I fully agree. Out of all the CS books I bought, I kept all of the non-textbook 'textbooks' and sold back or otherwise got rid of all the official textbooks. The only difference I've noticed is the official textbooks cost 3x as much, weigh at least twice as much, and are about 1/8 as useful as a reference manual. If the professor puts together a good class, textbooks are absolutely not needed in a CS curriculum. And if the professor does a poor job of preparing the class, a good textbook probably won't help much anyway.
It wouldn't surprise me if there was some kind of coating you could put on the disc, such as spray adhesive, that would keep it from degrading but still allow it to play.
This is the best example I've ever seen of a company being brutally honest with its customers. Its also the best example of something that would never make it past the marketing department of a large or semi-large ISP. Why, because it would make them look 'mean', and that costs them business, even from people who aren't heavy users.
DSL is great... As long as you don't mind paying more for less. Seriously, does any DSL provider offer 3MBps max for $50 a month? And without PPoE or some crap like that?
I always think its hilarious that some companies block people from accessing their Yahoo or Hotmail, but then run Outlook. Which one causes more virus infections? Almost all of the webmail services now include virus scanning along with advisories to be very careful of.exe and other dangerous attachments. Outlook includes this only if the administrator installs it. Not to mention the fact that any webmail package cannot auto launch an attachment. The user must make effort to run it, which is something that most lazy users won't do. If you're concerned with file downloads from the internet, which you should be, then install virus scanning for all http downloads.
I run IE and have very few of these problems. I do keep my machine patched, and I have a free anti-virus package which I keep updated. I run Zone Alarm (free) behind a DLink router (cheap) and I use Google's free popup blocker. Its not that difficult to have a decent web experience without spending much money, even with IE. The problem is that there are a lot of people who own a computer and are not willing to learn how to do even basic administration tasks. If I buy a car, I should know how to put gas in it and check the oil level. If I buy a computer, I should know how to keep it most of the way secure.
And people wonder why companies are offering 'unpaid internships' to college grads. The simple answer is because people take them! Would you take a free TV if I gave it to you? Of course. The day people quit tricking themselves into thinking that working for free will somehow benefit them is the day that unpaid internships disappear.
Somebody give this man some mod points! Well done. I am however going to have to disagree with the idea that there is no job an American would not do. Sure there may be SOME Americans that would pick oranges, clean public toilets, work in slaughterhouses, etc. but if you could only hire Americans for these jobs, you would have to pay them a LOT more than the current wages. I think we can all see where that extra money would have to come from. That being said, there are a lot of would-be legal immigrants that would do these jobs simply because they don't have the sense of entitlement that a lot of Americans have. Even if they had to be paid minimum wage, they would be happy to have the job but an American in this position would not. Even with unemployment still a problem, there are some jobs that would be next to impossible to fill with only American workers.
I assume you don't own a DVD player. If you do, I guarantee it sure as hell was not made in the U.S. There are some things you just can't buy domestically since they aren't made here due to higher costs.
Unions would definitely change things. If IT workers were able to unionize, that would eliminate almost all domestic IT jobs. It would make the offshore option that much more attractive. What's that you say? Not allow companies to offshore? OK, they'll just pack up and move the entire company, and the U.S. will completely lose its tech industry. Sorry, that's not the way I want things to be, but that's exactly how it would work if IT workers unionized.
How the hell is this a troll? This question must unfortunately be asked about ANY supposed standard now. How many times have we seen someone attempt to patent some sort of standard that had been presumably open? In this case, I could more realistically see some record company trying to patent this as opposed to Microsoft.
As someone said in previous Slashdot comment, Darl is betting the bank. As a CEO, you only do that when it's your only option, when your case is rock solid, or when you intend to defraud the public. Which is it, Darl?
I'll go with options 1 and 3. The case is far from solid, and at this point it will be hard for them to find a case at all (for suing end users that is). Had they not filed the lawsuit against IBM, they would probably be in bankruptcy right now without the value of their increased stock price. So this was their only other option. As for defrauding the public, this was more of a plan B. They couldn't get IBM or anyone else to buy them, so they did the next best thing and made the company worth something through fraud and manipulation. They bet the bank allright, but they didn't have much to lose.
That's just GM engineering for you. This is the auto company that puts its hazard flasher switch under the steering column so that nobody can find it when they actually need it.
Its a good idea, but I can already see how someone would get around it. Once a company has hit the limit, it simply folds and the owner forms a new one. Even if this restriction were attached to a person, it wouldn't be hard for someone to go looking for an 'agent' willing to apply for new patents to be used in the new company. Patent leaches are like spammers. Shut them down and they'll pop up somewhere else in a different form.
There has been some recent progress in the U.S. that deters some of these patents. Instead of patents being valid for 17 years from date of issue, it is now 20 years from date of filing, which reduces some of the incentive to drag out the filing process. Not to say that this can't happen anymore, but it takes more work now and it is a lot harder to keep extending a patent.
One small change which could eliminate some of the worst abuses would be to restrict changes in ownership of patents. If I file for a patent, I should have the option of using the technology myself, licensing it to others, or selling the patent to someone for the purpose of them using the technology in their business. Also, should I die while the patent is valid, I can designate someone who will 'inherit' it. What I should not be able to do is to sell it to someone who has no reasonable intention of using it and just wants to have it for a basis to sue someone. This would make it a lot harder for companies like PanIP to exist, since they would not simply be able to buy up trivial patents. Assuming the patent applicant is required to show evidence that they actually put some real development effort into the patent claim, 'lawsuit companies' will have a much harder time existing.
And its close cousin, the Buick Rendezvous. Not only an ugly piece of shit, but if its a Buick, its not an SUV. This uglified mini van is such a loser that Buick only made it 1 year and then replaced it with something slightly less hideous. Maybe this one won't be such a colossal failure and the baby boomers that want to appear cool will snap this one up.
"Employment Applications" are used very differently for different categories of jobs. If you are applying at Burger King, the manager will use the application as the main criteria for deciding whether to hire you. In a white collar salaried position, the application is simply for the company files. It is not really used to determine whether to hire you, although I suppose it would work against you if you filled the thing out in crayon. Applications provide a full written record of who has been interviewed for a position, and they may note the reason someone was not hired. If the business gets sued for hiring discrimination, this type of paperwork will be very useful to a defense attorney. If a manager suspects that someone lied when they applied for a job, the references and previous employers listed on the app can be helpful in tracking down the person's real job history. I have seen many poorly designed applications, and I have applied for salaried, high paying jobs which required an application that was obviously designed for a factory worker, but they do have a purpose even if they are annoying.
I'd say this is definitely the case if you are applying with a large corporation. If the company is big enough to have more than 4 people in the HR department, they will be impressed by HR Resume Speak, and this is what will get you the interview. Since the manager you interview with may not be impressed this easily, you have to have something to back it up with. For a small company where the owner may be the one reviewing the resume, dispense with all BS and just list useful skills that you know will be necessary to do the job. Chances are, this person is looking for a truely qualified candidate and not just a yes man, or a yes woman.
Newsflash: People typically put more effort into a cover letter or resume than they do into a slashdot post. Do you run every post through a spell checker?
Re:This problem will diminish over time
on
Perens on Patents
·
· Score: 1
I agree in principle that the length of software patents should be reduced from 20 years, but I see a lot of problems with unintended consequences. If we were actually able to get patent law changed to say that software can only be patented for 5 years, you can bet that anyone seeking a software patent will try to have it classified as non-software if at all possible. So you will see some very interesting definitions of software and many accompanying legal battles. Not only this, but once you have different lengths for different types of patents, someone will argue that certain types of patents should be valid LONGER than 20 years. This opens the door for permanent patents that basically don't expire. This entire issue is a very slippery slope and it may be best to concentrate on narrowing the scope of patents to eliminate the overly broad ones as opposed to limiting the time that they are valid.
Slashdot Mirror
I fully agree. Out of all the CS books I bought, I kept all of the non-textbook 'textbooks' and sold back or otherwise got rid of all the official textbooks. The only difference I've noticed is the official textbooks cost 3x as much, weigh at least twice as much, and are about 1/8 as useful as a reference manual. If the professor puts together a good class, textbooks are absolutely not needed in a CS curriculum. And if the professor does a poor job of preparing the class, a good textbook probably won't help much anyway.
It wouldn't surprise me if there was some kind of coating you could put on the disc, such as spray adhesive, that would keep it from degrading but still allow it to play.
This is the best example I've ever seen of a company being brutally honest with its customers. Its also the best example of something that would never make it past the marketing department of a large or semi-large ISP. Why, because it would make them look 'mean', and that costs them business, even from people who aren't heavy users.
DSL is great... As long as you don't mind paying more for less. Seriously, does any DSL provider offer 3MBps max for $50 a month? And without PPoE or some crap like that?
Can you put one of those fat pipe fart can mufflers on it to make a rice burner computer?
I always think its hilarious that some companies block people from accessing their Yahoo or Hotmail, but then run Outlook. Which one causes more virus infections? Almost all of the webmail services now include virus scanning along with advisories to be very careful of .exe and other dangerous attachments. Outlook includes this only if the administrator installs it. Not to mention the fact that any webmail package cannot auto launch an attachment. The user must make effort to run it, which is something that most lazy users won't do. If you're concerned with file downloads from the internet, which you should be, then install virus scanning for all http downloads.
Maybe that would finally motivate everybody to install anti-virus software and keep it updated.
I wonder if the dumbasses at SCO are still going to pay that reward if someone's caught.
I run IE and have very few of these problems. I do keep my machine patched, and I have a free anti-virus package which I keep updated. I run Zone Alarm (free) behind a DLink router (cheap) and I use Google's free popup blocker. Its not that difficult to have a decent web experience without spending much money, even with IE. The problem is that there are a lot of people who own a computer and are not willing to learn how to do even basic administration tasks. If I buy a car, I should know how to put gas in it and check the oil level. If I buy a computer, I should know how to keep it most of the way secure.
And people wonder why companies are offering 'unpaid internships' to college grads. The simple answer is because people take them! Would you take a free TV if I gave it to you? Of course. The day people quit tricking themselves into thinking that working for free will somehow benefit them is the day that unpaid internships disappear.
Somebody give this man some mod points! Well done. I am however going to have to disagree with the idea that there is no job an American would not do. Sure there may be SOME Americans that would pick oranges, clean public toilets, work in slaughterhouses, etc. but if you could only hire Americans for these jobs, you would have to pay them a LOT more than the current wages. I think we can all see where that extra money would have to come from. That being said, there are a lot of would-be legal immigrants that would do these jobs simply because they don't have the sense of entitlement that a lot of Americans have. Even if they had to be paid minimum wage, they would be happy to have the job but an American in this position would not. Even with unemployment still a problem, there are some jobs that would be next to impossible to fill with only American workers.
I assume you don't own a DVD player. If you do, I guarantee it sure as hell was not made in the U.S. There are some things you just can't buy domestically since they aren't made here due to higher costs.
Unions would definitely change things. If IT workers were able to unionize, that would eliminate almost all domestic IT jobs. It would make the offshore option that much more attractive. What's that you say? Not allow companies to offshore? OK, they'll just pack up and move the entire company, and the U.S. will completely lose its tech industry. Sorry, that's not the way I want things to be, but that's exactly how it would work if IT workers unionized.
How the hell is this a troll? This question must unfortunately be asked about ANY supposed standard now. How many times have we seen someone attempt to patent some sort of standard that had been presumably open? In this case, I could more realistically see some record company trying to patent this as opposed to Microsoft.
As someone said in previous Slashdot comment, Darl is betting the bank. As a CEO, you only do that when it's your only option, when your case is rock solid, or when you intend to defraud the public. Which is it, Darl?
I'll go with options 1 and 3. The case is far from solid, and at this point it will be hard for them to find a case at all (for suing end users that is). Had they not filed the lawsuit against IBM, they would probably be in bankruptcy right now without the value of their increased stock price. So this was their only other option. As for defrauding the public, this was more of a plan B. They couldn't get IBM or anyone else to buy them, so they did the next best thing and made the company worth something through fraud and manipulation. They bet the bank allright, but they didn't have much to lose.
That's just GM engineering for you. This is the auto company that puts its hazard flasher switch under the steering column so that nobody can find it when they actually need it.
Its a good idea, but I can already see how someone would get around it. Once a company has hit the limit, it simply folds and the owner forms a new one. Even if this restriction were attached to a person, it wouldn't be hard for someone to go looking for an 'agent' willing to apply for new patents to be used in the new company. Patent leaches are like spammers. Shut them down and they'll pop up somewhere else in a different form.
There has been some recent progress in the U.S. that deters some of these patents. Instead of patents being valid for 17 years from date of issue, it is now 20 years from date of filing, which reduces some of the incentive to drag out the filing process. Not to say that this can't happen anymore, but it takes more work now and it is a lot harder to keep extending a patent.
One small change which could eliminate some of the worst abuses would be to restrict changes in ownership of patents. If I file for a patent, I should have the option of using the technology myself, licensing it to others, or selling the patent to someone for the purpose of them using the technology in their business. Also, should I die while the patent is valid, I can designate someone who will 'inherit' it. What I should not be able to do is to sell it to someone who has no reasonable intention of using it and just wants to have it for a basis to sue someone. This would make it a lot harder for companies like PanIP to exist, since they would not simply be able to buy up trivial patents. Assuming the patent applicant is required to show evidence that they actually put some real development effort into the patent claim, 'lawsuit companies' will have a much harder time existing.
And its close cousin, the Buick Rendezvous. Not only an ugly piece of shit, but if its a Buick, its not an SUV. This uglified mini van is such a loser that Buick only made it 1 year and then replaced it with something slightly less hideous. Maybe this one won't be such a colossal failure and the baby boomers that want to appear cool will snap this one up.
Yes, but Microsoft also patented ones and zeros
"Employment Applications" are used very differently for different categories of jobs. If you are applying at Burger King, the manager will use the application as the main criteria for deciding whether to hire you. In a white collar salaried position, the application is simply for the company files. It is not really used to determine whether to hire you, although I suppose it would work against you if you filled the thing out in crayon. Applications provide a full written record of who has been interviewed for a position, and they may note the reason someone was not hired. If the business gets sued for hiring discrimination, this type of paperwork will be very useful to a defense attorney. If a manager suspects that someone lied when they applied for a job, the references and previous employers listed on the app can be helpful in tracking down the person's real job history. I have seen many poorly designed applications, and I have applied for salaried, high paying jobs which required an application that was obviously designed for a factory worker, but they do have a purpose even if they are annoying.
I'd say this is definitely the case if you are applying with a large corporation. If the company is big enough to have more than 4 people in the HR department, they will be impressed by HR Resume Speak, and this is what will get you the interview. Since the manager you interview with may not be impressed this easily, you have to have something to back it up with. For a small company where the owner may be the one reviewing the resume, dispense with all BS and just list useful skills that you know will be necessary to do the job. Chances are, this person is looking for a truely qualified candidate and not just a yes man, or a yes woman.
Newsflash: People typically put more effort into a cover letter or resume than they do into a slashdot post. Do you run every post through a spell checker?
I agree in principle that the length of software patents should be reduced from 20 years, but I see a lot of problems with unintended consequences. If we were actually able to get patent law changed to say that software can only be patented for 5 years, you can bet that anyone seeking a software patent will try to have it classified as non-software if at all possible. So you will see some very interesting definitions of software and many accompanying legal battles. Not only this, but once you have different lengths for different types of patents, someone will argue that certain types of patents should be valid LONGER than 20 years. This opens the door for permanent patents that basically don't expire. This entire issue is a very slippery slope and it may be best to concentrate on narrowing the scope of patents to eliminate the overly broad ones as opposed to limiting the time that they are valid.