I've seen the argument that software students learn "will only have a minor correlation" to what they use a few years from now. This is utterly and completely wrong. A student starting High School in 2001 very likely may have received his first introduction to Windows XP, coming from '98 of course. The difference between these two (from a beginning user perspective) is negligible.
Most businesses skipped Vista and Win 7 is likely to come around in 2010. So That 2001 student, especially as far as work (job/school/lab/etc) is concerned, has used XP for 9 years. That's 4 years of high school, 4 years of college, and 1 year in the work force.
It might not last forever, but seriously a 9 year run of staring at the exact same desktop. This is assuming people pick up Win 7 out of the blocks and with a vengeance too. There's no reason to doubt that XP will be on plenty desktops years after Win 7 is released.
Yes. Any folder placed in the doc effectively becomes a "Menu" of items contained in that directory. So the Applications directory becomes the applications menu.
surely the fact that THE STUDENTS ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR USE OF THESE RESOURCES should mean that they owe the university nothing
I don't have a problem with this policy. Here's why:
I consider it part of my payment. I signed a contract, the terms were clear and unambiguous. I've been to two major campuses and in each not only was the contract I signed clear, but I was reminded of the fact numerous times in numerous classes and by my PI's. This wasn't much the case in Liberal Arts, probably because of the lack of marketable goods that come out of that department. In the sciences though, I was informed from day one (literally, the "welcome new engineers" seminar).
In practice, I find the universities I've worked with to be extremely generous in defining "significant contribution". I've participated in about 3 or 4 patentable projects, one of which is being picked up by a development group (we needed extra funding and support due to class III FDA approval costs).
A significant portion of the students at a university receive financial aid (from 55-75% or more). Tuition can't be the sole source of funding.
Though occasionally you see a student's senior project that is just amazingly patentable. But most of these patents (that don't come from faculty) come from Graduate students or students working on special projects outside the immediate scope of their education. They also receive significant support from university staff, access to extremely expensive equipment otherwise not available to them, and a smorgasbord of other people's ideas to launch off of. The policy in this case is no different then if one was to "volunteer" at their local engineering shop.
With all this, generally it is only if the student's idea is based on an existing body of research (say a refinement of an area of his PI's work) or if he received significant faculty/university support in development of the idea/product. The "slice" that the university takes is quite reasonable at the universities I've worked with/at. It's far less than a VC would take (typically 80-95% or more).
And finally, the summary (no surprise here) is grossly inflammatory. It makes it sound like this guy was drinking Mountain Dew and chilling at the house when all of a sudden bam! He comes up with this amazing algorithm all by his lonesome. Please, this work was shared by many researchers from several institutions with a fair amount of start up capital to get going (50,000 from a competition and developed at the NASA research center). Patent owners include 4 other individuals as well as NASA, Harvard, and UC San Diego in addition to MIT. It was developed specifically to treat loss of balance in astronauts and later Lieberman decided to investigate its viability in the private sector.
"Eureka moments" don't exist, at least not the way popular media/literature portrays it. Any decent eureka! is preceded by years and years of training and diligence or followed by the same. Having an idea is not the same as making an idea happen.
Far from a patent apologist, but this one's a stretch.
Perhaps a non-profit should step in or be formed to provide resources to students to develop their ideas, and only ask for the student to pay back expenses + 1-5% if their idea strikes gold.
Organizations like this exist all over the place. Both community and privately affiliated.
Times have changed. My parents made more than 27k, however I received a decent amount of assistance including maximum allowable Pell Grants each year (the vast majority of my tuition came from scholarship though). I would wager if you're not receiving anything when your parents have such a low income (12k for a single man is poverty level, 21, 200 for a family of 4) then the school you're attending must be very, very affordable.
I'd wager from your description you're attending a small university or community college with a sub 5k tuition.
If your grades and testing were over the top, you'd have received a full ride so I'd guess you're average (no shame in that, hard work can make up for more IQ pts then you'd think).
With the above assumptions, I can clearly line up your advantage for you:
If not for socialized/subsidized education and government programs you wouldn't even have this opportunity. The college you attend would likely not be in operation and your level of academic excellence would not have gained you admittance into education systems still available. Your advantage is that you even have the opportunity to break your forefather's patterns of low income/large families through access to a public education.
Enjoy!
oh, and I'm not saying your being dishonest don't interpret it that way. But if you haven't found any assistance at that income level you may wish to dig deeper. Also, if you can demonstrate that you are independent from your parent's income you can apply as an individual for aid. I did this myself due to my parents having a gross income which through financial mismanagement and debt was of no assistance to myself. A family of 4 @ 27k is only a hair above full on poverty level. If someone tells you that's not enough for aid, they're yanking your chain or your going to a 2k per year school (shit, you can make 2k at burger king let alone at a real job).
Extreme right view points ignore the need for a healthy and skilled labor force and its impact on the other two. You protest that no one person has "the right" to be compensated for a disadvantage. However, the entire notion of society is built upon just this right. The right for a collaborative of individuals to work toward a common end despite relatively minor inconveniences to an individual.
So you ask, why should I have to pay out of pocket to send some poor kid to school who could not otherwise afford it? Why should I spend money to improve education and decrease negative social pressures in low income neighborhoods when I live in a nice suburb seemingly unconnected?
The response is simple, it costs more to imprison a man then to educate him. . . and the education also benefits society by producing a skilled member of the worked force. Society receives a net gain when it assists an out of work man in finding employment then if it ignores his plight.
If you don't like the system, then so be it. Walden it up if you wish, but be a man of principle and shirk all the social welfare you enjoy on a daily basis such as socalized military, socialized police, socialized road and transport, subsidized agriculture, subsidized economies. And when you take off to the hills for a life of solitude unburdened by the unfair demands for good health, equal opportunities, and pursuit of a decent life of your fellow man please don't drive on our roads, our airways, or purchase any of our subsidized foods on your way out.
I get this, and variations of it, so commonly it nigh drives me insane.
Hello, program X is broke/has bug/not working.
Could you give me a description of the problem
When I run the program, I get an error.
What does the error say?
"File/foo/bar/bah not found."
The file mentioned is invariably an input file the user had to designate, such as "someprog --input/foo/bar/bah". So I pause, waiting for the glow of realization to descend upon them.....when it never comes.
Do you know what the problem might be? Can you fix it?
Is the error message correct? Does the file not exist?
I don't know.
Could you check?
Another pause.
The file isn't there....what do I do?
You should probably attempt to give the program the path to a file that exists. ..
This happens so often I have to count to 10 in my head and focus on not letting the irritation enter my voice. Did I mention that the majority of people I support are 2 and 3rd year Neuroscience PhD students and PhD researchers/professors?
When you are pretty much describing to a T, a classic, ancient, and oft disproven logical fallacy....you might want to consider rethinking your argument. Continuum Fallacy
Well, he made a simple statement: "Mac users run as root. No password is needed to run 'as root'."
There's no need for some lengthy rebuttal. It's not an argument or a debate. It was a fact claim with only two options: a) mac users run as root and need no special action for superuser privileges and b) mac users do not have root privileges and must do something special for privilege escalation.
"You are incorrect." Is all that is required. The fact that his claim is incorrect requires that the converse is true.
What is amusing is that such a lengthy explanation would be needed to clarify what should be glaringly obvious.
Well, since you're getting all technical. Let me take you to school.
First off, the U.S. congress has not formally declared war on a nation since World War II. However, considering our level of military involvement since that "formal war" most would agree that this official title is nothing but political posturing. When we mobilize our military toward an objective en masse, this is what the vast majority of U.S. citizens consider being in a 'state of war' including, apparently, our news agencies and most of our government officials . . not excluding our current presidential hopefuls.
Though the president has no clear constitutional authority to declare formal war, the Supreme Court found he does have the authority to declare a "state of war" and unilaterally send troops into harms way. Before you blow this off to some recent perversion of the Constitution, the expansion of the powers of Commander in Chief beyond mere military direction and into military initiative began with the Prize Cases of the mid 1800's during Lincoln's term.
There have only been 5 formal declarations of war in all U.S. history, however Presidents have repeatedly initiated military hostilities unilaterally. It's true that they always sought congressional approval, but this was more of a crossing of an 'i' or dotting of a 't'. Many times the "approval" was obtained after the fact.
This has been a constant point of ambiguity in practice for our entire history. Several Presidents have pushed and exceeded the envelope. All told, there have been over 100 military actions taken without congressional approval in U.S. history.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 attempted to formalize the boundaries. It is very clear that the Commander in Chief has the power to initiate large scale military action for up to 60 days unilaterally. Also, all Presidents have asserted their ability to act unilaterally.
And finally, all attempts to hold a U.S. President responsible for unilateral military action have failed. Including the more recent Campbell v. Clinton case that resulted from Clinton's continued bombing of Yugoslavia after the afore mentioned 60 day "grace period" in direct contradiction to the explicit denial of congressional authority to do so.
The sad fact is, your world of semantic games where the U.S. has never seen a 'war' in over 60 years and congress is the ultimate authority for sending young men to die in foreign countries simply doesn't exist. It's not the reality that is our system of governance. In that reality, the one the rest of us live in, when the President says war people die.
And in direct answer to your question:
Have you never read that "WE THE PEOPLE" document in your school or spare time?
Why yes, I have. However, it would appear that unlike yourself I bothered to followup on the 232 years of history that came after the initial draft.
The author was unclear on whether his non-patient data is residing on the same physical space as the patient data. It would appear to me that this is the case.
The main reason is that a small subset of our researchers work with patient information
.
I would assume "our researchers" means they share "our lab's resources". I'd put money on the IT policy stating "any storage device containing sensitive patient data must be . . . ".
If this is the case, the poster is completely out of line. If you would like a solution to your problem of whole disk encryption interfering with your non-patient sensitive research, here it is (and I'm sure your IT dept would agree):
Physically segregate the patient data from the rest of your research and encrypt the file systems the patient data is located on.
.
Yes, it may be more troublesome to reallocate space. Yes, it may cost more due to lack of support for certain compression algorithms in the form of extra storage space needed. However, it is required by law that this data on your storage devices be secure. You never mention actually speaking to the IT department or what their response was. They may provide alternatives or be open to suggestion of alternatives that would minimally impact your other users. However, that they want to secure this patient information and are willing to take steps to do so is a very good thing.
And no matter what the solution is, it's guaranteed to negatively impact the researchers that deal with this data in some form or fashion. Whether it be in work flow/productivity or in operational costs. So brace yourself for that. These "hinderances" and headaches are part of the price for working with patient data. Every bit as much the hard disks, lab materials, and labor.
The President of the United States (the guy who actually declares war) says otherwise:
The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [Bushâ(TM)s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
It's not just using the macbook as a a disk, it's also using the macbook to boot a disk mounted in TDM. For example, booting up your headless xserves.
-james
So the EIPA will take up civil suits involving IP cases. So what if the EIPA seize an entire server farm on behalf of the RIAA which results in the infringement of some innocent 3rd parties IP (e.g. their website, copyrighted materials, etc) and costs them revenue due to illegal seizure of their IP?
Could that 3rd person leverage the free civil suit clauses of the EIPA to bring suit against the EIPA for infringement?
Exactly. I don't find Scientology's claims any more ridiculous than those of every other religion I've looked into. Raised from the dead? Omniscience? Omnipotent? Transubstantiation? Eternal garden full of virgins? Reincarnation? Cow is the highest life form?
Thetans, aliens, and seeing into the sole with a tuning fork? Sure, why not.
It should be made clear that absolute truth, at least with regard to empirical knowledge, can never be had. That science, or the scientific method, is the best way we've devised to produce ever more accurate approximations of truth.
However, making that clear should be the objective. Allowing creationism or Intelligent Design into the classroom should only be done as a clear example of how to distinguish science from non-science, from pseudo science.
BTW, the Teleological (intelligent design) argument has been around for a very long time. Its roots date back to at least Plato's Timaeus. Its refutations are equally as old. However, at the very best these sorts of lessons belong in Philosophy courses rather then science courses. I would have no objection to the teachings of Jesus, Intelligent Design, Aquina, Mohammed, Confucius, Kant Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russel, etc. being taught in our High Schools. As long as they were posed as questions to be pondered and not as dogmatic truths.
So there. She doesn't endorse creationism any more than evolutionary theory. God forbid (if you'll pardon the expression) we let open minds hear both sides of the debate and make up their own minds what they believe, right? I mean, it's so much easier if you just silence once side of the issue and put the other camp out of business. Then the kids believe just what you want them to believe without ever having had the choice. You seem to be in favor of censorship when it suits your agenda.
She's saying both sides deserve to be heard. You seem to be in favor of censoring one side because you don't agree with it. Somehow, if a creationist were advocating that evolution be banned, I have a funny feeling you'd be all lathered up about it. Yet you have no problem with the same being applied in the opposite direction. Back where I come from, that's called 'hypocrisy.'
And, for the record, I have this issue at home with my kids right now. My wife is religious, although not a zealot. She leans towards creationism. I'm not very religious and I lean towards evolution. I'm seeing to it that my daughters grow up hearing both points of view. They can then make up their own minds. As parents, we should have enough confidence in the upbringing we've given our children that they'll make the "right" choice, whatever that happens to be.
Science is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of fact. That doesn't mean that science is never wrong, it does mean that all scientific claims are either correct or incorrect. Further, the definition of science requires that any claim (hypothesis) that warrants consideration must be one that can be right or wrong.
By terming evolution as a matter of belief or non-belief and putting creationism, in anything but the strict deism sense, into the same camp you only reveals your ignorance of what science is and what is required to be considered "scientific".
Since there is absolutely no conflict between deism and evolution (though deism is still in no way scientific), we must assume that all anti-evolution creationists is of the strict sense.
Teaching your children that there is some sort of choice between creationism and evolution is on par with teaching them that flat earth claims are up for debate as well.
No, but there are a lot of things that I think should or should not be done that you (or someone) would probably disagree with. It doesn't make me right or wrong.
Well, you see, that's the beautiful thing about things like science and math. Sometimes things are simply wrong. Relativism need not apply in regard to these questions.
The product isn't owned by you, it's owned by your company. They can do with it what they wish.
If your on friendly terms, you might bring it up as an interesting topic of discussion at a meeting or over a brew at the bar after work...but that's as far as I'd take it. If he stands firm, drop it. If you want to make a stand for your ideals, you don't do so by arguing with someone whose made up their mind.
You do so by either forming your own company so you do own your own work or shopping around for a position at a company that shares your ideals.
What you do at this job is bring it up at a meeting if you can get away with it, if your shot down, you eat crow, and do the best you can to get that paten for his product. It's your job and it's the terms you've accepted. Do it to the best of your capabilities. If you don't like it, move on and let them know in professional, courteous way you're taking your talents elsewhere due to this conflict in policy.
Is that the reason he's interested in programming is because your a programmer. I'm sure he finds the topic interesting, not saying that. But if you were an auto-mechanic, an artist, an author, it's likely he'd find that interesting as well.
The best way to keep him interested and to foster improvement is to stay involved. Pull a good book of your shelf, tell him why you enjoyed it when you were learning, what you found useful about it. Encourage him to sit in the same room while you hack and not to hesitate to ask any questions he may have about the material, take the time to answer those questions. As he improves, work on projects with him and as soon as he's able to contribute to what your doing....work with him.
Share your enthusiasm, talk about the challenges you had during the day with him and the solutions you found. He may not understand it all at first, but he'll listen, absorb, and gradually start picking it up. And if he loses interest, still talk with him, encourage him to seek his own interests, and emphasize that the most important thing is not *what* he seeks, but that he finds something that inspires the same passion in him that you've found in programming.
Besides being insanely overpriced, is that you have no control over the charges since you get billed for *receiving* a message. This clause is absolutely absurd and if it didn't exist, the price would go way down.
When implementing a solution for an employer. The first is the actual script that you turn over to them. The other is the myriad of scripts that help you get the job done.
These are what we call our "toolbox" and it no more belongs to the employer than a hammer or wrench. For example, if I'm asked to port a database or write a daemon I often include a set of headers or functions that I carry around with me from job to job. I don't consider anything written as a means to accomplish my assigned goal as belonging to my employer either.
I usually license these as BSD or GPL, but will relicense them if necessary for inclusion in the project. This is the code I show at interviews. It is every bit as representative of my abilities as the code locked up with the company. Nor is it even remotely unethical, there's not a craftsman around that doesn't have their own set of custom "utilities" and tools that they carry around in their personal tool box.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen the argument that software students learn "will only have a minor correlation" to what they use a few years from now. This is utterly and completely wrong. A student starting High School in 2001 very likely may have received his first introduction to Windows XP, coming from '98 of course. The difference between these two (from a beginning user perspective) is negligible.
Most businesses skipped Vista and Win 7 is likely to come around in 2010. So That 2001 student, especially as far as work (job/school/lab/etc) is concerned, has used XP for 9 years. That's 4 years of high school, 4 years of college, and 1 year in the work force.
It might not last forever, but seriously a 9 year run of staring at the exact same desktop. This is assuming people pick up Win 7 out of the blocks and with a vengeance too. There's no reason to doubt that XP will be on plenty desktops years after Win 7 is released.
Yes. Any folder placed in the doc effectively becomes a "Menu" of items contained in that directory. So the Applications directory becomes the applications menu.
Because everyone knows, no matter how obsessed a man becomes he'll still sleep with the enemy.
I don't have a problem with this policy. Here's why:
With all this, generally it is only if the student's idea is based on an existing body of research (say a refinement of an area of his PI's work) or if he received significant faculty/university support in development of the idea/product. The "slice" that the university takes is quite reasonable at the universities I've worked with/at. It's far less than a VC would take (typically 80-95% or more).
And finally, the summary (no surprise here) is grossly inflammatory. It makes it sound like this guy was drinking Mountain Dew and chilling at the house when all of a sudden bam! He comes up with this amazing algorithm all by his lonesome. Please, this work was shared by many researchers from several institutions with a fair amount of start up capital to get going (50,000 from a competition and developed at the NASA research center). Patent owners include 4 other individuals as well as NASA, Harvard, and UC San Diego in addition to MIT. It was developed specifically to treat loss of balance in astronauts and later Lieberman decided to investigate its viability in the private sector.
"Eureka moments" don't exist, at least not the way popular media/literature portrays it. Any decent eureka! is preceded by years and years of training and diligence or followed by the same. Having an idea is not the same as making an idea happen.
Far from a patent apologist, but this one's a stretch.
Organizations like this exist all over the place. Both community and privately affiliated.
I'd wager from your description you're attending a small university or community college with a sub 5k tuition.
If your grades and testing were over the top, you'd have received a full ride so I'd guess you're average (no shame in that, hard work can make up for more IQ pts then you'd think).
With the above assumptions, I can clearly line up your advantage for you:
Enjoy!
oh, and I'm not saying your being dishonest don't interpret it that way. But if you haven't found any assistance at that income level you may wish to dig deeper. Also, if you can demonstrate that you are independent from your parent's income you can apply as an individual for aid. I did this myself due to my parents having a gross income which through financial mismanagement and debt was of no assistance to myself. A family of 4 @ 27k is only a hair above full on poverty level. If someone tells you that's not enough for aid, they're yanking your chain or your going to a 2k per year school (shit, you can make 2k at burger king let alone at a real job).
You contradict your own premise.
There are three tiers to a successful nation:
Extreme right view points ignore the need for a healthy and skilled labor force and its impact on the other two. You protest that no one person has "the right" to be compensated for a disadvantage. However, the entire notion of society is built upon just this right. The right for a collaborative of individuals to work toward a common end despite relatively minor inconveniences to an individual.
So you ask, why should I have to pay out of pocket to send some poor kid to school who could not otherwise afford it? Why should I spend money to improve education and decrease negative social pressures in low income neighborhoods when I live in a nice suburb seemingly unconnected?
The response is simple, it costs more to imprison a man then to educate him. . . and the education also benefits society by producing a skilled member of the worked force. Society receives a net gain when it assists an out of work man in finding employment then if it ignores his plight.
If you don't like the system, then so be it. Walden it up if you wish, but be a man of principle and shirk all the social welfare you enjoy on a daily basis such as socalized military, socialized police, socialized road and transport, subsidized agriculture, subsidized economies. And when you take off to the hills for a life of solitude unburdened by the unfair demands for good health, equal opportunities, and pursuit of a decent life of your fellow man please don't drive on our roads, our airways, or purchase any of our subsidized foods on your way out.
I get this, and variations of it, so commonly it nigh drives me insane.
Hello, program X is broke/has bug/not working.
Could you give me a description of the problem
When I run the program, I get an error.
What does the error say?
"File /foo/bar/bah not found."
The file mentioned is invariably an input file the user had to designate, such as "someprog --input /foo/bar/bah". So I pause, waiting for the glow of realization to descend upon them .....when it never comes.
Do you know what the problem might be? Can you fix it?
Is the error message correct? Does the file not exist?
I don't know.
Could you check?
Another pause.
The file isn't there....what do I do?
You should probably attempt to give the program the path to a file that exists. . .
This happens so often I have to count to 10 in my head and focus on not letting the irritation enter my voice. Did I mention that the majority of people I support are 2 and 3rd year Neuroscience PhD students and PhD researchers/professors?
When you are pretty much describing to a T, a classic, ancient, and oft disproven logical fallacy....you might want to consider rethinking your argument.
Continuum Fallacy
Well, he made a simple statement: "Mac users run as root. No password is needed to run 'as root'."
There's no need for some lengthy rebuttal. It's not an argument or a debate. It was a fact claim with only two options: a) mac users run as root and need no special action for superuser privileges and b) mac users do not have root privileges and must do something special for privilege escalation.
"You are incorrect." Is all that is required. The fact that his claim is incorrect requires that the converse is true.
What is amusing is that such a lengthy explanation would be needed to clarify what should be glaringly obvious.
You are incorrect.
Well, since you're getting all technical. Let me take you to school.
First off, the U.S. congress has not formally declared war on a nation since World War II. However, considering our level of military involvement since that "formal war" most would agree that this official title is nothing but political posturing. When we mobilize our military toward an objective en masse, this is what the vast majority of U.S. citizens consider being in a 'state of war' including, apparently, our news agencies and most of our government officials . . not excluding our current presidential hopefuls.
Though the president has no clear constitutional authority to declare formal war, the Supreme Court found he does have the authority to declare a "state of war" and unilaterally send troops into harms way. Before you blow this off to some recent perversion of the Constitution, the expansion of the powers of Commander in Chief beyond mere military direction and into military initiative began with the Prize Cases of the mid 1800's during Lincoln's term.
There have only been 5 formal declarations of war in all U.S. history, however Presidents have repeatedly initiated military hostilities unilaterally. It's true that they always sought congressional approval, but this was more of a crossing of an 'i' or dotting of a 't'. Many times the "approval" was obtained after the fact.
This has been a constant point of ambiguity in practice for our entire history. Several Presidents have pushed and exceeded the envelope. All told, there have been over 100 military actions taken without congressional approval in U.S. history.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 attempted to formalize the boundaries. It is very clear that the Commander in Chief has the power to initiate large scale military action for up to 60 days unilaterally. Also, all Presidents have asserted their ability to act unilaterally.
And finally, all attempts to hold a U.S. President responsible for unilateral military action have failed. Including the more recent Campbell v. Clinton case that resulted from Clinton's continued bombing of Yugoslavia after the afore mentioned 60 day "grace period" in direct contradiction to the explicit denial of congressional authority to do so.
The sad fact is, your world of semantic games where the U.S. has never seen a 'war' in over 60 years and congress is the ultimate authority for sending young men to die in foreign countries simply doesn't exist. It's not the reality that is our system of governance. In that reality, the one the rest of us live in, when the President says war people die.
And in direct answer to your question:
Why yes, I have. However, it would appear that unlike yourself I bothered to followup on the 232 years of history that came after the initial draft.
The author was unclear on whether his non-patient data is residing on the same physical space as the patient data. It would appear to me that this is the case.
.
I would assume "our researchers" means they share "our lab's resources". I'd put money on the IT policy stating "any storage device containing sensitive patient data must be . . . ".
If this is the case, the poster is completely out of line. If you would like a solution to your problem of whole disk encryption interfering with your non-patient sensitive research, here it is (and I'm sure your IT dept would agree):
.
Yes, it may be more troublesome to reallocate space. Yes, it may cost more due to lack of support for certain compression algorithms in the form of extra storage space needed. However, it is required by law that this data on your storage devices be secure. You never mention actually speaking to the IT department or what their response was. They may provide alternatives or be open to suggestion of alternatives that would minimally impact your other users. However, that they want to secure this patient information and are willing to take steps to do so is a very good thing.
And no matter what the solution is, it's guaranteed to negatively impact the researchers that deal with this data in some form or fashion. Whether it be in work flow/productivity or in operational costs. So brace yourself for that. These "hinderances" and headaches are part of the price for working with patient data. Every bit as much the hard disks, lab materials, and labor.
It's not just using the macbook as a a disk, it's also using the macbook to boot a disk mounted in TDM. For example, booting up your headless xserves. -james
Is crack it.
So the EIPA will take up civil suits involving IP cases. So what if the EIPA seize an entire server farm on behalf of the RIAA which results in the infringement of some innocent 3rd parties IP (e.g. their website, copyrighted materials, etc) and costs them revenue due to illegal seizure of their IP?
Could that 3rd person leverage the free civil suit clauses of the EIPA to bring suit against the EIPA for infringement?
Exactly. I don't find Scientology's claims any more ridiculous than those of every other religion I've looked into. Raised from the dead? Omniscience? Omnipotent? Transubstantiation? Eternal garden full of virgins? Reincarnation? Cow is the highest life form?
Thetans, aliens, and seeing into the sole with a tuning fork? Sure, why not.
It should be made clear that absolute truth, at least with regard to empirical knowledge, can never be had. That science, or the scientific method, is the best way we've devised to produce ever more accurate approximations of truth.
However, making that clear should be the objective. Allowing creationism or Intelligent Design into the classroom should only be done as a clear example of how to distinguish science from non-science, from pseudo science.
BTW, the Teleological (intelligent design) argument has been around for a very long time. Its roots date back to at least Plato's Timaeus. Its refutations are equally as old. However, at the very best these sorts of lessons belong in Philosophy courses rather then science courses. I would have no objection to the teachings of Jesus, Intelligent Design, Aquina, Mohammed, Confucius, Kant Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russel, etc. being taught in our High Schools. As long as they were posed as questions to be pondered and not as dogmatic truths.
Science is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of fact. That doesn't mean that science is never wrong, it does mean that all scientific claims are either correct or incorrect. Further, the definition of science requires that any claim (hypothesis) that warrants consideration must be one that can be right or wrong.
By terming evolution as a matter of belief or non-belief and putting creationism, in anything but the strict deism sense, into the same camp you only reveals your ignorance of what science is and what is required to be considered "scientific".
Since there is absolutely no conflict between deism and evolution (though deism is still in no way scientific), we must assume that all anti-evolution creationists is of the strict sense.
Teaching your children that there is some sort of choice between creationism and evolution is on par with teaching them that flat earth claims are up for debate as well.
Well, you see, that's the beautiful thing about things like science and math. Sometimes things are simply wrong. Relativism need not apply in regard to these questions.
The product isn't owned by you, it's owned by your company. They can do with it what they wish.
If your on friendly terms, you might bring it up as an interesting topic of discussion at a meeting or over a brew at the bar after work...but that's as far as I'd take it. If he stands firm, drop it. If you want to make a stand for your ideals, you don't do so by arguing with someone whose made up their mind.
You do so by either forming your own company so you do own your own work or shopping around for a position at a company that shares your ideals.
What you do at this job is bring it up at a meeting if you can get away with it, if your shot down, you eat crow, and do the best you can to get that paten for his product. It's your job and it's the terms you've accepted. Do it to the best of your capabilities. If you don't like it, move on and let them know in professional, courteous way you're taking your talents elsewhere due to this conflict in policy.
Is that the reason he's interested in programming is because your a programmer. I'm sure he finds the topic interesting, not saying that. But if you were an auto-mechanic, an artist, an author, it's likely he'd find that interesting as well.
The best way to keep him interested and to foster improvement is to stay involved. Pull a good book of your shelf, tell him why you enjoyed it when you were learning, what you found useful about it. Encourage him to sit in the same room while you hack and not to hesitate to ask any questions he may have about the material, take the time to answer those questions. As he improves, work on projects with him and as soon as he's able to contribute to what your doing....work with him.
Share your enthusiasm, talk about the challenges you had during the day with him and the solutions you found. He may not understand it all at first, but he'll listen, absorb, and gradually start picking it up. And if he loses interest, still talk with him, encourage him to seek his own interests, and emphasize that the most important thing is not *what* he seeks, but that he finds something that inspires the same passion in him that you've found in programming.
Besides being insanely overpriced, is that you have no control over the charges since you get billed for *receiving* a message. This clause is absolutely absurd and if it didn't exist, the price would go way down.
When implementing a solution for an employer. The first is the actual script that you turn over to them. The other is the myriad of scripts that help you get the job done.
These are what we call our "toolbox" and it no more belongs to the employer than a hammer or wrench. For example, if I'm asked to port a database or write a daemon I often include a set of headers or functions that I carry around with me from job to job. I don't consider anything written as a means to accomplish my assigned goal as belonging to my employer either.
I usually license these as BSD or GPL, but will relicense them if necessary for inclusion in the project. This is the code I show at interviews. It is every bit as representative of my abilities as the code locked up with the company. Nor is it even remotely unethical, there's not a craftsman around that doesn't have their own set of custom "utilities" and tools that they carry around in their personal tool box.