This is what I love about the OSS community; it's a community! People drive each other from and to places, stay at each others', and when something unfortunate like this happens you truly feel that it's a community where people care about their own.
Here's what I feel we need to do; we need to put up a fund (donations) and a website to commemorate the OSS community members, and part (if not the vast majority of it, deservedly) of the mission/website fund ought keep their personal homepages and accounts on notable community portals (e.g. slashdot) alive, and be linked to from the website. Hans' personal homepage should **never** disappear due to lack of payment or activity, and it should not be left to his family members, hit by grief and possible loss of income, to do ensure that. Possibly too, condolences may be posted to one list that can be sent to his surviving folks. OSS members make personal sacrifices to be active members of the community and it'd be a nice tough to let their family members, who have likely been compromized financially by the opporutnity cost of their breadwinner being an active OSS member, ought to be let known that many many others care and are thankful for their contribution, whether it was code, logistical (hey, driving RMS is a big deal!), or even in spirit and enthausiasm.
"Blunkett has also revamped telecoms and internet access in the UK, although the difference to most UK web users may not be apparent, by making sure each web page visited or phone call made is monitored by the mobile operators, telcos and ISPs."
You must have the version of OpenOffice that comes out in 9 years.
You must not know what you're talking about. I have both openoffice/staroffice and office 2003 on this machine and I use daily and I know what i'm talking about.
I have staroffice version 7 or openoffice 1.1, and for your information, I have started using staroffice since version 5.2 and it became my preferred office application ever since eventhough i had access to office 97, then office XP. AT version 5.2 of staroffice it already had autocomplete, more reliable bullet listing and formatting, stylist and navigator, great template/autotext and other customization functions, and it also had features i now sorely miss such that great PIM that hotsync with my palm, and ability to divide window into several panes to see documents. The new version (SO6, 7 or OOo 1) added the xml document format, most notably.
What are you talking about?!! I have office 2003 on this machine i'm working/typing on but what do I use as my office application? Opeonoffice/Staroffice. Why? because it's already BETTER!
It will always be available to me, it uses smaller yet more reliable and open file format, it works faster than MS word and can even open word files that word itself chokes on, its autosave function is FAR more reliable than word's autorecovery, it never messes up formatting and especially outlines and bulleted lists the way word habitually does, i love the autocomplete feature, stylist and navigator are GREAT for accessibilty and ease of use, I like its templates/autotext/macros and the way they're implemented, I like the way its toolbars and keyboard shortcuts are customizable more than i like the way word does them.
"The UMG boss had little sympathy for the twelve-year-old girl in a New York housing project who had harbored an MP3 of the theme tune to her favorite show on her computer, and had been sued by the RIAA. Her family paid out thousands of dollars in a settlement. She was a "serious file sharer", insisted Kennedy.
But he had even less sympathy for songwriters, who receive only a small fraction of royalties that recordings owners receive. that was fair, he insisted, as hits were down to investment in marketing, he said."
"He'd be more sympathetic to songwriters, he said, the day that record companies had "50 per cent margins". In fact, he claimed that record companies spend more on R&D than technology companies, because of the marketing spend required to create a hit [On the balance sheets that the rest of the world must use, marketing expenditure is filed under "cost of sale", not R&D.]. The implication was clear: the success of an artist was down to the Shock and Awe bombing of the record company's marketing team, which is very expensive.
(Alert readers will be wondering why, if the songwriter's contribution is so ephemeral, UMG doesn't score a number one hit with every record it releases. John could then write all the hits himself, on a toy piano).
According to my insider hearsay, (note, it's hearsay, thus it's not admittable in court as evidence and by declaring it as such I can't be sued for libel, but I personally fully believe it to be true in my opinion, and again, i can't be sued for opinion), this started when Google was blocked by the chinese for having provided access through their search results to material the chinese government didn't like (dissenting views, and pro-democracy and human rights pages critical of the chinese government). Sergey (Brin), who is responsible for policy (Larry page oversees the technical side and Schmidt oversees the admins of doing business), wasn't quite sure how to respond, and was put by an insider 'grown-up' in contact with industry's 'grown-ups' to ask them, and as such he was talking to Esther Dyson who suggested to him, and effectively persuaded him with the following view; that internet use in china is, by large, a luxury that is afforded by those who are doing well within the system and thus don't have much to complain about, and that, essentially, internet users in china are people who prefer the status quo, and those who are deprived by the injustice of the chinese system either can't afford the luxury of being online or just don't need google to point out to them how bad things are. Basically, she advised him to cooperate with the chinese.
I should note that Esther Dyson is an investor in Google, albeit indirectly, through two venture funds and she won't say how much she's invested because she insists that she doesn't know the figures and deliberately avoids finding out.
Sergey was persuaded by this course or action and rationale, and google made contact with the chinese offering cooperation with them. Initially, google took the official line of refusing to elaborate on the extent of that cooperation, by insisting that they didn't make changes to their index but that they only advised the chinese on how to effectively block content from their users.
Now why does this matter?
I see many people who are defending Google saying it's a business and has no moral duty beyond acting within the business-regulating laws, and I can only suspect that else would've been said had it been something about Microsoft, or even Sun Microsystems (which is fashionable to hate these days by open source wanna-belong retards even though it's the second biggest code contributor ever to open source after UC Berkley). Well, morality matters to Google because they chose that it matters when they declared to the world that they're a company which motto is "Do No Evil". I personally am aware of people who find investing in Google attractive for charitable or philanthropic motives thanks to this feel-good motto, in a similar way to how they would want to invest in organic farming, green energy and the rest. Likewise, many people use it loyally with the same feel-good trust.
I have been somewhat busy so I'm not fully up to date with my insiders on recent developments, but now it seems that Google is blocking access to chinese sites not only for those they deem status-quo chinese internet users, but also globally, including people like me. If this is true then I do *not* feel good about this. It doesn't not agree with my morality, and morality matters because Google chose that it does.
As such, their motto should be fully declared as, and can only honestly be, "Do No Evil, with evil being defined and interpreted by our notable investors". Because after all, Evil is in the eye of beholder, otherwise why would I have a problem with Republican Nutcases whose worldview is "you're either with us, or with the evildoers".
Even if such an object hit Earth, I seriously doubt that it would lead to human extinction. In fact, it probably won't even kill as many people as the tens, or possibly even hundreds, of millions we have killed during the 20th century in two world wars, many other wars, and persistent indifference to humanitarian crises of famine or disease. This may be a young crowd, but those of us old enough who have grown up during the heat of the cold war will probably have less to worry about from a meteor hitting than all those tens of thousands of ICBM the USA and USSR seemed willing to unleash on each other and everyone at a very short notice.
Many species survived many mass extinction events, and, ironically and in fact, many of such species have been, or are being, driven to extinction by none other than us. Soon we will have successfully driven biodiversity to the minimum we have allowed to survive because we want it, such as dairy and poultry farms, and pets.
I am willing to bet that the last surviving species on Earth will be humans and microbes.
M$ is just being cheap again, for a global monoply they have a pretty bad mail service
Actually, on the contrary, the badness of their mail service proves and is very consistent with why a monopoly is bad. Microsoft did not show me that they had a true intention to improve hotmail for the user, and in fact, having been a user of hotmail since 97, my user experience had declined EVERYTIME microsoft made a revision to it; everytime they revised it it increased the amount of advertisement and revenue-making visuals I was exposed to, and made it harder for me to find and use the functions I need to easily use an email system. They bought a most popular webmail service and then unashamedly milked it. They also unashamedly used their OS monopoly to leverage it further.
It's entirely consistent with the theory that monopoly is bad because until they faced competition from google they did not seem intending to offer any significant improvements.
Those guys have experienced modernity long enough to forget that rats deserve their bad reputation in human history. A young girl I know just realized recently how bad the idea of owning a rat as a pet is. She had it as one of those quirky, wannabe-alternative drives and even made her roommate imitate her and get a rat too, in not too long her rat ate her roommate's rat, and as a result she got her roommate a bunny, but her rat, again, attacked the bunny and ate its eyelid and ears. Rats are notoriously unreliable.
"The American Education System has been declining over the last 30 years, just in case you thought this was a purely Libertarian rant."
It's ironic that your title includes the word "Bullshit" in an other-critical way yet its content contains such bullshit statement.
And here's why; I am almost sure that for you to say such statement you have not experienced education elsewhere in the world. I am absolutely sure that you have not been an exchange student or had contact with many of them to know what you're talking about if you make such claim. I, personally, experienced American education for my highschool, then sense of adventure in my youth took me to experience European education for my graduate and post-graduate at two of their top-three universities in my field for well over a decade, during which I remained actively in interaction at levels of good acquaintance, friend and boyfriend with over 300 American exchange students who spent time in Europe, and various European and international students the majority of which were the upper-crust of their generation academically.
Here's what is unequivocally my view, and the view of the vast majority of those who had direct experience; American education is the most modern, focused, effective, efficient, and well-resourced education anyone can get, unequivocally, and by far!
The idea that elections can be entrusted to the Diebold corporation is wholly absured when you consider that democracy is an activity of the people, for the people and by the people. Of course the results will be and ***SHOULD*** be questioned; that's the whole point of a democracy. That's why an open source voting system is and should be the only way to do computerized voting; it's open to scrutiny by anyone and everyone, and such it is, eventually and ultimately, beyond scrutiny when the final vote is out.
The open source community should produce as soon as possible an effective, secure, and open source voting system that's ready for reliable usage. It's one thing to criticize Diebold, it's another thing to question an elected official why an open source solution that's proven and secure and anyone can know the ins and outs of is not implemented and another obscure, closed, and highly questionable one is entrusted.
This isn't a question to the Green party candidate, but to the slashdot person(s) who organize these interviews; well, where are the interviews with Kerry and Bush?
I would tend to think that a medium with the traffic and mindshare of slashdot, the credentials in terms of all the people it had interviewed in the past, the political nature of many of the issues discussed on slashdot in 2004, and the fact that these elections may prove to be a one in which every vote counts would be ver persuasive to them to respond. After all, and without meaning to disrespect other candidates, it's either one of those two that is going to be the next president of the US and "leader of the free world".
How long can an expanding resource like wikipedia depend on donations? Wikipedia needs to start supporting itself and perhaps even a few other open source projects. Yes, I'd hate to see banners, but perhaps a few text ads won't annoy me as long as I know they are there to ensure wikipedia has the funds it needs to grow. As long as it's a not-for-profit organization, if it gathers too much money that it doesn't know what to do with, then just donate them to other open source efforts like mozilla.
How much is listing it on eBay for $150,000 going to cost him in fees if no one buys it? I'm assuming of course that he didn't list it on a free-listing day, does anyonw know if there's been a free-listing day 3 or 4 days ago?
The author won't manage to convince any of those "big business" megacorp record companies that filesharing is to be left alone. His thesis is probably to demonstrate to big business that filesharers aren't "stealing" from them, they aren't losing out of filesharing, and fileshaing isn't a threat to megacorp record companies. He hopes that big business will leave filesharing alone and go on with their business as usual. But that's not the point for big business. It's simple, big business is driven by an insatiable desire to eat up all potential space available for its expansion; it's aggressive, it's predatory, and the concept of profit overrides the concept of fairness. It's not that filesharing threatens big business' economic space, it's that big business wants its economic space ***AND*** filesharing too! Big business isn't in the defense position eventhough they pretend to be, they are, in fact, on the offense, and unrelentingly so. If there's someone listening to music, they want to set a price on it and make him/her pay. They have no qualm about making you pay twice and thrice for the same thing. Even if you already own the record but will download it, they want you to pay too for that if they could.
Here's what the problem is with tech jobs, and I was able to foresee this clearly, as a teen, 15 years ago; I was born in the mid-1970s, my dad got me my first computer in the early-1980s, and in the early 1990s I had just finished highschool, having had the conviction throughout my childhood that computing was going to be my future career and having spent most of my schooling preparing for this path, and lo and behold, what did I notice? I noticed that the vast majority of my cohort wanted a career in computing, virtually everyone I knew. In the early 1990s there was an IT job at a bank to which 139 applicants applied, and the one who got the job was a relative of one of the managers. It was clear to me back then that there was likely to be an oversupply of IT workers as my cohort finished their education. Not only that, but the dotcom boom even made the problem worse by enticing the cohort after them oversubscribe to IT too, compounding the situation further. It was clear to me that if I wanted a career in computing then being a worker is *not* going to be a safe and secure option, and coming from a family that did not have much capital or easy access to capital and business networks, I knew that going into it with the mentality that I would start my own business after I graduate and succeed was something of a gamble. Needless to say, I did not pursue IT.
I don't get you guys; I love Big Macs, and whoppers, just give me such a nice burger with large cold coke and fries, and generous amounts of ketchup, and I'd be so happy. They got carboyhydrates, proteins, salad, sauce, starch, and all the good stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
OSS members make personal sacrifices to be active members of the community and it'd be a nice tough to let their family members
Typo!... it'd be a nice **thought**... my bad, should've previewed.
This is what I love about the OSS community; it's a community! People drive each other from and to places, stay at each others', and when something unfortunate like this happens you truly feel that it's a community where people care about their own.
Here's what I feel we need to do; we need to put up a fund (donations) and a website to commemorate the OSS community members, and part (if not the vast majority of it, deservedly) of the mission/website fund ought keep their personal homepages and accounts on notable community portals (e.g. slashdot) alive, and be linked to from the website. Hans' personal homepage should **never** disappear due to lack of payment or activity, and it should not be left to his family members, hit by grief and possible loss of income, to do ensure that. Possibly too, condolences may be posted to one list that can be sent to his surviving folks. OSS members make personal sacrifices to be active members of the community and it'd be a nice tough to let their family members, who have likely been compromized financially by the opporutnity cost of their breadwinner being an active OSS member, ought to be let known that many many others care and are thankful for their contribution, whether it was code, logistical (hey, driving RMS is a big deal!), or even in spirit and enthausiasm.
"Blunkett has also revamped telecoms and internet access in the UK, although the difference to most UK web users may not be apparent, by making sure each web page visited or phone call made is monitored by the mobile operators, telcos and ISPs."
Is this true?
I shudder at the thought of all the goatse jokes that this submission seems to be inviting
You must have the version of OpenOffice that comes out in 9 years.
You must not know what you're talking about. I have both openoffice/staroffice and office 2003 on this machine and I use daily and I know what i'm talking about.
I have staroffice version 7 or openoffice 1.1, and for your information, I have started using staroffice since version 5.2 and it became my preferred office application ever since eventhough i had access to office 97, then office XP. AT version 5.2 of staroffice it already had autocomplete, more reliable bullet listing and formatting, stylist and navigator, great template/autotext and other customization functions, and it also had features i now sorely miss such that great PIM that hotsync with my palm, and ability to divide window into several panes to see documents.
The new version (SO6, 7 or OOo 1) added the xml document format, most notably.
Just a question; how much nuclear fuel is out there and how long would it last?
What are you talking about?!! I have office 2003 on this machine i'm working/typing on but what do I use as my office application? Opeonoffice/Staroffice. Why? because it's already BETTER!
It will always be available to me, it uses smaller yet more reliable and open file format, it works faster than MS word and can even open word files that word itself chokes on, its autosave function is FAR more reliable than word's autorecovery, it never messes up formatting and especially outlines and bulleted lists the way word habitually does, i love the autocomplete feature, stylist and navigator are GREAT for accessibilty and ease of use, I like its templates/autotext/macros and the way they're implemented, I like the way its toolbars and keyboard shortcuts are customizable more than i like the way word does them.
"The UMG boss had little sympathy for the twelve-year-old girl in a New York housing project who had harbored an MP3 of the theme tune to her favorite show on her computer, and had been sued by the RIAA. Her family paid out thousands of dollars in a settlement. She was a "serious file sharer", insisted Kennedy.
But he had even less sympathy for songwriters, who receive only a small fraction of royalties that recordings owners receive. that was fair, he insisted, as hits were down to investment in marketing, he said."
"He'd be more sympathetic to songwriters, he said, the day that record companies had "50 per cent margins". In fact, he claimed that record companies spend more on R&D than technology companies, because of the marketing spend required to create a hit [On the balance sheets that the rest of the world must use, marketing expenditure is filed under "cost of sale", not R&D.]. The implication was clear: the success of an artist was down to the Shock and Awe bombing of the record company's marketing team, which is very expensive.
(Alert readers will be wondering why, if the songwriter's contribution is so ephemeral, UMG doesn't score a number one hit with every record it releases. John could then write all the hits himself, on a toy piano).
From Music boss can't wait to sue British file sharers
Question; why should I have any sympathy for such a carnivorous jerk??!
According to my insider hearsay, (note, it's hearsay, thus it's not admittable in court as evidence and by declaring it as such I can't be sued for libel, but I personally fully believe it to be true in my opinion, and again, i can't be sued for opinion), this started when Google was blocked by the chinese for having provided access through their search results to material the chinese government didn't like (dissenting views, and pro-democracy and human rights pages critical of the chinese government). Sergey (Brin), who is responsible for policy (Larry page oversees the technical side and Schmidt oversees the admins of doing business), wasn't quite sure how to respond, and was put by an insider 'grown-up' in contact with industry's 'grown-ups' to ask them, and as such he was talking to Esther Dyson who suggested to him, and effectively persuaded him with the following view; that internet use in china is, by large, a luxury that is afforded by those who are doing well within the system and thus don't have much to complain about, and that, essentially, internet users in china are people who prefer the status quo, and those who are deprived by the injustice of the chinese system either can't afford the luxury of being online or just don't need google to point out to them how bad things are. Basically, she advised him to cooperate with the chinese.
I should note that Esther Dyson is an investor in Google, albeit indirectly, through two venture funds and she won't say how much she's invested because she insists that she doesn't know the figures and deliberately avoids finding out.
Sergey was persuaded by this course or action and rationale, and google made contact with the chinese offering cooperation with them. Initially, google took the official line of refusing to elaborate on the extent of that cooperation, by insisting that they didn't make changes to their index but that they only advised the chinese on how to effectively block content from their users.
Now why does this matter?
I see many people who are defending Google saying it's a business and has no moral duty beyond acting within the business-regulating laws, and I can only suspect that else would've been said had it been something about Microsoft, or even Sun Microsystems (which is fashionable to hate these days by open source wanna-belong retards even though it's the second biggest code contributor ever to open source after UC Berkley). Well, morality matters to Google because they chose that it matters when they declared to the world that they're a company which motto is "Do No Evil". I personally am aware of people who find investing in Google attractive for charitable or philanthropic motives thanks to this feel-good motto, in a similar way to how they would want to invest in organic farming, green energy and the rest. Likewise, many people use it loyally with the same feel-good trust.
I have been somewhat busy so I'm not fully up to date with my insiders on recent developments, but now it seems that Google is blocking access to chinese sites not only for those they deem status-quo chinese internet users, but also globally, including people like me. If this is true then I do *not* feel good about this. It doesn't not agree with my morality, and morality matters because Google chose that it does.
As such, their motto should be fully declared as, and can only honestly be, "Do No Evil, with evil being defined and interpreted by our notable investors". Because after all, Evil is in the eye of beholder, otherwise why would I have a problem with Republican Nutcases whose worldview is "you're either with us, or with the evildoers".
Even if such an object hit Earth, I seriously doubt that it would lead to human extinction. In fact, it probably won't even kill as many people as the tens, or possibly even hundreds, of millions we have killed during the 20th century in two world wars, many other wars, and persistent indifference to humanitarian crises of famine or disease. This may be a young crowd, but those of us old enough who have grown up during the heat of the cold war will probably have less to worry about from a meteor hitting than all those tens of thousands of ICBM the USA and USSR seemed willing to unleash on each other and everyone at a very short notice.
Many species survived many mass extinction events, and, ironically and in fact, many of such species have been, or are being, driven to extinction by none other than us. Soon we will have successfully driven biodiversity to the minimum we have allowed to survive because we want it, such as dairy and poultry farms, and pets.
I am willing to bet that the last surviving species on Earth will be humans and microbes.
M$ is just being cheap again, for a global monoply they have a pretty bad mail service
Actually, on the contrary, the badness of their mail service proves and is very consistent with why a monopoly is bad. Microsoft did not show me that they had a true intention to improve hotmail for the user, and in fact, having been a user of hotmail since 97, my user experience had declined EVERYTIME microsoft made a revision to it; everytime they revised it it increased the amount of advertisement and revenue-making visuals I was exposed to, and made it harder for me to find and use the functions I need to easily use an email system. They bought a most popular webmail service and then unashamedly milked it. They also unashamedly used their OS monopoly to leverage it further.
It's entirely consistent with the theory that monopoly is bad because until they faced competition from google they did not seem intending to offer any significant improvements.
Those guys have experienced modernity long enough to forget that rats deserve their bad reputation in human history. A young girl I know just realized recently how bad the idea of owning a rat as a pet is. She had it as one of those quirky, wannabe-alternative drives and even made her roommate imitate her and get a rat too, in not too long her rat ate her roommate's rat, and as a result she got her roommate a bunny, but her rat, again, attacked the bunny and ate its eyelid and ears.
Rats are notoriously unreliable.
"Am I the only one that finds this insanely awesome?"
Sure not; I, too, find this girl insanely awesome.
"The American Education System has been declining over the last 30 years, just in case you thought this was a purely Libertarian rant."
It's ironic that your title includes the word "Bullshit" in an other-critical way yet its content contains such bullshit statement.
And here's why; I am almost sure that for you to say such statement you have not experienced education elsewhere in the world. I am absolutely sure that you have not been an exchange student or had contact with many of them to know what you're talking about if you make such claim. I, personally, experienced American education for my highschool, then sense of adventure in my youth took me to experience European education for my graduate and post-graduate at two of their top-three universities in my field for well over a decade, during which I remained actively in interaction at levels of good acquaintance, friend and boyfriend with over 300 American exchange students who spent time in Europe, and various European and international students the majority of which were the upper-crust of their generation academically.
Here's what is unequivocally my view, and the view of the vast majority of those who had direct experience; American education is the most modern, focused, effective, efficient, and well-resourced education anyone can get, unequivocally, and by far!
The idea that elections can be entrusted to the Diebold corporation is wholly absured when you consider that democracy is an activity of the people, for the people and by the people. Of course the results will be and ***SHOULD*** be questioned; that's the whole point of a democracy. That's why an open source voting system is and should be the only way to do computerized voting; it's open to scrutiny by anyone and everyone, and such it is, eventually and ultimately, beyond scrutiny when the final vote is out.
The open source community should produce as soon as possible an effective, secure, and open source voting system that's ready for reliable usage. It's one thing to criticize Diebold, it's another thing to question an elected official why an open source solution that's proven and secure and anyone can know the ins and outs of is not implemented and another obscure, closed, and highly questionable one is entrusted.
I respect/like/admire/trust Sun more than I respect/like/admire/trust Red Hat. Nuff said.
McNealy is known to keep a "decapitated penguin" on his desk...
Don't be sensationally unfair; it's the head from the penguin costume that he WORE the year before to declare his company's embrace of Linux.
This isn't a question to the Green party candidate, but to the slashdot person(s) who organize these interviews; well, where are the interviews with Kerry and Bush?
I would tend to think that a medium with the traffic and mindshare of slashdot, the credentials in terms of all the people it had interviewed in the past, the political nature of many of the issues discussed on slashdot in 2004, and the fact that these elections may prove to be a one in which every vote counts would be ver persuasive to them to respond. After all, and without meaning to disrespect other candidates, it's either one of those two that is going to be the next president of the US and "leader of the free world".
The BBC is funded by people paying a licence to watch TV in the UK (it is illegal not to have one and watch TV in your place of residences)
Oh Boy! You mean it's illegal to watch TV and not have one!
How long can an expanding resource like wikipedia depend on donations? Wikipedia needs to start supporting itself and perhaps even a few other open source projects. Yes, I'd hate to see banners, but perhaps a few text ads won't annoy me as long as I know they are there to ensure wikipedia has the funds it needs to grow. As long as it's a not-for-profit organization, if it gathers too much money that it doesn't know what to do with, then just donate them to other open source efforts like mozilla.
How much is listing it on eBay for $150,000 going to cost him in fees if no one buys it? I'm assuming of course that he didn't list it on a free-listing day, does anyonw know if there's been a free-listing day 3 or 4 days ago?
The author won't manage to convince any of those "big business" megacorp record companies that filesharing is to be left alone. His thesis is probably to demonstrate to big business that filesharers aren't "stealing" from them, they aren't losing out of filesharing, and fileshaing isn't a threat to megacorp record companies. He hopes that big business will leave filesharing alone and go on with their business as usual. But that's not the point for big business. It's simple, big business is driven by an insatiable desire to eat up all potential space available for its expansion; it's aggressive, it's predatory, and the concept of profit overrides the concept of fairness. It's not that filesharing threatens big business' economic space, it's that big business wants its economic space ***AND*** filesharing too! Big business isn't in the defense position eventhough they pretend to be, they are, in fact, on the offense, and unrelentingly so. If there's someone listening to music, they want to set a price on it and make him/her pay. They have no qualm about making you pay twice and thrice for the same thing. Even if you already own the record but will download it, they want you to pay too for that if they could.
Here's what the problem is with tech jobs, and I was able to foresee this clearly, as a teen, 15 years ago; I was born in the mid-1970s, my dad got me my first computer in the early-1980s, and in the early 1990s I had just finished highschool, having had the conviction throughout my childhood that computing was going to be my future career and having spent most of my schooling preparing for this path, and lo and behold, what did I notice? I noticed that the vast majority of my cohort wanted a career in computing, virtually everyone I knew. In the early 1990s there was an IT job at a bank to which 139 applicants applied, and the one who got the job was a relative of one of the managers. It was clear to me back then that there was likely to be an oversupply of IT workers as my cohort finished their education. Not only that, but the dotcom boom even made the problem worse by enticing the cohort after them oversubscribe to IT too, compounding the situation further. It was clear to me that if I wanted a career in computing then being a worker is *not* going to be a safe and secure option, and coming from a family that did not have much capital or easy access to capital and business networks, I knew that going into it with the mentality that I would start my own business after I graduate and succeed was something of a gamble. Needless to say, I did not pursue IT.
I don't get you guys; I love Big Macs, and whoppers, just give me such a nice burger with large cold coke and fries, and generous amounts of ketchup, and I'd be so happy. They got carboyhydrates, proteins, salad, sauce, starch, and all the good stuff.
this has a good perspective on the issue...
http://www.maxframe.com/EUBANKS.HTM