When I look for a candidate, being a PhD is impressive, but it doesn't say a lot about how well you would work in a corporate environment.
First of all, nobody works in a corporate environment.
Second, I'm certain that the PhD, along with everyone else who has had at least one successful brain synapse in the last year will be fired within six months anyway.
Third, the only measure of how "well" one works in a corporate environment is how much of a "team player" they are, and PhDs can shovel just as much happy horseshit into the management suite as anyone else.
While interviewing one PhD, it was apperent to me that he wasn't used to a very fast paced schedule with indefinite requirements.
"Build something, real fast!" Yeah, that about says it all.
As a hiring manager PHD's arent particulary atractive in and of themselves.
Yeah, *whew* oh, I am so glad I don't have to go through this fucking cynical parade of foamy BULLSHIT any more.
Down on your knees, begging Glenda the hiring blimp for a pencil so you can fill out the 26-page application, wondering if you can find enough change under the front seat of your soon-to-be-reposessed car to buy a couple jars of baby food for your kids between now and the first paycheck, and then hearing "PhDs aren't particularly attractive..."
Most employers are not interested in being a way-station on someones career.
Awwwww. The poor boo-boos....
I figure if I really need a job, tayloring the resume to suit the position is essential.
I was asked to "tailor" my resume once, and to "put my degree last." I told the obviously highly intelligent HR person "I will not become a liar to impress a cheat."
I didn't get the job, which is a good thing because the thought of working there made me want to projectile vomit my shoes across the office.
Isn't it amazing that schools always seem to have money for these stupid projects, but never seem to have enough for books, pencils, field trips, music, athletic equipment, teachers, classrooms, desks...
Manufacturers of systems with proprietary operating systems such as high-end routers, data storage devices, and a variety of telecommunications equipment, now generally say their software license agreements prohibit transfer of the software when the hardware is resold.
Why is the second place company always "struggling?" Nintendo is not struggling. Their company is worth 25 billion dollars. They make the Gameboy. Remember the Gameboy? Yeah. 20 million units. They own about 47 phenomenally successful franchises.
Enough with the hype. Next we'll be hearing how "sleek" the new Playstation is going to be, or a $10 billion purchase described as "snapping up."
Cubicledrone, you have been accused of "ad hominem" fallacy, and have thus far failed to disprove the truth of this claim.
Who the fuck cares?
A chain of logic requires a claim, evidence and a conclusion to be considered valid.
No it doesn't. Since you haven't studied logic, I'll explain it. A valid logical argument requires at least one premise and a true conclusion. A sound argument requires a valid argument with all true premises. An invalid argument is precisely and only an argument with all true premises and a false conclusion.
This is the major claim of most ad hominem fallacies... "Isn't it obvious? Everybody knows it."
Wrong. This is the fallacy of "appeal to authority," or more specifically "appeal to anonymous authority."
"I've studied it for 10 years" is generally not considered valid as evidence unless you have expert qualifications.
Ten years of study stands as an expert qualification on it's face.
Are you a copyright lawyer without reason for bias?
Oh, so if I were an attorney, I would be disqualified if I had an opinion?
Removing copyright law will remove incentive to produce creative works (no evidence given for this - nothing is even mentioned that might be considered such evidence
How about the 400 years of copyright law?
no evidence given for this either because a list of people who would go out of work is not evidence that those people will go out of work
Well, since no information is adequate, what's the point of discussing it again?
I have systematically eliminated every point you have made on the grounds of lack of evidence from your second point, proving that your post lacks merit as a argument for copyright laws (because there are no valid arguments). I leave it as an exercise for the reader (Fun game!) to verify antiMStroll's claim on Cubicdrone's original post.
I'd say there's an 80% chance this whole thing was a troll, but I'm bored anyway, so whatever.
but the argument presents no chain of logic, offers guesses instead of facts, has no historical perspective how copyright evolved into its current form and what the originators intended, or how artists survived before it, no consideration of, for example, how copying in the form of VCRs increased profits, no discussion of what it would mean for innovation in an information society if the RIAA, MPAA had thier way, and therefore no content relevant to the discussion.
Bullshit.
I've been studying the issues surrounding copyright for 10 years. What it's about is getting "The Hulk" for free. It's that simple. It's a lot easier to let some other guy try to figure out how to replace their job than it is to just PAY for the FUCKING MOVIE. It doesn't have a FUCKING thing to do with the progress of copyright law.
Oh, it might have at one time. There used to be real discussion of copyright reform. But it isn't that way now, because it isn't about copyright reform and the "artists" any more. How does infringing on copyrights help the artists? It doesn't. That's an irrefutable "chain of logic."
Your championship-level run-on sentence also brings up about eleventeen red herrings and straw men which have nothing to do with the difference between WAREZZZZ D00000000dZ000RR>>ZZZZZZZ and the current state of copyrights.
'Tens of millions' out of work? What was the source of that number, PIOOMA?
Actually you can start with the Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I'll make it easy for you: publishing, printing, typesetters, chemical and page treatment, editorial services, shipping, distribution, retail, advertising, sales, paper, binding materials.
That's just the book industry, without the writers, of course. Now multiply that with: music, movies, software, television, theater, newspapers, radio, magazines, photography, painting and practical arts.
Then you can erase all the educational support for those industries, including the schools of language arts, linguistics, dance, music, drama, etc. at several thousand universities.
In 200 years or so, there will no longer be any need to learn to read, since nobody will have time to write anything worth reading, except perhaps a misspelled grocery list. How about a 10% literacy rate? Wouldn't that be just great? Guess what happens to the progress of technology then? (hint: The word "faceplant" comes to mind.)
So yeah, it's sort of important. We should be talking about copyright reform, not how to warez the sequel of the month.
I'd love to have a 2000 movie home DVD library, but DVDs are too expensive.
I want a pony. What's your point?
Maybe they should consider cutting the price of all DVDs by half.
Oh, and that will magically make everyone stop warezing whatever the fuck they feel like?
I'd rather pay the extra $10 so I don't have to sit and watch a progress bar at 0.2kbps to get a low-res, tinny-sounding piece-of-shit poor substitute for a DVD after 137 hours.
I would guess that in the entire history of filesharing that not one single DVD-quality movie has ever been successfully transferred and watched for free. Some quarter-screen VCD is not competitive with the real product.
Scenario, Year 2150: Mommy says to son while touring museum, "You see, Billy, back in the 20th Century, people used to buy music for $15 a collection!! They used to access their music on little round things called CDs!"
Billy says, "Mommy, what's a Metallica?"
Mommy: "I don't know, Billy, but I sure wish I could find work. I used to be a writer, but then all writing became worthless, so now I have to work sweeping floors to buy food."
That's all. All this discussion of copyright reform and the "artists" is a non-issue. What it is really about is "we want everything for free."
People really think that if copyrights were repealed completely, that somehow the marketplace wouldn't change at all: that $200 million movies would still be made, people would devote 3-5 years to writing a book, and animators would spend tens of thousands of man-hours on television and home video.
Here's a hint: they won't. Sure, you'd have the odd street performer and concert in the park, but by and large, all professional creative effort would be pointless, and the people who are now making a living at it would have to find other work: probably a minimum wage fast food job, because as we all know, arts degrees are worthless in the "real world."
"All for free" is just as extreme, and just as absurd as "pay per play." But the argument will never be taken seriously, because it isn't about fixing things, it's about "we'll just take it, and then rationalize it with some bullshit straw man argument over the meaning of the word 'theft.'"
If copyright is repealed, it will render millions of man-years of effort totally worthless, and put tens of millions out of work. Dozens of industries will become pointless. That's not progress.
How about a real discussion of copyright reform instead of half-assed "nyah nyah nyahs" at the MPAA?
But getting heard above the increasing online noise is a problem.
No it's not. Not even in the slightest. Funny how they start right off painting obstacles for a business they have only written two pages about.
"There are certain attributes in 'try before you buy,'" said David Nixon, the executive producer of RealOneArcade. "They have to be a small download. They have to be understood easily. They have to get you hooked right away."
Spoken like a true corporate management genius. They do not have to be a small download, they do not have to be understood easily, and they do not have to get you hooked right away. Put away the FUCKING LAUNDRY LIST and try to LEARN SOMETHING.
RealOneArcade? Owned, no doubt by Real Networks which has a market cap of only $7 million. Yeah, that's really the two-guys and a musician indie scene, isn't it?
PopCap and the online game portals have helped open up computer gaming to soccer moms worldwide.
Show of hands. Who didn't get stomach cramps reading that little blurb?
So what's next?
An attempt at research would be nice. PopCap and Real Networks ain't it.
A $10.99 warezed camera. Now that's progress. Wow!
You're right. There's nothing keeping the user from permanently renting the $10 camera and generating thousands upon thousands of free warezed pictures with it 24 hours a day until it literally collapses under its own weight and is absorbed into the center of the galaxy.
Save your $10 and spend it on something else. Oh, wait. There isn't anything to spend it on, because all people have to do is buy the first one and then upload it to warez-r-us.com so everyone else can have it for free.
Remember when people used to say "hey that's neat" instead of "hey, how can we get it for free instead of paying our twelve cents like everyone else?"
And to think most of these discussions are complaints about greed.
this is all very well but is a pc what you want in your car? keyboard, mouse, tiny icons due to running on a small LCD? unless someone's released "Windows XP Car edition" or similar I really don't see this as all that useful
Let me guess: You're the guy who sits in meetings and says "who would want to buy that?"
I was pointing out that it was kind of silly for Disney to be selling these expiring movie files when it would be easy for anyone to get around it.
Maybe some people would rather just pay their five bucks or whatever instead of spending hours building some Byzantine device to get it for free.
I'm just pointing out that since it's so easy to circumvent their "expiration" approach, why don't they just let consumers download non-expiring versions and charge a few extra bucks?
Because they know that if people are ethically ambivalent enough to expend such effort to infringe on a five-dollar movie, they wouldn't care if it expires or not, and they don't.
Slashdot Mirror
I just look at degrees as a piece of paper that shows someone has learnt some discipline towards accomplishing goals.
Yeah, I think it says that right under "With all privileges and rights appertaining thereto."
"The Degree of Some Discipline Towards Accomplishing Goals"
When I look for a candidate, being a PhD is impressive, but it doesn't say a lot about how well you would work in a corporate environment.
First of all, nobody works in a corporate environment.
Second, I'm certain that the PhD, along with everyone else who has had at least one successful brain synapse in the last year will be fired within six months anyway.
Third, the only measure of how "well" one works in a corporate environment is how much of a "team player" they are, and PhDs can shovel just as much happy horseshit into the management suite as anyone else.
While interviewing one PhD, it was apperent to me that he wasn't used to a very fast paced schedule with indefinite requirements.
"Build something, real fast!" Yeah, that about says it all.
Maybe to invent a magnetic field that keeps bosses from being pussies. Maybe then we all could get some #%(*@(_*^%_))#@_)@# work done.
As a hiring manager PHD's arent particulary atractive in and of themselves.
Yeah, *whew* oh, I am so glad I don't have to go through this fucking cynical parade of foamy BULLSHIT any more.
Down on your knees, begging Glenda the hiring blimp for a pencil so you can fill out the 26-page application, wondering if you can find enough change under the front seat of your soon-to-be-reposessed car to buy a couple jars of baby food for your kids between now and the first paycheck, and then hearing "PhDs aren't particularly attractive..."
Yeah. A real fine economy we got here...
and my preference when interviewing to select people with solid commercial experience rather that mostly academic backgrounds.
So, no entry-level jobs in your industry? Free hint: everyone starting out has a mostly "academic" background.
Most employers are not interested in being a way-station on someones career.
Awwwww. The poor boo-boos....
I figure if I really need a job, tayloring the resume to suit the position is essential.
I was asked to "tailor" my resume once, and to "put my degree last." I told the obviously highly intelligent HR person "I will not become a liar to impress a cheat."
I didn't get the job, which is a good thing because the thought of working there made me want to projectile vomit my shoes across the office.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895
Isn't it amazing that schools always seem to have money for these stupid projects, but never seem to have enough for books, pencils, field trips, music, athletic equipment, teachers, classrooms, desks...
Manufacturers of systems with proprietary operating systems such as high-end routers, data storage devices, and a variety of telecommunications equipment, now generally say their software license agreements prohibit transfer of the software when the hardware is resold.
First sale doctrine.
Next.
Why is the second place company always "struggling?" Nintendo is not struggling. Their company is worth 25 billion dollars. They make the Gameboy. Remember the Gameboy? Yeah. 20 million units. They own about 47 phenomenally successful franchises.
Enough with the hype. Next we'll be hearing how "sleek" the new Playstation is going to be, or a $10 billion purchase described as "snapping up."
Give me an 'M!' ...
What about mod_gzip?
Cubicledrone, you have been accused of "ad hominem" fallacy, and have thus far failed to disprove the truth of this claim.
Who the fuck cares?
A chain of logic requires a claim, evidence and a conclusion to be considered valid.
No it doesn't. Since you haven't studied logic, I'll explain it. A valid logical argument requires at least one premise and a true conclusion. A sound argument requires a valid argument with all true premises. An invalid argument is precisely and only an argument with all true premises and a false conclusion.
This is the major claim of most ad hominem fallacies... "Isn't it obvious? Everybody knows it."
Wrong. This is the fallacy of "appeal to authority," or more specifically "appeal to anonymous authority."
"I've studied it for 10 years" is generally not considered valid as evidence unless you have expert qualifications.
Ten years of study stands as an expert qualification on it's face.
Are you a copyright lawyer without reason for bias?
Oh, so if I were an attorney, I would be disqualified if I had an opinion?
Removing copyright law will remove incentive to produce creative works (no evidence given for this - nothing is even mentioned that might be considered such evidence
How about the 400 years of copyright law?
no evidence given for this either because a list of people who would go out of work is not evidence that those people will go out of work
Well, since no information is adequate, what's the point of discussing it again?
I have systematically eliminated every point you have made on the grounds of lack of evidence from your second point, proving that your post lacks merit as a argument for copyright laws (because there are no valid arguments). I leave it as an exercise for the reader (Fun game!) to verify antiMStroll's claim on Cubicdrone's original post.
I'd say there's an 80% chance this whole thing was a troll, but I'm bored anyway, so whatever.
Yes! many people don't know this but all writing was done after 1790
What was the literacy rate 1200 years ago? 2200 years ago?
Thanks for playing.
but the argument presents no chain of logic, offers guesses instead of facts, has no historical perspective how copyright evolved into its current form and what the originators intended, or how artists survived before it, no consideration of, for example, how copying in the form of VCRs increased profits, no discussion of what it would mean for innovation in an information society if the RIAA, MPAA had thier way, and therefore no content relevant to the discussion.
Bullshit.
I've been studying the issues surrounding copyright for 10 years. What it's about is getting "The Hulk" for free. It's that simple. It's a lot easier to let some other guy try to figure out how to replace their job than it is to just PAY for the FUCKING MOVIE. It doesn't have a FUCKING thing to do with the progress of copyright law.
Oh, it might have at one time. There used to be real discussion of copyright reform. But it isn't that way now, because it isn't about copyright reform and the "artists" any more. How does infringing on copyrights help the artists? It doesn't. That's an irrefutable "chain of logic."
Your championship-level run-on sentence also brings up about eleventeen red herrings and straw men which have nothing to do with the difference between WAREZZZZ D00000000dZ000RR>>ZZZZZZZ and the current state of copyrights.
'Tens of millions' out of work? What was the source of that number, PIOOMA?
Actually you can start with the Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I'll make it easy for you: publishing, printing, typesetters, chemical and page treatment, editorial services, shipping, distribution, retail, advertising, sales, paper, binding materials.
That's just the book industry, without the writers, of course. Now multiply that with: music, movies, software, television, theater, newspapers, radio, magazines, photography, painting and practical arts.
Then you can erase all the educational support for those industries, including the schools of language arts, linguistics, dance, music, drama, etc. at several thousand universities.
In 200 years or so, there will no longer be any need to learn to read, since nobody will have time to write anything worth reading, except perhaps a misspelled grocery list. How about a 10% literacy rate? Wouldn't that be just great? Guess what happens to the progress of technology then? (hint: The word "faceplant" comes to mind.)
So yeah, it's sort of important. We should be talking about copyright reform, not how to warez the sequel of the month.
I'd love to have a 2000 movie home DVD library, but DVDs are too expensive.
I want a pony. What's your point?
Maybe they should consider cutting the price of all DVDs by half.
Oh, and that will magically make everyone stop warezing whatever the fuck they feel like?
I'd rather pay the extra $10 so I don't have to sit and watch a progress bar at 0.2kbps to get a low-res, tinny-sounding piece-of-shit poor substitute for a DVD after 137 hours.
I would guess that in the entire history of filesharing that not one single DVD-quality movie has ever been successfully transferred and watched for free. Some quarter-screen VCD is not competitive with the real product.
Scenario, Year 2150: Mommy says to son while touring museum, "You see, Billy, back in the 20th Century, people used to buy music for $15 a collection!! They used to access their music on little round things called CDs!"
Billy says, "Mommy, what's a Metallica?"
Mommy: "I don't know, Billy, but I sure wish I could find work. I used to be a writer, but then all writing became worthless, so now I have to work sweeping floors to buy food."
Billy: "Mommy, what's writing?"
It's all about "we want it for free."
That's all. All this discussion of copyright reform and the "artists" is a non-issue. What it is really about is "we want everything for free."
People really think that if copyrights were repealed completely, that somehow the marketplace wouldn't change at all: that $200 million movies would still be made, people would devote 3-5 years to writing a book, and animators would spend tens of thousands of man-hours on television and home video.
Here's a hint: they won't. Sure, you'd have the odd street performer and concert in the park, but by and large, all professional creative effort would be pointless, and the people who are now making a living at it would have to find other work: probably a minimum wage fast food job, because as we all know, arts degrees are worthless in the "real world."
"All for free" is just as extreme, and just as absurd as "pay per play." But the argument will never be taken seriously, because it isn't about fixing things, it's about "we'll just take it, and then rationalize it with some bullshit straw man argument over the meaning of the word 'theft.'"
If copyright is repealed, it will render millions of man-years of effort totally worthless, and put tens of millions out of work. Dozens of industries will become pointless. That's not progress.
How about a real discussion of copyright reform instead of half-assed "nyah nyah nyahs" at the MPAA?
Two years isn't even enough time to complete one advertising cycle. 20 years should be the minimum.
Copyright law is NOT BAD, just our implementation of it.
so...
Add some sort of "fee" to our taxes
Raise taxes! Of course! It's not like we aren't already paying a torrential flood of taxes every year now.
But getting heard above the increasing online noise is a problem.
No it's not. Not even in the slightest. Funny how they start right off painting obstacles for a business they have only written two pages about.
"There are certain attributes in 'try before you buy,'" said David Nixon, the executive producer of RealOneArcade. "They have to be a small download. They have to be understood easily. They have to get you hooked right away."
Spoken like a true corporate management genius. They do not have to be a small download, they do not have to be understood easily, and they do not have to get you hooked right away. Put away the FUCKING LAUNDRY LIST and try to LEARN SOMETHING.
RealOneArcade? Owned, no doubt by Real Networks which has a market cap of only $7 million. Yeah, that's really the two-guys and a musician indie scene, isn't it?
PopCap and the online game portals have helped open up computer gaming to soccer moms worldwide.
Show of hands. Who didn't get stomach cramps reading that little blurb?
So what's next?
An attempt at research would be nice. PopCap and Real Networks ain't it.
Yes! Of course! Let's WAREZ THE CAMERA TOO!!
A $10.99 warezed camera. Now that's progress. Wow!
You're right. There's nothing keeping the user from permanently renting the $10 camera and generating thousands upon thousands of free warezed pictures with it 24 hours a day until it literally collapses under its own weight and is absorbed into the center of the galaxy.
Save your $10 and spend it on something else. Oh, wait. There isn't anything to spend it on, because all people have to do is buy the first one and then upload it to warez-r-us.com so everyone else can have it for free.
Remember when people used to say "hey that's neat" instead of "hey, how can we get it for free instead of paying our twelve cents like everyone else?"
And to think most of these discussions are complaints about greed.
this is all very well but is a pc what you want in your car? keyboard, mouse, tiny icons due to running on a small LCD? unless someone's released "Windows XP Car edition" or similar I really don't see this as all that useful
Let me guess: You're the guy who sits in meetings and says "who would want to buy that?"
I was pointing out that it was kind of silly for Disney to be selling these expiring movie files when it would be easy for anyone to get around it.
Maybe some people would rather just pay their five bucks or whatever instead of spending hours building some Byzantine device to get it for free.
I'm just pointing out that since it's so easy to circumvent their "expiration" approach, why don't they just let consumers download non-expiring versions and charge a few extra bucks?
Because they know that if people are ethically ambivalent enough to expend such effort to infringe on a five-dollar movie, they wouldn't care if it expires or not, and they don't.
At the retail value of the movie, you'd be making about $8.50 an hour. Have yerself a ball.