Step one: do your homework
Step two: know the law
Step three: if someone can "childishly" knock holes in your business model by pointing out that it's illegal, they will. This points out a flaw in your business model, which is your responsibility, no matter how "childish" you consider the ones who point it out or exploit it.
You can reimage using only Microsoft provided media, which still prohibits imaging a complete disk image. In a nutshell, they've said that if you're a volume licensing customer, you don't have to pay to reinstall the operating system. Otherwise, and if you want to use something like Ghost to replicate an entire disk image, you still do.
This does not appear to be a change. At best, I'd call it a clarification. I don't believe they allow anything they didn't allow previously.
I've believed for some time that the Internet would eventually surpass the printing press in terms of its impact on society. As another poster mentioned, the percentage of people in the world with computers is quite low. How long will it take for the computer to become ubiquitous, or at least achieve the same availability to the average world citizen as printed media enjoys today? We're not even there with phones or VCRs, or even cable TV yet.
Or are we going to delineate society by wired and not wired as we have for ages by literate and non-literate?
I also find it odd that they don't include any specific allegation that the system crash or hardware damage was the result of his actions, only that it happened during a period of time where he had access to the system.
I've always wondered about the MPAA and theatres enforcing age restrictions on movies. As far as I know, they have no legal authority to do so - restricting access to a public accommodation solely on the basis of age.
This smacks of the same thing. An arbitrary ratings system is being enforced solely on the basis of age in what is otherwise to be considered a public accommodation.
With cigarettes and tobacco products, there is legal authority for the restrictions. But I am not aware of any legal authority that allows the denial of service based on a third party rating system and the consumer's age. Legally, it strikes me as age discrimination.
Why not? They have a point about old versions and utility programs, but they completely ignore internal corporate development - which has always dwarfed the shrink-wrap market. Every company I've worked for had at least a few, and as many as a few hundred internally developed systems, each comprised of quite a number of individual programs.
Look at it another way. Is it fair to assume that for every Windows compiler sold, at least one application was created? How many copies of VB, C/C++, etc... have been sold for the Windows platform?
They're right about one thing, though - the judges ruling effectively says that Microsoft was wrong to allow the creation of 70,000 programs for Windows. Apple is obviously much better, since they only have 12,000. Obviously, a completely unsupported operating system, with zero (0) applications, would be considered optimal. As if inertia is in and of itself monopolistic.
The more I see after the fact, the more convinced I am that this case should be heard by the appeals court, not the Supremes. This is just to wrong-headed a ruling (at least in significant parts) to be allowed to stand as precedent at the Supreme Court level, and would be a complete waste of their time.
In order to register to sell your vote, you have to certify that you have read and agreed to the voter's agreement. The voter's agreement is not yet available, and they offer to mail you a copy once it is posted. Therefore, you cannot make a legally binding agreement, since the act of registering requires that you make a certifiably false statement, and binds you to the terms of an agreement not yet published. In some jurisdictions, just completing the registration process coule easily be construed as committing a crime. That hasn't stopped a handful of people from registering, though.
His point is that he's not previously encountered an evangelist who wasn't a religious zealot. Of course, if the only "true believers" he's met were religious fanatics, he's led a sheltered life...
Why is it that anyone who questions the basis for our drug laws, who calls marijuana prohibition and the "war on drugs" hypocritical is immediately labeled a "drug user" and a "law breaker"?
At no time have I advocated that anyone do anything illegal. I have, however, questioned the basis for our government's categorization of alcohol and nicotine as legal and accepted while less injurious and addictive substances are categorized as illegal and dangerous. As I said, these actions are not based on scientific fact, but on attempts to curtail liberty and legislate morality. And that the current legislation seeks to further curtail other rights to prop up the "war on drugs", which I consider to be an affront to liberty in America.
I commend you for respecting the law. I condemn you for using it as a crutch to criticize what you perceive to be my own personal behavior. I have said that I believe the law to be wrong, not based on scientific fact, not consistently applied, subject to vast overgeneralization, and worthy of revision. I have said that the government is attempting to take additional legislative action which is contemptable in terms of personal liberty in this country.
I did not advocate illegal drug use or any other illegal act. You simply made that up.
MASSIVELY IMPORTANT CENSORSHIP ISSUES ASIDE, you're delusional.
You say you're "clean" - not a drug user. You then admit to using alcohol and being addicted to caffiene. You also admit your parents are nicotine addicts. That makes you at least a second-generation part of the problem.
Problem #1: all illegal drugs are lumped together, as if their effects, risks, and potential harm were all equal. Legal drugs don't enter into the discussion. There are quite a number of illegal drugs that are less injurious than many legal drugs - the legislated morality is the only difference. In this case, while methamphetamines appear to have been singled out, the specific provisions that are at issue here are not restrained to a specific drug.
Problem #2: The Internet as made real information available to millions, and allowed many to make intelligent, personal decisions based on fact, not propaganda. As with anything else that fights hypocrisy with facts, when the facts are against them, the media will be perceived as a threat.
Problem #3: As long as substances are prohibited on moral or political grounds, rather than on scientific or public health grounds, hypocrisy is going to be the worst enemy of the "war on drugs". And all the erosion of privacy and other rights and freedoms will remain even when they eventually admit that the war has been lost.
"Are you gentlemen aware that shirts are being made from hemp, which are then being boiled down for the resin by teenagers who then mix the residue with alcohol to create marijuana?" -- Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey, proving once again that he's either the stupidest or most dishonest man in America today (quoted in last week's Wunderland Weekly News )
As a B5 fan, I saw this played out a few times, each time with a ridiculous approach. B5 always took the approach of restrict yourself to fair use, properly acknowledge all copyrights and trademarks, don't do it for profit, and they'd leave you alone. Aparently, it was a major pain to get Warner Bros. to understand the concept of embracing the fans rather than alienating them, but they managed.
It was amusing to watch Paramount go after all the Star Trek fan sites and shut them down, even the ones who had approached it in the same way that B5 recommended. Disney, too. Now, it's Fuji over the Iron Chef.
I've seen it work. Set simple rules. Enforce them. Embrace your fans, and they will pay you back. Piss them off, and they'll burn you.
>There are really only two choices when it comes >to defining and enforcing free speech and the >ownership of ideas and intellectual property. As >a society, we can try to make cyberspace conform >to the rules of physical space. Or we can >recognize the extraordinary potential of this >new culture, and invest cyberspace with laws and >values and properties that are fundamentally >different.
Whenever I see a closed set, I not only consider the presented options, but whether they truly are the only ones available. In this case, I think there is a third option. Instead of making cyberspace conform to the rules of physical space, or setting different rules for cyberspace, a third option exists to set different rules across the board.
Although the "change everything" approach may not be politically actionable, it may in the long run be more expedient than setting different rules for cyberspace, which will only aggravate the existing dichotomy.
OK, I knew something wasn't sitting right in my mind. I'm not entirely sure this was a Jefferson quote. I found the following Franklin quote, which most closely resembles my memory:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
The posting that contained the entire Microsoft document (including the Microsoft copyright and "trade secret" notices) should be pulled as it is an unauthorized release and a blatant violation of copyright. The messages that link or offer hacks are legitimate speech and should not be censored. That's my common sense assessment, not what the DMCA says.
If I read the article correctly, the door isn't open as far as many of the posted comments would make it appear.
They've enabled ICMP. They've talked about controlling orbital adjustments. I'm not up on how these birds are built, but I'm not sure from what I've read that this in any way opens up the data stream to the Internet.
Sure, you might be able to (literally) crash the satellite, but the idea of a DoS attack interrupting the data stream seems a bit of a reach. These are good examples of the problems which will need to be solved before our satellites all become nothing but nodes, but if someone managed a DoS attack on the IP port, it would only appear to mean they'd have to go back to inband satellite control instead of IP-based satellite control.
But I suppose it IS logical to assume that all the satellite functions would eventually be exposed via IP. IF that were the case with Iridium, it would be ironic to see a hacker deorbit all the birds, then let Motorola file an insurance claim and finally turn a profit on the system!
What do you folks think? Is it hard to find a job?
on
The IT Labor Shortage
·
· Score: 1
I changed jobs six months ago. I was looking very seriously for 6-7 months, and somewhat seriously for about six months before that. In the end, I found that I could get a job that paid about what I'm making, give or take, on about a week's notice. I could get a great job that I liked within a month if I was willing to give up half my salary. But to get a great job that I liked at the salary I wanted -- that was tough.
One recruiter gave me a rule of thumb: expect to spend one month looking for every $10K you want in salary. Worked out about right in my case. What you want has a lot to do with how easy it is to find it. If all that matters is the salary, and you really are worth what you're asking for, you can get placed pretty quickly in the Washington, DC, area. If you're going to be picky, it may take quite a while to find the perfect fit you're looking for.
Turn it around -- I also have had to recruit. If you ask for a network engineer, you're going to get flooded with CNE and MCSE types (both certified and those still working on exams, or thinking about it), but you're not going to have a great selection of anyone with the right experience and salary range. I had lots of pressure to hire tremendously overqualified people at exceedingly low salaries. If you want entry level, they're out there. If you want certified (or certifiable), they're out there, too. My previous company would hire a temp at $100+ per hour to do work that we could have hired an entry level tech to do for $25K. At the same time, when recruiting, they'd insist that that entry level tech have a CNE and A+ certification, and disqualify anyone who wanted more than $30K.
On the recruiting side, there was a tremendous gap between what the company wanted, and what they were willing to pay for. They concluded that there was a shortage. I concluded that they were daft.
Slashdot Mirror
Step one: do your homework
Step two: know the law
Step three: if someone can "childishly" knock holes in your business model by pointing out that it's illegal, they will. This points out a flaw in your business model, which is your responsibility, no matter how "childish" you consider the ones who point it out or exploit it.
You can reimage using only Microsoft provided media, which still prohibits imaging a complete disk image. In a nutshell, they've said that if you're a volume licensing customer, you don't have to pay to reinstall the operating system. Otherwise, and if you want to use something like Ghost to replicate an entire disk image, you still do.
This does not appear to be a change. At best, I'd call it a clarification. I don't believe they allow anything they didn't allow previously.
mea culpa.
There's a little quotation drift going on here.
Money is the root of all evil.
Power (not money) corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There is a difference between evil and corruption.
I've believed for some time that the Internet would eventually surpass the printing press in terms of its impact on society. As another poster mentioned, the percentage of people in the world with computers is quite low. How long will it take for the computer to become ubiquitous, or at least achieve the same availability to the average world citizen as printed media enjoys today? We're not even there with phones or VCRs, or even cable TV yet.
Or are we going to delineate society by wired and not wired as we have for ages by literate and non-literate?
I also find it odd that they don't include any specific allegation that the system crash or hardware damage was the result of his actions, only that it happened during a period of time where he had access to the system.
>It's a poor workman who blames his tools.
And it's a fool who fails to realize the limitations of his tools, his own foiables, and their reprecussions.
I've always wondered about the MPAA and theatres enforcing age restrictions on movies. As far as I know, they have no legal authority to do so - restricting access to a public accommodation solely on the basis of age.
This smacks of the same thing. An arbitrary ratings system is being enforced solely on the basis of age in what is otherwise to be considered a public accommodation.
With cigarettes and tobacco products, there is legal authority for the restrictions. But I am not aware of any legal authority that allows the denial of service based on a third party rating system and the consumer's age. Legally, it strikes me as age discrimination.
Why not? They have a point about old versions and utility programs, but they completely ignore internal corporate development - which has always dwarfed the shrink-wrap market. Every company I've worked for had at least a few, and as many as a few hundred internally developed systems, each comprised of quite a number of individual programs.
Look at it another way. Is it fair to assume that for every Windows compiler sold, at least one application was created? How many copies of VB, C/C++, etc... have been sold for the Windows platform?
They're right about one thing, though - the judges ruling effectively says that Microsoft was wrong to allow the creation of 70,000 programs for Windows. Apple is obviously much better, since they only have 12,000. Obviously, a completely unsupported operating system, with zero (0) applications, would be considered optimal. As if inertia is in and of itself monopolistic.
The more I see after the fact, the more convinced I am that this case should be heard by the appeals court, not the Supremes. This is just to wrong-headed a ruling (at least in significant parts) to be allowed to stand as precedent at the Supreme Court level, and would be a complete waste of their time.
In order to register to sell your vote, you have to certify that you have read and agreed to the voter's agreement. The voter's agreement is not yet available, and they offer to mail you a copy once it is posted. Therefore, you cannot make a legally binding agreement, since the act of registering requires that you make a certifiably false statement, and binds you to the terms of an agreement not yet published. In some jurisdictions, just completing the registration process coule easily be construed as committing a crime. That hasn't stopped a handful of people from registering, though.
If IBM would also buy out Corel and what's left of Borland, we could finally have all the best software from the 80s under one corporate umbrella.
Are we concerned about what Coremetrics DOES, or about what they CAN DO? There is a wide gulf between posession of power and abuse of power.
It would appear from the article that the problem is not what they do, but how their customers inform the public about the arrangement.
And if we are to attack them because they COULD do something bad, isn't that unfair, or at least prior restraint?
His point is that he's not previously encountered an evangelist who wasn't a religious zealot. Of course, if the only "true believers" he's met were religious fanatics, he's led a sheltered life...
Why is it that anyone who questions the basis for our drug laws, who calls marijuana prohibition and the "war on drugs" hypocritical is immediately labeled a "drug user" and a "law breaker"?
At no time have I advocated that anyone do anything illegal. I have, however, questioned the basis for our government's categorization of alcohol and nicotine as legal and accepted while less injurious and addictive substances are categorized as illegal and dangerous. As I said, these actions are not based on scientific fact, but on attempts to curtail liberty and legislate morality. And that the current legislation seeks to further curtail other rights to prop up the "war on drugs", which I consider to be an affront to liberty in America.
I commend you for respecting the law. I condemn you for using it as a crutch to criticize what you perceive to be my own personal behavior. I have said that I believe the law to be wrong, not based on scientific fact, not consistently applied, subject to vast overgeneralization, and worthy of revision. I have said that the government is attempting to take additional legislative action which is contemptable in terms of personal liberty in this country.
I did not advocate illegal drug use or any other illegal act. You simply made that up.
MASSIVELY IMPORTANT CENSORSHIP ISSUES ASIDE, you're delusional.
You say you're "clean" - not a drug user. You then admit to using alcohol and being addicted to caffiene. You also admit your parents are nicotine addicts. That makes you at least a second-generation part of the problem.
Problem #1: all illegal drugs are lumped together, as if their effects, risks, and potential harm were all equal. Legal drugs don't enter into the discussion. There are quite a number of illegal drugs that are less injurious than many legal drugs - the legislated morality is the only difference. In this case, while methamphetamines appear to have been singled out, the specific provisions that are at issue here are not restrained to a specific drug.
Problem #2: The Internet as made real information available to millions, and allowed many to make intelligent, personal decisions based on fact, not propaganda. As with anything else that fights hypocrisy with facts, when the facts are against them, the media will be perceived as a threat.
Problem #3: As long as substances are prohibited on moral or political grounds, rather than on scientific or public health grounds, hypocrisy is going to be the worst enemy of the "war on drugs". And all the erosion of privacy and other rights and freedoms will remain even when they eventually admit that the war has been lost.
"Are you gentlemen aware that shirts are being made from hemp, which are then being boiled down for the resin by teenagers who then mix the
residue with alcohol to create marijuana?" -- Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey, proving once again that he's either the stupidest or most dishonest man in America today (quoted in last week's Wunderland Weekly News )
As a B5 fan, I saw this played out a few times, each time with a ridiculous approach. B5 always took the approach of restrict yourself to fair use, properly acknowledge all copyrights and trademarks, don't do it for profit, and they'd leave you alone. Aparently, it was a major pain to get Warner Bros. to understand the concept of embracing the fans rather than alienating them, but they managed.
It was amusing to watch Paramount go after all the Star Trek fan sites and shut them down, even the ones who had approached it in the same way that B5 recommended. Disney, too. Now, it's Fuji over the Iron Chef.
I've seen it work. Set simple rules. Enforce them. Embrace your fans, and they will pay you back. Piss them off, and they'll burn you.
Logic before laywers. And I work for lawyers...
Acceptability isn't the issue. If it's easy, people will do it. Period. You can discourage it, but you cannot prevent it. After all, it's easy.
>There are really only two choices when it comes
>to defining and enforcing free speech and the
>ownership of ideas and intellectual property. As
>a society, we can try to make cyberspace conform
>to the rules of physical space. Or we can
>recognize the extraordinary potential of this
>new culture, and invest cyberspace with laws and
>values and properties that are fundamentally
>different.
Whenever I see a closed set, I not only consider the presented options, but whether they truly are the only ones available. In this case, I think there is a third option. Instead of making cyberspace conform to the rules of physical space, or setting different rules for cyberspace, a third option exists to set different rules across the board.
Although the "change everything" approach may not be politically actionable, it may in the long run be more expedient than setting different rules for cyberspace, which will only aggravate the existing dichotomy.
OK, I knew something wasn't sitting right in my mind. I'm not entirely sure this was a Jefferson quote. I found the following Franklin quote, which most closely resembles my memory:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
"When you trade freedom for security you get neither" - Thomas Jefferson
Actually, I believe the correct quotation is "Those who would trade liberty for a small security will have neither." - Thomas Jefferson
I've also seen it as "Those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither"
-Thomas Jefferson
This has to be one of the most misquoted quotes...
I'm curious on one detail. What was it that the Cisco PIX was supposed to do and didn't?
The posting that contained the entire Microsoft document (including the Microsoft copyright and "trade secret" notices) should be pulled as it is an unauthorized release and a blatant violation of copyright. The messages that link or offer hacks are legitimate speech and should not be censored. That's my common sense assessment, not what the DMCA says.
If I read the article correctly, the door isn't open as far as many of the posted comments would make it appear.
They've enabled ICMP. They've talked about controlling orbital adjustments. I'm not up on how these birds are built, but I'm not sure from what I've read that this in any way opens up the data stream to the Internet.
Sure, you might be able to (literally) crash the satellite, but the idea of a DoS attack interrupting the data stream seems a bit of a reach. These are good examples of the problems which will need to be solved before our satellites all become nothing but nodes, but if someone managed a DoS attack on the IP port, it would only appear to mean they'd have to go back to inband satellite control instead of IP-based satellite control.
But I suppose it IS logical to assume that all the satellite functions would eventually be exposed via IP. IF that were the case with Iridium, it would be ironic to see a hacker deorbit all the birds, then let Motorola file an insurance claim and finally turn a profit on the system!
I changed jobs six months ago. I was looking very seriously for 6-7 months, and somewhat seriously for about six months before that. In the end, I found that I could get a job that paid about what I'm making, give or take, on about a week's notice. I could get a great job that I liked within a month if I was willing to give up half my salary. But to get a great job that I liked at the salary I wanted -- that was tough.
One recruiter gave me a rule of thumb: expect to spend one month looking for every $10K you want in salary. Worked out about right in my case. What you want has a lot to do with how easy it is to find it. If all that matters is the salary, and you really are worth what you're asking for, you can get placed pretty quickly in the Washington, DC, area. If you're going to be picky, it may take quite a while to find the perfect fit you're looking for.
Turn it around -- I also have had to recruit. If you ask for a network engineer, you're going to get flooded with CNE and MCSE types (both certified and those still working on exams, or thinking about it), but you're not going to have a great selection of anyone with the right experience and salary range. I had lots of pressure to hire tremendously overqualified people at exceedingly low salaries. If you want entry level, they're out there. If you want certified (or certifiable), they're out there, too. My previous company would hire a temp at $100+ per hour to do work that we could have hired an entry level tech to do for $25K. At the same time, when recruiting, they'd insist that that entry level tech have a CNE and A+ certification, and disqualify anyone who wanted more than $30K.
On the recruiting side, there was a tremendous gap between what the company wanted, and what they were willing to pay for. They concluded that there was a shortage. I concluded that they were daft.
>Who are these regular non-techie computer users.
>Do they really matter? Do we want them in the
>Linux community?
That's the 99% of computer users who pay our salaries! That's my mother, and most of my friends. That's practically everyone who uses Windows.
It's the masses, man...