it depends on the contract that you sign. Just try and get one (or demand an alteration before you sign) that explicitly limits the company's ownership. A clause that limits the company to paid work only, for example - or code/documents created while in the office.
Actually, the way the tax system is set up - if you don't pay enough withholding (or proper quarterly estimates) than you end up having to pay the IRS interest and penalty fees on thier not having taken your money throughout the year.
So, actually, the interest you make on the money wouldn't really be enough to cover your penalities when the tax man comes for your cash (unless you make some really wise short term investments... of course, you'd have to deal with capital gains on top of the penalties and probably still end up in the hole).
The gun manufacturers would probably take this into account somehow. Most firing ranges have rental programs, and if there was a hard limit on one-gun, one-user that would end that practice. That would be bad for the industry as a whole. It would be a revenue hit for the industry and a loss for the consumer. Sometimes you want to fire a different weapon or just want to give a gun a testride before you make an expensive purchase.
It would also put a damper on going to the range with a bunch of friends and trying out each other's weapons.
I suppose if they used the electronic keyring tech. this wouldn't be an issue. But, for fingerprint systems, they would probably need a multiple user capability just to be commercially viable.
I guess it's a bit offtopic of the airbag vest but...
Let me explain something to you - If you wreck a bike going more than 60 miles an hour - your either going to be dead, very injured or very very lucky. And it won't make a shit bit of difference if your wearing ARMOR or jeans and a leather jacket.
Maybe I was a bit lucky, and I guess I wasn't going over 60, but I survived a 50 MPH highside. It was a fun one which included the added fun of my bike's spinning front wheel passing over my face shield (left a nice tiremark across the helmet) as the bike rolled over me. All I ended up with was a completely destroyed motorcycle, 2 bruises (my elbow where it made 1st contact with the ground and my shoulder where the bike rolled over me), and a destroyed helmet, full body suit, gloves and boots.
Perhaps I would have faired just fine with just a fullface helmet (anything short of that and I'd have been killed), but the road rash and broken arm would have been a bit more costly then gear I had to replace.
But even so - if you wreck a bike at 90+, its not going to be pretty no matter what you have on.
yup. That's exactly why I see so many people riding in shorts and a Tshirt on track days, because once they pass that 90 MPH mark it doesn't matter what they're wearing anymore.
From the 'products' FAQ: Yes, customers with home networks may order additional network addresses in order to connect several computers to the service through one cable modem.
Well, technically, when using a NAT setup you do only have ONE computer hooked up to thier service. You only have the NAT machine hooked up. The other machines are not hooked into your cable modem.
So, unless they have specific provisions against address translation (which I didn't see in the FAQ or acceptable use policy) you shouldn't legally be breaking thier contract. Also, services (dhcp, etc) run on the NAT box, which are against the Terms of Service, could all be bound to your second ethernet device, thus still not running over the cable modem.
Besides, the self-educating person you describe would kick @$$ in a college/university setting. You can attend school and be autodidactic at the same time you know. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I must say that you are completely wrong. The type of person who prefers to self educate does not tend to learn well in a classroom environment.
I am in a somewhat similar position as the poster. Unlike the poster I did attend college for a few years even though I knew it was a mistake. (I did learn 2 things in a classroom that I still find useful and I did make quite a few friends - so it wasn't a total waste.)
There are learning patterns inherant to people. It is, perhaps, a personality trait. Some people learn things differently. While this type of person can learn in a classroom setting, this setting is often painfully constricting.
This is really a difficult topic to fully explain here in just a few words, and it seems like a topic a great number of people just fail to comprehend. Different people learn better in different ways, I think is the easiest way to put it. The self-learner does not always react favorably to a lecture/classroom/lab type teaching structure, which is the norm for college courses.
Rigid learning structures are fine for many people, and a "well rounded" education should be the cornerstone of every persons life. Many people, before college and often after, do not seem to realize what an education truely is. It is NOT vaguely remembering 10 classes you took 5 years ago. It also isn't the exclusive property of those people who have gotten themselves a degree.
If I remember the rah-rah speeches from highschool and college, what schools are supposed to truely teach you is "how to learn." The self teacher is someone who knows how they best learn and uses this to educate themselves.
...
There's so much more to say on so many of the topics people have dredged up here... but I guess I'll leave that for another day.
I've got to agree with you. As I read the article, I kept feeling like the reporters were asking the wrong people the wrong questions.
The article states that some large percentage of corportate software projects come in over budget or after thier deadline. Did this survey research the reasons? From my 3 years of professional experience, the majority of the times that I see something come in late and/or over budget is because the project was given unrealistic deadlines by the management team. Or, the project becomes the victim of feature-creeped or redesign due to marketing concers or a rushed design.
This is very true of recent years, in which the internet has exploded onto the corporate scene and know-little marketers and managers are scrambling to do something. They quickly come up with some rough requirements, get an estimate, then decide to change everything 1/2 through the projects. The programmer, designer, and architect often have to change major segments of functionality because of legal or marketing concerns.
I don't think certifying managers is the answer either, though. I'm just anti-certification on a whole slew of points, which I guess I won't rant about right now.
As with all virii that expose a security flaw, I hold no grudge against the author of the Melissa virus. But, I think that while Microsoft somewhat to blame, in this instance, this should also be a warning to Unix comunity. This isn't just an email virus. It also plays social-engineering tricks on you. This virus comes from a known email address.
If a friend sent me a PERL script and said it was amusing, it's very possible that I'd run it. I would hopefully look at the source first; and wouldn't run it as root. But, what if I felt lazy that day.
If we aren't lazy this isn't a huge problem. Many of us would be wary of a binary, and know enough about programming to examine source code. What will our community look like next year? The Linux community is expanding quickly. We've got project s like KDE and GNOME trying to make things more user-friendly. The hacker-quotient is, and will continue, to drop rapidly.
In this instance, User-Friendly is what caused the propogation of this bug. User-Friendly is what makes it possible for some virii to spread. Either by having automated startup routines that a user rarely sees, or doesn't know about (Mellisa would auto-run through an init file), or automated features that make you lazy. The 'user-friendly' thing for an email client to do is to make attachments automatically run, or make them easy to run.
As we, as a community, become more user friendly; as we attract more hands-off users, I feel that we will be opening up possibilties for this kind of virus to sneak into our ranks. I can't really think of anyway to prevent this kind of program from propogating, aside from awareness. But, as we increase automation we seem to also decrease awareness.
I mean, I know some good programmers that are forced to use VisualBasic; doesn't make visual basic any better than the horrid excuse for a scripting language that it is.
I know some poor coders who try to code in C; doesn't make C a poor language.
Slashdot Mirror
it depends on the contract that you sign. Just try and get one (or demand an alteration before you sign) that explicitly limits the company's ownership. A clause that limits the company to paid work only, for example - or code/documents created while in the office.
Actually, the way the tax system is set up - if you don't pay enough withholding (or proper quarterly estimates) than you end up having to pay the IRS interest and penalty fees on thier not having taken your money throughout the year.
... of course, you'd have to deal with capital gains on top of the penalties and probably still end up in the hole).
So, actually, the interest you make on the money wouldn't really be enough to cover your penalities when the tax man comes for your cash (unless you make some really wise short term investments
yeah, definately a good place to go if you're into indie stuff.
The gun manufacturers would probably take this into account somehow. Most firing ranges have rental programs, and if there was a hard limit on one-gun, one-user that would end that practice. That would be bad for the industry as a whole. It would be a revenue hit for the industry and a loss for the consumer. Sometimes you want to fire a different weapon or just want to give a gun a testride before you make an expensive purchase.
It would also put a damper on going to the range with a bunch of friends and trying out each other's weapons.
I suppose if they used the electronic keyring tech. this wouldn't be an issue. But, for fingerprint systems, they would probably need a multiple user capability just to be commercially viable.
Maybe I was a bit lucky, and I guess I wasn't going over 60, but I survived a 50 MPH highside. It was a fun one which included the added fun of my bike's spinning front wheel passing over my face shield (left a nice tiremark across the helmet) as the bike rolled over me. All I ended up with was a completely destroyed motorcycle, 2 bruises (my elbow where it made 1st contact with the ground and my shoulder where the bike rolled over me), and a destroyed helmet, full body suit, gloves and boots.
Perhaps I would have faired just fine with just a fullface helmet (anything short of that and I'd have been killed), but the road rash and broken arm would have been a bit more costly then gear I had to replace.
yup. That's exactly why I see so many people riding in shorts and a Tshirt on track days, because once they pass that 90 MPH mark it doesn't matter what they're wearing anymore.
Yes, customers with home networks may order additional network addresses in order to connect several computers to the service through one cable modem.
Well, technically, when using a NAT setup you do only have ONE computer hooked up to thier service. You only have the NAT machine hooked up. The other machines are not hooked into your cable modem.
So, unless they have specific provisions against address translation (which I didn't see in the FAQ or acceptable use policy) you shouldn't legally be breaking thier contract. Also, services (dhcp, etc) run on the NAT box, which are against the Terms of Service, could all be bound to your second ethernet device, thus still not running over the cable modem.
I must say that you are completely wrong. The type of person who prefers to self educate does not tend to learn well in a classroom environment.
I am in a somewhat similar position as the poster. Unlike the poster I did attend college for a few years even though I knew it was a mistake. (I did learn 2 things in a classroom that I still find useful and I did make quite a few friends - so it wasn't a total waste.)
There are learning patterns inherant to people. It is, perhaps, a personality trait. Some people learn things differently. While this type of person can learn in a classroom setting, this setting is often painfully constricting.
This is really a difficult topic to fully explain here in just a few words, and it seems like a topic a great number of people just fail to comprehend. Different people learn better in different ways, I think is the easiest way to put it. The self-learner does not always react favorably to a lecture/classroom/lab type teaching structure, which is the norm for college courses.
Rigid learning structures are fine for many people, and a "well rounded" education should be the cornerstone of every persons life. Many people, before college and often after, do not seem to realize what an education truely is. It is NOT vaguely remembering 10 classes you took 5 years ago. It also isn't the exclusive property of those people who have gotten themselves a degree.
If I remember the rah-rah speeches from highschool and college, what schools are supposed to truely teach you is "how to learn." The self teacher is someone who knows how they best learn and uses this to educate themselves.
Audio CD-R disks (or the stand-alone recorder, can't remember which anymore) are designed to allow only 2 generations of copies to exist.
You can only copy 'master' CDs, you can't duplicate non-masters.
Computer component CD-Rs do not have this restriction.
- Anil
I've got to agree with you. As I read the article, I kept feeling like the reporters were asking the wrong people the wrong questions.
The article states that some large percentage of corportate software projects come in over budget or after thier deadline. Did this survey research the reasons? From my 3 years of professional experience, the majority of the times that I see something come in late and/or over budget is because the project was given unrealistic deadlines by the management team. Or, the project becomes the victim of feature-creeped or redesign due to marketing concers or a rushed design.
This is very true of recent years, in which the internet has exploded onto the corporate scene and know-little marketers and managers are scrambling to do something. They quickly come up with some rough requirements, get an estimate, then decide to change everything 1/2 through the projects. The programmer, designer, and architect often have to change major segments of functionality because of legal or marketing concerns.
I don't think certifying managers is the answer either, though. I'm just anti-certification on a whole slew of points, which I guess I won't rant about right now.
As with all virii that expose a security flaw, I hold no grudge against the author of the Melissa virus. But, I think that while Microsoft somewhat to blame, in this instance, this should also be a warning to Unix comunity. This isn't just an email virus. It also plays social-engineering tricks on you. This virus comes from a known email address.
If a friend sent me a PERL script and said it was amusing, it's very possible that I'd run it. I would hopefully look at the source first; and wouldn't run it as root. But, what if I felt lazy that day.
If we aren't lazy this isn't a huge problem. Many of us would be wary of a binary, and know enough about programming to examine source code. What will our community look like next year? The Linux community is expanding quickly. We've got project s like KDE and GNOME trying to make things more user-friendly. The hacker-quotient is, and will continue, to drop rapidly.
In this instance, User-Friendly is what caused the propogation of this bug. User-Friendly is what makes it possible for some virii to spread. Either by having automated startup routines that a user rarely sees, or doesn't know about (Mellisa would auto-run through an init file), or automated features that make you lazy. The 'user-friendly' thing for an email client to do is to make attachments automatically run, or make them easy to run.
As we, as a community, become more user friendly; as we attract more hands-off users, I feel that we will be opening up possibilties for this kind of virus to sneak into our ranks. I can't really think of anyway to prevent this kind of program from propogating, aside from awareness. But, as we increase automation we seem to also decrease awareness.
I mean, I know some good programmers that are forced to use VisualBasic; doesn't make visual basic any better than the horrid excuse for a scripting language that it is.
I know some poor coders who try to code in C; doesn't make C a poor language.