There is nothing wrong with developers making whatever they feel like making. In fact, its a great idea.
But, if your goal is to get "Linux on the desktop" to be more than a toy, then development needs to be about creating the software that people want to use/need. People. Not developers, or even computer-savvy people. Just people in general.
Before you all flame me with "Linux on the Desktop isn't a toy" think about this: How many people out there who know a thing or to about how to use a computer can figure out how to actually do anything with Linux?
I know many a developer who wasted days trying to get the most trivial things to work on a Linux box. I include myself in this list. (If you really want to hear that rant, reply and ask...)
What's my point? Before linux becomes more useful than Windows (to the average user) Linux will need a version of every type of program that a user might need (and preferably only 1, or at least, 1 semi-standard one). It needs to be easy to install software( saying, "just run the configure script. If that works, run make and make install, and if all goes well, the binary will be in/usr/bin/myCoolApp" isn't good enough -- works about 85% of the time, and is in no way user-friendly). It needs to be easy to configure. It needs not to be necessary for a normal user to know root password. (Such as to eject a CD while the system thinks it is in use)
Yeah, Windows (and Windows software) have problems. Lots of them, in fact. But, you know what? Most people can get their computers to do what they want, and most of what they want to do works most of the time. If I gave my parents a Linux install (even if I did it for them, installed everything, and got it all set up) they'd be years figuring out how to do anything. And not because they are stupid, either. Actually, as far as it goes, they exhibit less of the "anti-brainwave" effects of computers than most.
So yeah. Go ahead, create whatever you want. I don't care, because I don't have a vested interest in making Linux succeed in the desktop market. If you do, however, then you have to create what the user wants, not yell at the user that he ought to either want what you want to make or make it himself.
Why shouldn't I be able to do that easily?
Because, while you own the DVD disk and the box it came in, and the sleeve in the box with the pretty picture on it you do NOT own the pretty picture (and so can't make copies and give them to people) and you do NOT own the data on the DVD disc. You have exchanged your money for a license that grants you very very specific rights on what you may/may not do with the disc.
That said, I think that it should be illegal for a company to put limitations on a medium without making that knowledge available. A DVD ought to be required to say "Only playable on licensed DVD players, only playable in Region 1 (USA/Canada), can not be duplicated or archived, may contain intro material that can not be skipped" -- or something accurate to that effect. And yes, I know it "can" be skipped -- but not under normal use.
It should be the law that if undocumented "features" of protection are included then the manufacturer is obligated to take back an open product and provide a full refund (including any shipping charges incurred in the return) on the grounds of misleading advertising.
Simple problem: If it is under the GPL then theoretically, you want people to be able to improve your software (so long as they distribute the source afterwards.
Nobody can read code that has been obfuscated and then watermarked, so nobody will look at your code, so nobody will improve it, so what the hell is the point of using the GPL?
Just release under a different license if you don't want people to modify it.
Besides, most watermarking is done as a post-compile process -- meaning that the watermark wouldn't be in the source code, in many cases -- just the obfuscation.
Re:Isn't an NDA supposed to be limited in time ?
on
Of NDAs and Resumes?
·
· Score: 1
At least in the state of California, there is a legal sense of right-to-work. No employment contract (including things like no-compete or non-disclosure) can legally prevent you from working.
For example: someone I know recently left a nation-wide company. His employment contract stated that he could not work in his field for 1: any of that companies clients, or 2: any competitor within 25 miles of any office of that company.
That left him with 0 possibilities. So, what did he do? He went to work for a competitor, and guess what: when the company challenged him, he one.
At least in CA, these things are only *so* binding.
As for resumes, unless it is a "black project" you ought to be able to say something of interest about the project. Perhaps, as was suggested earlier, just describe the technologies that were used without ever mentioning what the product is actually for.
If it is 1+ black projects, then you can just describe your security clearance, and talk vaguely about the kinds of things that you did.
social engineering to a positive effect being more powerful than the technical applications of cheat detection.
I couldn't agree more with that point. I have taken many a class where I am certain of exactly who is cheating -- and when.
Basically, I find that there is a small quantity of severe cheating when the professor takes a completely lax attitude (example: 3-7 out of 400 students sitting next to each other copying answers back and forth for 10 minutes after the exam ended)
However, I find that there is a worse problem when the professor decides to be totally gung-ho about cheating. You know the type. Positive ID required to turn in an exam, sit with 2 empty seats on both sides, 8 different exams, names of those near you on your paper. Some profs even go so far as to say that working on homework with other students is cheating, and that if two people sit to do the homework together (or even just to discuss a single problem) they will fail the course)
I find that here there is less cheating, and a general lack of caring about the professors opinions. People still "cheat" by helping each other on homework, and they don't cheat on the exams. They also are generally pissed at the prof, and so stop attending lectures, or caring about what the prof thinks. Sure the grades suffer, but... what is the point: learning
I say (within reason) let the cheaters cheat. Where its obvious, embarrass them or fail them, but don't go out of your way to catch every student. Instead worry about how much the student learned After all, what is the purpose for going to school? To get a degree, or to learn?
Well, it is true that for most college students it is about the magical paper that suddenly increases their salary by >$20K/year, but... that shouldn't be the point...
I had something resembling "My BIOS takes at least 10-20 times that, how can my OS speed that up..."
On topic, it is very cool to have an operating system that can start that quickly -- assuming stability, which is essential in embedded stuff (what happens when your Microwave has a kernel panic while cooking, for example)
Embedded devices really should start very fast, so boot time is really important. That said, this thing about 100ms being available eventually doesn't matter. Most people can't really do much with 100ms. In fact, most people can't tell if audio synchronization is off unless its at least about 75-100ms off... and only then when looking at people's faces. My point is: going from a large number of seconds to a large number of milliseconds is a great feat. But, I think that I can wait the full 1/5 of a second for my system to boot... I won't hold my breath (or waste my $) making it 100ms faster...
In fact, I still have a 340MB hard drive which is exactly 340 Megabytes = 356,515,840 Bytes and a 1.6GB Drive that is exactly 1.60 Gigabytes = 1,717,986,918 Bytes.
Then, I bought a 3.4 Gigabyte drive that was 3,400,000,000 Bytes = 3.16 Gigabytes.
They changed the definition when they realized it might be better marketing.
If hard drives had always been a certain way, it'd be OK, but, guess what, they weren't. The decision to change was a marketing one, and mostly unethical at that.
You have hit it perfectly here. As a small tangent, I would like to describe an excellent example from real life.
I haven't read any recent salary surveys, but... Someone I know, let's call him Jim, runs a small business (about 20-30 employees).
He needs 2 programmers on staff. He is forever complaining to me that he has the most crappy programmers, and that all programmers are lazy, self-centered sons of bitches.
Nice. Especially since I'm a programmer.
Well, I found out why he has such trouble. He hires a programmer. He expects them to be there by 8:00a, but that they are on time so long as they arrive within about 5 minutes of Jim getting there (random time, between 8:00 and 8:30 -- usually closer to 8:00. If Jim is really late, (9:00 or later) then the programmers had better be already hard at work when he arrives)
In addition, he starts to really harp on these guys any time they leave before 5:00 or if they leave before him more than a few times.
He takes the "the staff should be already working when the boss arrives, and still working when the boss leaves" mentality, but tries to be slightly flexible about it.
In addition, he pays his programmers $40K - $45K per year.
I talked to Jim about this several times, saying something to the effect that if you treat your programmers as if they are worthless, you will not attract the creme of the crop.
Besides, if a half-decent programmer with a degree can go anywhere and earn $55K - $70K (at the time -- early/mid 2000 these rates were very easy to come by) why would he work for you when you are both really aggravating AND are paying way way less.
His response? You programmers are so arrogant. Why should I pay you that much, you're not worth it. You're all lazy and incompetant.
So... he gets crappy programmers... and wonders why...
Actually, the "magic sysrq key" is disabled by default for a damn good reason.
The "magic SysRq key" is a key sequence that allows some basic commands to be passed directly to the kernel. Kernel software developers use this interface to debug their software. Under most circumstances it can also be used to uncleanly reboot the computer, something that is otherwise difficult or expensive to do remotely.
Anyone can dial into a modem and send a break, so if the serial console is attached to a modem we need to disable the magic SysRq key
So. the SysRq key is disabled because it can be used (remotely) to do bad things, like an unclean shutdown, something you probably don't want people to do with your servers. (Only under certain circumstances -- but it's likely that one wouldn't remember about sysrq, it being mostly unused and all.
Quotes from The Linux Documentation Project www.tldp.org
I bought a new civic in 2002.
I didn't buy the Hybrid, even though I really wanted to. Here's why.
1: Battery needs to be replaced roughly at the 100K mile mark. At the time I was looking, they said that was on the order of a $1500-$2000 service.
2: Sticker price of the car is roughly $4000 more than that of a normal "LX" model.
3: I really hated the interior color. This is a real trivial thing, but... I really just didn't like the beige and brown thing.
4: It was a brand new first-year model, and I generally don't buy first-years, especially on drastic technology changes. When the '04s come out very soon (if not already) then this one is solved.
That said, there were some benefits:
1: A $2000 tax credit (in CA) which wouldn't have affected me much, because as a semi-poor college student, I didn't pay $2000 in taxes...
2: I figured an estimated savings of $2500-$3000 over the life of the battery (given my driving)
3: A few little bonuses are included in the car, such as climate control, which I think is really spiffy.
4: It's a hybrid. Awesome geek toy
5: Gives me even more reason to mock all the SUV drivers out there.
In the end, I decided that, over the life of the battery (I'd probably sell the car at the 100k mark rather than fix it) I'd save about $3000-$4000 and spend about $4000 extra NOW for the privelage.
If the following 3 things were true, I'd have bought it:
1: I paid enough taxes that I could really benefit from the $2000 tax credit
2: The interior/exterior were available in some better colors.
3: It wasn't the very first model year.
If only two of these were true, I might still have done it.
But none were, so I didn't.
"It's also unfortunate that a lawyer would try to prevent others from getting the assurances they want that they will not be sued,"
This is absolutely laughable. To think for a minute that we can trust the RIAA NOT to sue somebody after they have signed confessions. Notte how they are not offering any sort of documented protection, just an "assurance". What are assurances worth? legally?
It just amazes me that the RIAA acts as though it actually has credibility.
This reminds me of a line of reasoning that I followed when Microsoft released Windows XP with mandatory product activation.
Hypothectical Scenario: User purchases a computer with Windows XP. They then proceed to dramatically change the hardware (more RAM, new HD, soundcard, video card, and a DVD burner)
They reboot the machine and Windows says "activate me again"
You can call MS, and if you tell them a convincing story, they will give you a new magic key.
But let's say, for the sake of this argument, that MS wasn't convinced, and refused to give you a key.
When you purchase a work, you have certain rights. Nobody would argue that the purchaser of a piece of software has the right to install it on one computer and use it himself. Some may argue that you have more rights than that, but even Microsoft would agree that you can do that much.
In addition, Microsoft provided you with an EULA. There are debates over whether they are valid, but let's assume they are for the moment.
The EULA says that you have certain rights, including the right to install and use the software on one computer. In addition, you have the right to transfer all of your rights to someone else (First Sale Doctrine gives you this too, so MS isn't really "giving" you anything here, they're just reminding you of your rights)
So... Microsoft and you 'negotiated' an agreement that granted you certain rights in exchange for ceretain responsabilities and money. They then proceeded to provide you with a product specifically designed to prevent you from using the rights that you were granted (namely, to install and use it on one computer -- or to transfer it to a friend).
Does that not sound like a first-rate bad faith case?
So, is there a parallel here? Apple provides you with a song (and certain rights to it) for a payment of 99 cents. Then they deliberately create technological measures to limit your use of the rights that you purchased.
Hypothetical: you purchase a popular mainstream CD at a store such as Best Buy.
You would pay about $12.99-$14.99 for this CD. This CD almost certainly retails for either $17.98, $17.99, $18.98, $18.99, or $19.99.
Incidentally, Best Buy tends to make less that $0.75 per popular CD sold, and frequently less than $0.50 on the ones in their ad. They sell only items they believe they can make huge volume on, with the hopes of drawing you into their store so that they will buy their other products which have sane profit margins.
MSRP of $12.98 means a Best Buy price around $8.99 -$10.49
Additionally: cost is not $0.02/CD.
Cost works something like this:
Production: $0.03 Royalties to Musicians: $0.05 Royalties to Songwriter: $0.08 Retained by retail store (covers costs like distribution, plus profits) $3.00 - $4.00
And this does not include the cost of producing the very first CD, generally on the order of $10,000 - $100,000 (varies greatly depending on artist and what all is going on) Amortizing this across all copies sold (lets assume 500,000 -- a pretty good amount for one disc) means that cost is between $0.02 and $0.20
Note that the numbers for royalty per album sold were real numbers I got from folks inside the music industry, but that they are about a decade old. IIRC, they have increased slightly lately, so it might be $0.10 / $0.16 instead of $0.05 / $0.08.
Anyhow, the total minimum cost per disc is on the order of $3.36 / disc.
I have left out many of the costs involved in the production, distribution, and marketing of music because I don't have any decent numbers, so I'd just be guessing.
Even if the other costs are forgotten, $3.36 / disc cost vs. $12.98 MSRP means a profit of: 286% instead of: 435% for a $17.98 CD
In short, yes the music industry can afford this cut, and it was a good idea, but IT IS SIGNIFICANT
Like I said, expect to spend on the order of $8.99 - $10.49 per new CD you buy at the discount stores (from Universal anyway)
Expect others to follow suit.
In my opinion the "Best Price for an Album" -- as in, the price the CDs should retail for to maximize record label profits is $9.99.
This is because this allows price ranges in discount stores to be on the order of $7.00 - $7.99 and I think that this is the highest price that most people will be willing to spend and still buy every CD from most of the artists they like.
That's just my opinion though. I want to know, really, what do you all think the "Best Price for an Album is" remember, the idea for this number is to maximize RECORD LABEL profit (NOT sell the most music or decrease piracy the most, just make the label the most money)
This is very interesting, and was probably the right thing to do.
After all, when one sells a disc that looks like a standard CD in a store that sells standard CDs, especially on the same racks as standard CDs, it is a reasonable assumption for the consumer to believe that the product is a standard CD.
If there were significant visible markings on the disc that said something to the effect of "This disc does not meet the red-book standard for Compact Disc Digital Audio" then it would be reasonable to allow the sale of the crippled CD -- after all, the manufacturer has made it apparent that this disc is not a Compact Disc, but that it *might* support some of the same functionality. If you are concerned, don't buy, if you buy, well, you were warned.
This is how I feel the "broken CD game" should be played. I have no problem with companies trying to peddle "broken" CDs, just so long as every consumer knows that it is "broken"
As for the CDs/DVDs that become opaque after a certain time? I'm not sure what to do there. You see, the trouble stems from the fact that, until it becomes opaque, the disc conforms to the standard. Still, I am certain that an appropriate "warning label" can be determined.
In the end, it ought to be up to an informed market to decide whether "broken" or "sudden-death" media are acceptable -- not the government to mandate.
That said, I applaud the decision made, and will continue to support these kinds of decisions until it is made blindingly obvious which disks are crippled
about the Microsoft not being the copyright owner, you have an interesting point that I hadn't considered. That makes things complicated beyond my understanding of this law.
When you purchase a DVD you have the right to watch the movie and special features contained on that disc, and install and run any "enhanced DVD" software on one computer.
Additionally, you have the right to give up all your rights and transfer them to another individual.
A DVD player is able to decrypt the DVD using a complicated algorithm to determine the encryption key.
DVD players are NOT circumvention devices for a very important reason:
They have entered an agreement with the DVD copyright holder (or, in reality, its authorized agent) to be allowed to access the disk for the single purpose of playing DVDs in the manner that the copyright holder allows.
Remember that the encrypted disk / decrypting DVD player combination together make up the "access control scheme" that controls who can do what with a DVD where and when.
The DMCA does not say that it is not permissible to create a device capable of accessing a protected medium, but that nobody may create a device which circumvents an access-control scheme.
that is correct, however OpenOffice (or any other similar product) would have to support all the DRM features that MS Office did.
If it was possible for a user who shouldn't have access to a file to use another application to read it, then that app would be in violation of the DMCA because it is a circumvention device.
If it respected all the DRM nonsense, then it would probably fall under the interoperability portion of the law. At least that's the way I read it.
You convince a store to buy X copies at Y dollars apiece, with 1.5 - 1.6Y as the MSRP.
Then, someday, should you decide to discount the software, so that it costs, say Y - Z dollars for the store to buy, every store will expect you to send them Z dollars for each copy that remains unsold. This is called "Price Protection"
Additionally, eventually (like when the product is on the $5 rack and still not selling) the store will expect to return all remaining unsold copies to you for a refund of what they paid for them (minus any "Price Protection" payments made on that item).
Additionally, if you want your software on an end-cap, in the weekly ad, or even turned facing forward instead of sideways in some stores, you will be expected to pay a certain fee.
Incidentally about 20-30% of all software sales, and an even larger percentage for games specifically come from Wal-Mart stores. Not stores like Wal-Mart, but that one particular chain itself.
When dealing with Wal-Mart, they are in charge and make all the rules. They try to be honest and fair, but they are strict. For instance with few exceptions (most notably Blizzard's Diablo II) they will not accept games with a Mature rating.
I mention this here only because most nerds I talk to about these things don't realize how important to the software business this one particular store is, and so most ignore it.
I hope this helps. If not, well, it didn't cost you much to ask, now did it.
If you accepted insurance money for the CDs, then, while the license to listen to the music still exists, you have transferred it to the insurance company who paid you.
If you total a car, the insurance company will give you X dollars and TAKE AWAY YOUR CAR.
When you buy insurance, you are buying a guarantee that, in the event of loss/damage, that the insurance company will buy your stuff at a "fair" price.
There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.
But I'll try. here goes:
I don't know what you do at work all day, but I am a programmer. I write PERL code. Lots of PERL code.
I can sit at my machine, some days, for 5 or 6 hours straight just blasting out the code like a machine.
Other days, come the hour mark, I'm ready to gouge out my eyes. What do I do? I go kill a few minutes, sometimes even 10 or 15 of them. Then I try to go back to it. Frequently, I find that I am once again productive, and can pound out another hours worth (read: 100+ lines) of code, and sometimes not.
Sometimes Not. Somtimes, I really wish I could kill an hour playing a cool video game. I know I'm not being productive, after all I'm responding to someone's slashdot post. I could play games on my machine at work, but... its really weak: a P3-450 with integrated video, and not much RAM. Its running Linux, which is nice sometimes, but frankly most of the big-name games are available Windows-only, (or Win + Mac) especially those written so long ago that they don't need 3d cards.
Besides, I don't feel right playing games here.
If the office opened up a little game-room, I would not feel that I was somehow doing something wrong if I made use of it. Then I could escape the work for awhile, and come back fresh and ready to spit out some code. (Or, as is the case now, more design document... but thats another story for another rant)
If someone is spending the entire afternoon every single day in the game room then (gasp!) he's not a very good employee and (double-gasp!!)you can fire his ass.
If someone spends an hour in the game room every now and then, well, thats not too bad, really now is it.
It is not possible to be creative on a schedule. Just because it is now 3:22 PM (by my computers screwed up clock, anyway) doesn't mean that I am capable of creating right now. When it becomes 6:30, and I am theoretically off the clock, it doesn't mean that I suddenly stop being creative.
Besides: ever been blocked on all threads? Ever had every project you were working on all simultaneously enter a wait-state?
What are you supposed to do then, eh? Bang your head against the wall? Surf the 'net? Play games? does it matter?
Anyway, my break is over, time to get back to work
it will keep W32.Blaster off your machine, because, if Palladium is enabled, only "authorized" content/applications will be allowed to run on the system (enforced partially at the hardware level).
Microsoft would issue the document revocation for W32.Blaster and it would die.
Of course, they could do that with ANY document, hence the problem.
"What? You don't want to pay $29,999.95 for Word 2010? OK, all your documents are now locked (and encrypted). Nothing can open them until you pay"
indeed, if you read the rest of the site, they are very worried about "security".
I place this is quotes because Microsoft's solution to "Windows Security" for longhorn is Palladium.
Wait. I thought that Palladium was a technology that "secured" my machine so that Microsoft can make my word docs expire, and the RIAA revoke licenses to my music even if I bought it...
So, like I said, its only "security" not real security.
Although, I have the sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, there will be Palladium, everyone (on Windows) will use it, and it won't matter anyway because all the smart people will have figured out how to make it so that only they were able to lock things up... not companies like Microsoft or the RIAA/MPAA
True, although you have to get windows working again to restore your backup, and it probably can't replace core files.
Norton Ghost is nice, except... I don't think that it can do incremental backups -- only whole-partition things.
Also, I have used ghost to do a full system backup once. I restored the backup the other day... turns out, it screwed up one of the CDs, and so my backup was completely useless. I imagine that this is rare, but... still... it should _so_ double-check that... especially since it took forever to make the backup as it is...
Indeed, here in California, we have reliable power in limited quantities at high prices.
We (or at least I) pay > $0.13/kWh If the state uses too much power we get rolling blackouts.
But, actual power failures are quite rare (and brief) at least in my experience.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand: my ISP (Adelphia) was up the entire time. The internet in general seemed somewhat flaky, with lots of random things running very slowly or not at all.
Of course, I would have been shocked if a California provider went offline in this blackout, but one never knows for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
/usr/bin/myCoolApp" isn't good enough -- works about 85% of the time, and is in no way user-friendly). It needs to be easy to configure. It needs not to be necessary for a normal user to know root password. (Such as to eject a CD while the system thinks it is in use)
There is nothing wrong with developers making whatever they feel like making. In fact, its a great idea.
But, if your goal is to get "Linux on the desktop" to be more than a toy, then development needs to be about creating the software that people want to use/need. People. Not developers, or even computer-savvy people. Just people in general.
Before you all flame me with "Linux on the Desktop isn't a toy" think about this: How many people out there who know a thing or to about how to use a computer can figure out how to actually do anything with Linux?
I know many a developer who wasted days trying to get the most trivial things to work on a Linux box. I include myself in this list. (If you really want to hear that rant, reply and ask...)
What's my point? Before linux becomes more useful than Windows (to the average user) Linux will need a version of every type of program that a user might need (and preferably only 1, or at least, 1 semi-standard one). It needs to be easy to install software( saying, "just run the configure script. If that works, run make and make install, and if all goes well, the binary will be in
Yeah, Windows (and Windows software) have problems. Lots of them, in fact. But, you know what? Most people can get their computers to do what they want, and most of what they want to do works most of the time. If I gave my parents a Linux install (even if I did it for them, installed everything, and got it all set up) they'd be years figuring out how to do anything. And not because they are stupid, either. Actually, as far as it goes, they exhibit less of the "anti-brainwave" effects of computers than most.
So yeah. Go ahead, create whatever you want. I don't care, because I don't have a vested interest in making Linux succeed in the desktop market. If you do, however, then you have to create what the user wants, not yell at the user that he ought to either want what you want to make or make it himself.
-1, Troll?
WTF?!?!?
You are "Insightful" if you bash MS, "Interesting" or "Informative" if you like Linux or Apple, and "Troll" If you like Windows?!?!
Come on...
well, now its the routers that 2 people will buy.
And the network cards / access points / other equipment.
Hell... I'm even going to make sure mot to pick up a USB cable or surge protector made by Belkin.
Come on, all you moral crusaders! Join us now! you know you want to...
Why shouldn't I be able to do that easily? Because, while you own the DVD disk and the box it came in, and the sleeve in the box with the pretty picture on it you do NOT own the pretty picture (and so can't make copies and give them to people) and you do NOT own the data on the DVD disc. You have exchanged your money for a license that grants you very very specific rights on what you may/may not do with the disc.
That said, I think that it should be illegal for a company to put limitations on a medium without making that knowledge available. A DVD ought to be required to say "Only playable on licensed DVD players, only playable in Region 1 (USA/Canada), can not be duplicated or archived, may contain intro material that can not be skipped" -- or something accurate to that effect. And yes, I know it "can" be skipped -- but not under normal use.
It should be the law that if undocumented "features" of protection are included then the manufacturer is obligated to take back an open product and provide a full refund (including any shipping charges incurred in the return) on the grounds of misleading advertising.
That's My take on it
Simple problem:
If it is under the GPL then theoretically, you want people to be able to improve your software (so long as they distribute the source afterwards.
Nobody can read code that has been obfuscated and then watermarked, so nobody will look at your code, so nobody will improve it, so what the hell is the point of using the GPL?
Just release under a different license if you don't want people to modify it.
Besides, most watermarking is done as a post-compile process -- meaning that the watermark wouldn't be in the source code, in many cases -- just the obfuscation.
At least in the state of California, there is a legal sense of right-to-work. No employment contract (including things like no-compete or non-disclosure) can legally prevent you from working.
For example: someone I know recently left a nation-wide company. His employment contract stated that he could not work in his field for 1: any of that companies clients, or 2: any competitor within 25 miles of any office of that company.
That left him with 0 possibilities. So, what did he do? He went to work for a competitor, and guess what: when the company challenged him, he one.
At least in CA, these things are only *so* binding.
As for resumes, unless it is a "black project" you ought to be able to say something of interest about the project. Perhaps, as was suggested earlier, just describe the technologies that were used without ever mentioning what the product is actually for.
If it is 1+ black projects, then you can just describe your security clearance, and talk vaguely about the kinds of things that you did.
social engineering to a positive effect being more powerful than the technical applications of cheat detection.
I couldn't agree more with that point. I have taken many a class where I am certain of exactly who is cheating -- and when.
Basically, I find that there is a small quantity of severe cheating when the professor takes a completely lax attitude (example: 3-7 out of 400 students sitting next to each other copying answers back and forth for 10 minutes after the exam ended)
However, I find that there is a worse problem when the professor decides to be totally gung-ho about cheating. You know the type. Positive ID required to turn in an exam, sit with 2 empty seats on both sides, 8 different exams, names of those near you on your paper. Some profs even go so far as to say that working on homework with other students is cheating, and that if two people sit to do the homework together (or even just to discuss a single problem) they will fail the course)
I find that here there is less cheating, and a general lack of caring about the professors opinions. People still "cheat" by helping each other on homework, and they don't cheat on the exams. They also are generally pissed at the prof, and so stop attending lectures, or caring about what the prof thinks. Sure the grades suffer, but... what is the point: learning
I say (within reason) let the cheaters cheat. Where its obvious, embarrass them or fail them, but don't go out of your way to catch every student. Instead worry about how much the student learned After all, what is the purpose for going to school? To get a degree, or to learn?
Well, it is true that for most college students it is about the magical paper that suddenly increases their salary by >$20K/year, but... that shouldn't be the point...
ahh... makes much more sense...
I had something resembling
"My BIOS takes at least 10-20 times that, how can my OS speed that up..."
On topic, it is very cool to have an operating system that can start that quickly -- assuming stability, which is essential in embedded stuff (what happens when your Microwave has a kernel panic while cooking, for example)
Embedded devices really should start very fast, so boot time is really important. That said, this thing about 100ms being available eventually doesn't matter. Most people can't really do much with 100ms. In fact, most people can't tell if audio synchronization is off unless its at least about 75-100ms off... and only then when looking at people's faces. My point is: going from a large number of seconds to a large number of milliseconds is a great feat. But, I think that I can wait the full 1/5 of a second for my system to boot... I won't hold my breath (or waste my $) making it 100ms faster...
In fact, I still have a 340MB hard drive which is exactly 340 Megabytes = 356,515,840 Bytes
and a 1.6GB Drive that is exactly 1.60 Gigabytes = 1,717,986,918 Bytes.
Then, I bought a 3.4 Gigabyte drive that was 3,400,000,000 Bytes = 3.16 Gigabytes.
They changed the definition when they realized it might be better marketing.
If hard drives had always been a certain way, it'd be OK, but, guess what, they weren't. The decision to change was a marketing one, and mostly unethical at that.
You have hit it perfectly here.
As a small tangent, I would like to describe an excellent example from real life.
I haven't read any recent salary surveys, but... Someone I know, let's call him Jim, runs a small business (about 20-30 employees).
He needs 2 programmers on staff. He is forever complaining to me that he has the most crappy programmers, and that all programmers are lazy, self-centered sons of bitches.
Nice. Especially since I'm a programmer.
Well, I found out why he has such trouble. He hires a programmer. He expects them to be there by 8:00a, but that they are on time so long as they arrive within about 5 minutes of Jim getting there (random time, between 8:00 and 8:30 -- usually closer to 8:00. If Jim is really late, (9:00 or later) then the programmers had better be already hard at work when he arrives)
In addition, he starts to really harp on these guys any time they leave before 5:00 or if they leave before him more than a few times.
He takes the "the staff should be already working when the boss arrives, and still working when the boss leaves" mentality, but tries to be slightly flexible about it.
In addition, he pays his programmers $40K - $45K per year.
I talked to Jim about this several times, saying something to the effect that if you treat your programmers as if they are worthless, you will not attract the creme of the crop.
Besides, if a half-decent programmer with a degree can go anywhere and earn $55K - $70K (at the time -- early/mid 2000 these rates were very easy to come by) why would he work for you when you are both really aggravating AND are paying way way less.
His response? You programmers are so arrogant. Why should I pay you that much, you're not worth it. You're all lazy and incompetant.
So... he gets crappy programmers... and wonders why...
Actually, the "magic sysrq key" is disabled by default for a damn good reason.
The "magic SysRq key" is a key sequence that allows some basic commands to be passed directly to the kernel. Kernel software developers use this interface to debug their software. Under most circumstances it can also be used to uncleanly reboot the computer, something that is otherwise difficult or expensive to do remotely.
Anyone can dial into a modem and send a break, so if the serial console is attached to a modem we need to disable the magic SysRq key
So. the SysRq key is disabled because it can be used (remotely) to do bad things, like an unclean shutdown, something you probably don't want people to do with your servers. (Only under certain circumstances -- but it's likely that one wouldn't remember about sysrq, it being mostly unused and all.
Quotes from The Linux Documentation Project www.tldp.org
I bought a new civic in 2002. I didn't buy the Hybrid, even though I really wanted to. Here's why. 1: Battery needs to be replaced roughly at the 100K mile mark. At the time I was looking, they said that was on the order of a $1500-$2000 service. 2: Sticker price of the car is roughly $4000 more than that of a normal "LX" model. 3: I really hated the interior color. This is a real trivial thing, but... I really just didn't like the beige and brown thing. 4: It was a brand new first-year model, and I generally don't buy first-years, especially on drastic technology changes. When the '04s come out very soon (if not already) then this one is solved. That said, there were some benefits: 1: A $2000 tax credit (in CA) which wouldn't have affected me much, because as a semi-poor college student, I didn't pay $2000 in taxes... 2: I figured an estimated savings of $2500-$3000 over the life of the battery (given my driving) 3: A few little bonuses are included in the car, such as climate control, which I think is really spiffy. 4: It's a hybrid. Awesome geek toy 5: Gives me even more reason to mock all the SUV drivers out there. In the end, I decided that, over the life of the battery (I'd probably sell the car at the 100k mark rather than fix it) I'd save about $3000-$4000 and spend about $4000 extra NOW for the privelage. If the following 3 things were true, I'd have bought it: 1: I paid enough taxes that I could really benefit from the $2000 tax credit 2: The interior/exterior were available in some better colors. 3: It wasn't the very first model year. If only two of these were true, I might still have done it. But none were, so I didn't.
"It's also unfortunate that a lawyer would try to prevent others from getting the assurances they want that they will not be sued,"
This is absolutely laughable. To think for a minute that we can trust the RIAA NOT to sue somebody after they have signed confessions. Notte how they are not offering any sort of documented protection, just an "assurance". What are assurances worth? legally?
It just amazes me that the RIAA acts as though it actually has credibility.
Well, that's an interesting thing...
This reminds me of a line of reasoning that I followed when Microsoft released Windows XP with mandatory product activation.
Hypothectical Scenario: User purchases a computer with Windows XP. They then proceed to dramatically change the hardware (more RAM, new HD, soundcard, video card, and a DVD burner)
They reboot the machine and Windows says "activate me again"
You can call MS, and if you tell them a convincing story, they will give you a new magic key.
But let's say, for the sake of this argument, that MS wasn't convinced, and refused to give you a key.
When you purchase a work, you have certain rights. Nobody would argue that the purchaser of a piece of software has the right to install it on one computer and use it himself. Some may argue that you have more rights than that, but even Microsoft would agree that you can do that much.
In addition, Microsoft provided you with an EULA. There are debates over whether they are valid, but let's assume they are for the moment.
The EULA says that you have certain rights, including the right to install and use the software on one computer. In addition, you have the right to transfer all of your rights to someone else (First Sale Doctrine gives you this too, so MS isn't really "giving" you anything here, they're just reminding you of your rights)
So... Microsoft and you 'negotiated' an agreement that granted you certain rights in exchange for ceretain responsabilities and money. They then proceeded to provide you with a product specifically designed to prevent you from using the rights that you were granted (namely, to install and use it on one computer -- or to transfer it to a friend).
Does that not sound like a first-rate bad faith case?
So, is there a parallel here? Apple provides you with a song (and certain rights to it) for a payment of 99 cents. Then they deliberately create technological measures to limit your use of the rights that you purchased.
Seems like a similar situation to me.
Here's the reason.
Hypothetical: you purchase a popular mainstream CD at a store such as Best Buy.
You would pay about $12.99-$14.99 for this CD.
This CD almost certainly retails for either $17.98, $17.99, $18.98, $18.99, or $19.99.
Incidentally, Best Buy tends to make less that $0.75 per popular CD sold, and frequently less than $0.50 on the ones in their ad. They sell only items they believe they can make huge volume on, with the hopes of drawing you into their store so that they will buy their other products which have sane profit margins.
MSRP of $12.98 means a Best Buy price around $8.99 -$10.49
Additionally: cost is not $0.02/CD.
Cost works something like this:
Production: $0.03
Royalties to Musicians: $0.05
Royalties to Songwriter: $0.08
Retained by retail store (covers costs like distribution, plus profits) $3.00 - $4.00
And this does not include the cost of producing the very first CD, generally on the order of $10,000 - $100,000 (varies greatly depending on artist and what all is going on) Amortizing this across all copies sold (lets assume 500,000 -- a pretty good amount for one disc) means that cost is between $0.02 and $0.20
Note that the numbers for royalty per album sold were real numbers I got from folks inside the music industry, but that they are about a decade old. IIRC, they have increased slightly lately, so it might be $0.10 / $0.16 instead of $0.05 / $0.08.
Anyhow, the total minimum cost per disc is on the order of
$3.36 / disc.
I have left out many of the costs involved in the production, distribution, and marketing of music because I don't have any decent numbers, so I'd just be guessing.
Even if the other costs are forgotten, $3.36 / disc cost vs. $12.98 MSRP means a profit of:
286%
instead of:
435% for a $17.98 CD
In short, yes the music industry can afford this cut, and it was a good idea, but IT IS SIGNIFICANT
Like I said, expect to spend on the order of $8.99 - $10.49 per new CD you buy at the discount stores (from Universal anyway)
Expect others to follow suit.
In my opinion the "Best Price for an Album" -- as in, the price the CDs should retail for to maximize record label profits is $9.99.
This is because this allows price ranges in discount stores to be on the order of $7.00 - $7.99 and I think that this is the highest price that most people will be willing to spend and still buy every CD from most of the artists they like.
That's just my opinion though. I want to know, really, what do you all think the "Best Price for an Album is" remember, the idea for this number is to maximize RECORD LABEL profit (NOT sell the most music or decrease piracy the most, just make the label the most money)
This is very interesting, and was probably the right thing to do.
After all, when one sells a disc that looks like a standard CD in a store that sells standard CDs, especially on the same racks as standard CDs, it is a reasonable assumption for the consumer to believe that the product is a standard CD.
If there were significant visible markings on the disc that said something to the effect of "This disc does not meet the red-book standard for Compact Disc Digital Audio" then it would be reasonable to allow the sale of the crippled CD -- after all, the manufacturer has made it apparent that this disc is not a Compact Disc, but that it *might* support some of the same functionality. If you are concerned, don't buy, if you buy, well, you were warned.
This is how I feel the "broken CD game" should be played. I have no problem with companies trying to peddle "broken" CDs, just so long as every consumer knows that it is "broken"
As for the CDs/DVDs that become opaque after a certain time? I'm not sure what to do there. You see, the trouble stems from the fact that, until it becomes opaque, the disc conforms to the standard. Still, I am certain that an appropriate "warning label" can be determined.
In the end, it ought to be up to an informed market to decide whether "broken" or "sudden-death" media are acceptable -- not the government to mandate.
That said, I applaud the decision made, and will continue to support these kinds of decisions until it is made blindingly obvious which disks are crippled
very close...
about the Microsoft not being the copyright owner, you have an interesting point that I hadn't considered. That makes things complicated beyond my understanding of this law.
When you purchase a DVD you have the right to watch the movie and special features contained on that disc, and install and run any "enhanced DVD" software on one computer.
Additionally, you have the right to give up all your rights and transfer them to another individual.
A DVD player is able to decrypt the DVD using a complicated algorithm to determine the encryption key.
DVD players are NOT circumvention devices for a very important reason:
They have entered an agreement with the DVD copyright holder (or, in reality, its authorized agent) to be allowed to access the disk for the single purpose of playing DVDs in the manner that the copyright holder allows.
Remember that the encrypted disk / decrypting DVD player combination together make up the "access control scheme" that controls who can do what with a DVD where and when.
The DMCA does not say that it is not permissible to create a device capable of accessing a protected medium, but that nobody may create a device which circumvents an access-control scheme.
that is correct, however OpenOffice (or any other similar product) would have to support all the DRM features that MS Office did.
If it was possible for a user who shouldn't have access to a file to use another application to read it, then that app would be in violation of the DMCA because it is a circumvention device.
If it respected all the DRM nonsense, then it would probably fall under the interoperability portion of the law. At least that's the way I read it.
to stay on focus, here's how this goes.
You convince a store to buy X copies at Y dollars apiece, with 1.5 - 1.6Y as the MSRP.
Then, someday, should you decide to discount the software, so that it costs, say Y - Z dollars for the store to buy, every store will expect you to send them Z dollars for each copy that remains unsold. This is called "Price Protection"
Additionally, eventually (like when the product is on the $5 rack and still not selling) the store will expect to return all remaining unsold copies to you for a refund of what they paid for them (minus any "Price Protection" payments made on that item).
Additionally, if you want your software on an end-cap, in the weekly ad, or even turned facing forward instead of sideways in some stores, you will be expected to pay a certain fee.
Incidentally about 20-30% of all software sales, and an even larger percentage for games specifically come from Wal-Mart stores. Not stores like Wal-Mart, but that one particular chain itself.
When dealing with Wal-Mart, they are in charge and make all the rules. They try to be honest and fair, but they are strict. For instance with few exceptions (most notably Blizzard's Diablo II) they will not accept games with a Mature rating.
I mention this here only because most nerds I talk to about these things don't realize how important to the software business this one particular store is, and so most ignore it.
I hope this helps. If not, well, it didn't cost you much to ask, now did it.
If you accepted insurance money for the CDs, then, while the license to listen to the music still exists, you have transferred it to the insurance company who paid you.
If you total a car, the insurance company will give you X dollars and TAKE AWAY YOUR CAR.
When you buy insurance, you are buying a guarantee that, in the event of loss/damage, that the insurance company will buy your stuff at a "fair" price.
There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.
But I'll try. here goes:
I don't know what you do at work all day, but I am a programmer. I write PERL code. Lots of PERL code.
I can sit at my machine, some days, for 5 or 6 hours straight just blasting out the code like a machine.
Other days, come the hour mark, I'm ready to gouge out my eyes. What do I do? I go kill a few minutes, sometimes even 10 or 15 of them. Then I try to go back to it. Frequently, I find that I am once again productive, and can pound out another hours worth (read: 100+ lines) of code, and sometimes not.
Sometimes Not. Somtimes, I really wish I could kill an hour playing a cool video game. I know I'm not being productive, after all I'm responding to someone's slashdot post. I could play games on my machine at work, but... its really weak: a P3-450 with integrated video, and not much RAM. Its running Linux, which is nice sometimes, but frankly most of the big-name games are available Windows-only, (or Win + Mac) especially those written so long ago that they don't need 3d cards.
Besides, I don't feel right playing games here.
If the office opened up a little game-room, I would not feel that I was somehow doing something wrong if I made use of it. Then I could escape the work for awhile, and come back fresh and ready to spit out some code. (Or, as is the case now, more design document... but thats another story for another rant)
If someone is spending the entire afternoon every single day in the game room then (gasp!) he's not a very good employee and (double-gasp!!)you can fire his ass.
If someone spends an hour in the game room every now and then, well, thats not too bad, really now is it.
It is not possible to be creative on a schedule. Just because it is now 3:22 PM (by my computers screwed up clock, anyway) doesn't mean that I am capable of creating right now. When it becomes 6:30, and I am theoretically off the clock, it doesn't mean that I suddenly stop being creative.
Besides: ever been blocked on all threads? Ever had every project you were working on all simultaneously enter a wait-state?
What are you supposed to do then, eh? Bang your head against the wall? Surf the 'net? Play games? does it matter?
Anyway, my break is over, time to get back to work
-- Fareq
it will keep W32.Blaster off your machine, because, if Palladium is enabled, only "authorized" content/applications will be allowed to run on the system (enforced partially at the hardware level).
Microsoft would issue the document revocation for W32.Blaster and it would die.
Of course, they could do that with ANY document, hence the problem.
"What? You don't want to pay $29,999.95 for Word 2010? OK, all your documents are now locked (and encrypted). Nothing can open them until you pay"
indeed, if you read the rest of the site, they are very worried about "security".
I place this is quotes because Microsoft's solution to "Windows Security" for longhorn is Palladium.
Wait. I thought that Palladium was a technology that "secured" my machine so that Microsoft can make my word docs expire, and the RIAA revoke licenses to my music even if I bought it...
So, like I said, its only "security" not real security.
Although, I have the sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, there will be Palladium, everyone (on Windows) will use it, and it won't matter anyway because all the smart people will have figured out how to make it so that only they were able to lock things up... not companies like Microsoft or the RIAA/MPAA
True, although you have to get windows working again to restore your backup, and it probably can't replace core files.
Norton Ghost is nice, except... I don't think that it can do incremental backups -- only whole-partition things.
Also, I have used ghost to do a full system backup once. I restored the backup the other day... turns out, it screwed up one of the CDs, and so my backup was completely useless. I imagine that this is rare, but... still... it should _so_ double-check that... especially since it took forever to make the backup as it is...
Indeed, here in California, we have reliable power in limited quantities at high prices.
We (or at least I) pay > $0.13/kWh
If the state uses too much power we get rolling blackouts.
But, actual power failures are quite rare (and brief) at least in my experience.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand:
my ISP (Adelphia) was up the entire time. The internet in general seemed somewhat flaky, with lots of random things running very slowly or not at all.
Of course, I would have been shocked if a California provider went offline in this blackout, but one never knows for sure.