Dude, I'm more than happy to lower my expectations, and I have on many occasions. I started college right as the bubble was bursting, so I was resigned to the fact that I wasn't going to be getting 6-figures out of college.
But as you hint, I've got student loans to pay back, rent to pay, and other living expenses. The banker, the landlord, and the grocery store don't really give a shit if I can't afford to pay them. Its still off to court for not paying/eating ramen for the rest of my natural life.
I would hope that Obama and other candidates would update their issue positions and even change their positions entirely based on the best evidence available at the time. If he were a smart person, he'd keep the old pages in an archive to show how his positions have evolved over time due to the new information which informed him. Of course, in today's political climate, you can't change your political views ever for any reason. That's "flip-flopping". And that's why he won't keep an archive.
We don't live in the perfect world to which I alluded, so it's pretty obvious his edits are, generally speaking, walking back left-liberal positions required to win the primary but may be a liability in the general.
Nader and McKinney might be pretty far to the left, but you should look at the overall meaning of your vote.
A Nader or McKinney vote is essentially saying "I want us to move left". I voted for Badnarik in 2004 not because I agreed with everything he said, but because I wanted the government to move in that direction.
IMO, McKinney is right out because she's a truther. Anyone who believes 9/11 was an inside job should check into Bellevue immediately. Nader takes himself a bit too seriously, but he's pretty good on most of the issues.
Barr is a warmed-over Republican. I was really disappointed to see him get the nomination. Apparently the Libertarians are content being the disaffected Republican spill-over vote for the foreseeable future.
With the EULA, it's a license to use the software. The GPL is a license to distribute the software. In fact it even states:
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.
Theoretically, lets say I disagree with the terms of the GPL (version 3) and consequently do not propagate or modify any covered work under the license. I'm still allowed to run the program even though I've not accepted the license.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that I own my copy of GCC as far as 17 USC 117 is concerned, but I don't see how I don't own that copy because I have made no license agreement with the FSF. They gave me a copy of GCC. I now own that copy. No?
I posted other places that I considered 17 USC 117 to be a defense. Apparently this is not the case because the defendants never actually owned a copy since the software was distributed under a licensing agreement rather than an actual sale?
I'd like to know why not they're entitled to a section 117 defense. The only rational basis for denying that AFAICT is that users of WoW don't actually own a copy. That's using a pretty restrictive definition of "own".
But doesn't 17 USC 117 protect ordinary operation of the program?
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
I'd hope that copying the program into RAM is an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program". Am I missing something here?
Imagine that you own a company (you can, by the way, just by starting a company).
In name only. Successful companies require capital. Many poor people don't have the proper capital to start any sort of company. Being poor they also have poor credit, so loans are out of the question as well.
Are you immediately obligated to provide jobs for any college graduate who comes by? Or is it only other people who are required to hand out jobs even if you don't meet their requirements?
Here you are assuming that I believe some obligation is at work. All I said that if you follow XYZ, you should have a decent wage. I don't expect the government to enforce this at all -- such problems are not fixed by government fiat, but by a change in the culture and expectations of society. What I expect is that we all be a bit more altruistic in our dealings. Tip the waitress a bit more, pay your employees a bit more, give your tenants a break on rent, etc. It doesn't cost much to be more charitable. Plus you get that warm, fuzzy feeling that you've done a selfless deed.
Who has to give the job to the Oceanographer (with a legitimate degree) who wants to work in Ohio? Yes, that's ridiculous because there's no ocean in Ohio.
We do have a nice lake. In fact, I live a 2 minute walk from it. You'll notice I never said anything of the sort that Oceanographers have jobs in their field wherever they want. I said they should get a decent wage. Nothing more.
If there is no software development market in Ohio, is it less ridiculous for you to expect someone to produce a job for you?
Well software development can be done in Ohio. We may not have oceans here, but we do have computers. So it is indeed less ridiculous to expect software development jobs to be here. Since I freely admit I'm an atrocious programmer (why I got out of CS and into Math), I would not expect one to be awaiting me in any state.
Is it possible that people (even college graduates) have some responsibility for their future?
Indeed, up to the point which their future is no longer in their control. Sometimes people are just unlucky. You can't fault people for being unlucky and complaining about it. Or maybe you can. I don't know in what environment you were raised or what philosophy you use to guide your decisions.
I'm not proposing anything. I'm just stating that having a 4-year degree should get you more than minimum wage.
I don't expect every Journalism student to get a job as a journalist, but they deserve better than working at the local big-box retailer.
Call me old fashioned, or perhaps a socialist, but I think you are owed a decent wage if you worked hard for a degree, certificate, or any other sort of post secondary schooling.
I know you can't expect a job to be handed to you in these cases, but perhaps we should.
Come live in Ohio.:-) I'll concede the market is probably a bit tighter in other places.
With respect to your PHP candidates, either they're unemployed or are getting offers around $75/hr. I'm willing to be the former, but who knows. $75/hr might not get you very far if you're in California.
No. There is no shortage of skilled workers here. There is a shortage of skilled workers who'll work for shit wages, though. Granted some still want the pre-bust wages, but I've seen helpdesk jobs that are paying as little as $8/hr (about 4GBP/hr; aside: what's with slashdot not supporting the pounds sterling sign?). It's very difficult to live a decent life on such wages, much less pay back student loans.
The people of whom I speak are well-educated and articulate, but can't find employment that uses their skills. Since they're employed at or near minimum wage (you'll forgive me for not knowing my friends' exact wages), they've obviously taken something that doesn't use their skills because they need to eat. And I'm not talking about someone taking an entry level position that has an opportunity for some advancement. I'm talking about dead-end jobs.
These people made an effort to better themselves by putting down some serious cash. They deserve better.
I don't know that users will always wish for an open solution.
Your standard user sees the PC as an appliance. They don't care how it was made and in many cases actively seek to not know how it was made or how it works.
The average user asks two questions: does it work and how much does it cost? That's all they care about and all they'll ever care about. They don't care about some buggy printer driver from the 70s, nor do they care about open development methodology. These people will never care about open solutions or open standards.
The only way open source software will become mainstream is by being better than the proprietary competition. I think this will happen, but as soon as a closed-source alternative becomes better, people will use it.
I disagree that "more users on Linux" is what matters, but I agree that choice should be paramount.
I'd really like if everyone enjoyed using only FOSS, but I'm not about to force it on them. I'll give them my opinion on why it's better than using proprietary software and the ethical reasons behind using FOSS, but if they don't buy my line or care about the ideals, then so be it.
I just want people to know there is a choice and the advantages associated with using FOSS. What they do with that information is their business.
So should the Linux Desktop be "pure"? I think we can all decide for ourselves whether or not we want our own desktops to be pure. I have no right to tell someone else what software is on his computer, just as he has no right to tell me what I have on mine. Both camps can co-exist peacefully.
Frankly, if GNU Hurd ever gets finished, the open source crowd can use GNU/Linux and the free software crowd can use just plain GNU. We'll all be better off and there'd be less flamewars.
Many jurisdictions only have one cable ISP because it simply isn't profitable for more than one to exist, not because the local government has granted them a monopoly.
The natural monopoly situation is why the government should own the infrastructure and different companies can provide service over that infrastructure. Congratulations, you've just created a free(er) market in Internet access overnight.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, I'm more than happy to lower my expectations, and I have on many occasions. I started college right as the bubble was bursting, so I was resigned to the fact that I wasn't going to be getting 6-figures out of college.
But as you hint, I've got student loans to pay back, rent to pay, and other living expenses. The banker, the landlord, and the grocery store don't really give a shit if I can't afford to pay them. Its still off to court for not paying/eating ramen for the rest of my natural life.
It's about time we were first in something good!
That's why it says "preferably".
Alaska and New England are my fallbacks.
Is that so? Seeing the blue dot next to your name makes me want to ask...
Are you hiring?
Consider this a joke if you aren't hiring, otherwise I'm serious.
Ding, ding, ding!
In many totalitarian regimes the simple existence of crypto or secure delete software is evidence enough to lock you up.
Meh. I know ISPs aren't common carriers, and I'm not about to put in too much time to placate an AC.
I spent about 30 seconds and I couldn't find a source, but rest assured they aren't.
The confusion comes from the fact that AT&T the phone company is a common carrier but AT&T the ISP isn't.
I've got maybe 3 a week, which is up from the normal of 1 per month, but it's not really too big of a deal.
IIRC, marking an email as spam or moving the message to the spam folder (if you're using Gmail's IMAP function as I am) helps to train the filter.
I would hope that Obama and other candidates would update their issue positions and even change their positions entirely based on the best evidence available at the time. If he were a smart person, he'd keep the old pages in an archive to show how his positions have evolved over time due to the new information which informed him. Of course, in today's political climate, you can't change your political views ever for any reason. That's "flip-flopping". And that's why he won't keep an archive.
We don't live in the perfect world to which I alluded, so it's pretty obvious his edits are, generally speaking, walking back left-liberal positions required to win the primary but may be a liability in the general.
Nader and McKinney might be pretty far to the left, but you should look at the overall meaning of your vote.
A Nader or McKinney vote is essentially saying "I want us to move left". I voted for Badnarik in 2004 not because I agreed with everything he said, but because I wanted the government to move in that direction.
IMO, McKinney is right out because she's a truther. Anyone who believes 9/11 was an inside job should check into Bellevue immediately. Nader takes himself a bit too seriously, but he's pretty good on most of the issues.
Barr is a warmed-over Republican. I was really disappointed to see him get the nomination. Apparently the Libertarians are content being the disaffected Republican spill-over vote for the foreseeable future.
With the EULA, it's a license to use the software. The GPL is a license to distribute the software. In fact it even states:
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.
Theoretically, lets say I disagree with the terms of the GPL (version 3) and consequently do not propagate or modify any covered work under the license. I'm still allowed to run the program even though I've not accepted the license.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that I own my copy of GCC as far as 17 USC 117 is concerned, but I don't see how I don't own that copy because I have made no license agreement with the FSF. They gave me a copy of GCC. I now own that copy. No?
I posted other places that I considered 17 USC 117 to be a defense. Apparently this is not the case because the defendants never actually owned a copy since the software was distributed under a licensing agreement rather than an actual sale?
Thoughts?
I'd like to know why not they're entitled to a section 117 defense. The only rational basis for denying that AFAICT is that users of WoW don't actually own a copy. That's using a pretty restrictive definition of "own".
This is ridiculous.
But doesn't 17 USC 117 protect ordinary operation of the program?
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
I'd hope that copying the program into RAM is an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program". Am I missing something here?
Society at large.
In name only. Successful companies require capital. Many poor people don't have the proper capital to start any sort of company. Being poor they also have poor credit, so loans are out of the question as well.
Here you are assuming that I believe some obligation is at work. All I said that if you follow XYZ, you should have a decent wage. I don't expect the government to enforce this at all -- such problems are not fixed by government fiat, but by a change in the culture and expectations of society. What I expect is that we all be a bit more altruistic in our dealings. Tip the waitress a bit more, pay your employees a bit more, give your tenants a break on rent, etc. It doesn't cost much to be more charitable. Plus you get that warm, fuzzy feeling that you've done a selfless deed.
We do have a nice lake. In fact, I live a 2 minute walk from it. You'll notice I never said anything of the sort that Oceanographers have jobs in their field wherever they want. I said they should get a decent wage. Nothing more.
Well software development can be done in Ohio. We may not have oceans here, but we do have computers. So it is indeed less ridiculous to expect software development jobs to be here. Since I freely admit I'm an atrocious programmer (why I got out of CS and into Math), I would not expect one to be awaiting me in any state.
Indeed, up to the point which their future is no longer in their control. Sometimes people are just unlucky. You can't fault people for being unlucky and complaining about it. Or maybe you can. I don't know in what environment you were raised or what philosophy you use to guide your decisions.
I'm not proposing anything. I'm just stating that having a 4-year degree should get you more than minimum wage.
I don't expect every Journalism student to get a job as a journalist, but they deserve better than working at the local big-box retailer.
Call me old fashioned, or perhaps a socialist, but I think you are owed a decent wage if you worked hard for a degree, certificate, or any other sort of post secondary schooling.
I know you can't expect a job to be handed to you in these cases, but perhaps we should.
That's "willing to bet it's the former".
It's 3:39 local time.
Come live in Ohio. :-)
I'll concede the market is probably a bit tighter in other places.
With respect to your PHP candidates, either they're unemployed or are getting offers around $75/hr. I'm willing to be the former, but who knows. $75/hr might not get you very far if you're in California.
No. There is no shortage of skilled workers here. There is a shortage of skilled workers who'll work for shit wages, though. Granted some still want the pre-bust wages, but I've seen helpdesk jobs that are paying as little as $8/hr (about 4GBP/hr; aside: what's with slashdot not supporting the pounds sterling sign?). It's very difficult to live a decent life on such wages, much less pay back student loans.
The people of whom I speak are well-educated and articulate, but can't find employment that uses their skills. Since they're employed at or near minimum wage (you'll forgive me for not knowing my friends' exact wages), they've obviously taken something that doesn't use their skills because they need to eat. And I'm not talking about someone taking an entry level position that has an opportunity for some advancement. I'm talking about dead-end jobs.
These people made an effort to better themselves by putting down some serious cash. They deserve better.
I don't know that users will always wish for an open solution.
Your standard user sees the PC as an appliance. They don't care how it was made and in many cases actively seek to not know how it was made or how it works.
The average user asks two questions: does it work and how much does it cost? That's all they care about and all they'll ever care about. They don't care about some buggy printer driver from the 70s, nor do they care about open development methodology. These people will never care about open solutions or open standards.
The only way open source software will become mainstream is by being better than the proprietary competition. I think this will happen, but as soon as a closed-source alternative becomes better, people will use it.
We have labor shortages? There might be labour shortages on your side of the pond, but we certainly don't have any labor shortages over here.
"Low" unemployment rates be damned. I know a quite a few smart college-educated people who are making minimum wage. And they're the lucky ones.
I disagree that "more users on Linux" is what matters, but I agree that choice should be paramount.
I'd really like if everyone enjoyed using only FOSS, but I'm not about to force it on them. I'll give them my opinion on why it's better than using proprietary software and the ethical reasons behind using FOSS, but if they don't buy my line or care about the ideals, then so be it.
I just want people to know there is a choice and the advantages associated with using FOSS. What they do with that information is their business.
So should the Linux Desktop be "pure"? I think we can all decide for ourselves whether or not we want our own desktops to be pure. I have no right to tell someone else what software is on his computer, just as he has no right to tell me what I have on mine. Both camps can co-exist peacefully.
Frankly, if GNU Hurd ever gets finished, the open source crowd can use GNU/Linux and the free software crowd can use just plain GNU. We'll all be better off and there'd be less flamewars.
FF2 is written in C (and C++). At least that's what about:buildconfig tells me.
Looks like someone's got a case of the Mondays. ...even though it's Friday. :-)
That's exactly right.
Many jurisdictions only have one cable ISP because it simply isn't profitable for more than one to exist, not because the local government has granted them a monopoly.
The natural monopoly situation is why the government should own the infrastructure and different companies can provide service over that infrastructure. Congratulations, you've just created a free(er) market in Internet access overnight.