mind without one ever having observed or reasoned about a source first. The pain, often excruciating, has a totally subconscious origin (in the brain structure, not Freudian, sense).
There are paticularly fascinating books about this. In "The Emotional Brain", LeDoux examines fear rather than other emotions because it presents a more tractable approach for research. He shows how the subconscous processing circuits for fear in the midbrain bring about somatic effects before you are even aware of feelings of fear. For phantom limb pain, blindsight, and other fascinating explanations of odd mind/body phenomena explained by basic brain structure, try "Phantoms in the Brain" by Ramachandran.
> "Pain requires concious attention"
But then there is phantom limb pain, which is in no way connected to one's objective reality.
Bad trade. Their COLA can't even make grass greener. A goatse e-card would be fair though.
This would be great satire if it weren't true:
It's doesn't take a photocopy-like physical resemblance to infringe a trademark. If you intentionally model your mark after identifying characteristics of an existing mark, you're hijacking its goodwill, and you're screwed.
Really? Judge for yourself...
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
The 1997 NET Act doesn't cover the specific case in your post (casual infringement of a single music CD). But it does criminalize copyright infringement under specific terms that do not require a terribly massive scale ($1,000.01 is enough), so there is a kind of copyright infringment that is definitely in the same "criminal" category as e.g. grand theft.
I do understand your objection to the term "theft" on legal grounds. I also deplore the disingenuous tactics used by some attempting to enforce copyrights. I merely find the implication in your posts that copyright infringement is not (ever) a criminal offense to be either disingenuous or misinformed.