From what I remember, even with all these obstacles, OS/2 Warp sold more retail copies than Windows 95. Microsoft's big marketing coup for Windows 95 was with the OEM's, IBM just didn't have the pull there, especially since IBM directly competed with OEM's with their PS/2 line of computers at the time.
After it was clear that they had lost the consumer desktop, they focussed marketing efforts on direct sales to corporations, and a little on large embedded machines (eg ATMs) and apparently had reasonable success in both those arenas.
The spin from the linux camp on this one has been pretty funny to read.:-)
Speaking as someone who is generally in the Linux camp, I have to agree. Yes, Apache is superior, yes, Windows is more vulnerable, that doesn't change the fact that there is a security hole and lots of production machines need to be patched. I don't care about how great Apache is, or the "I told you so's" from the MS apologists. I'm more interested in discussion on how bad the vulnerability is, workarounds to use until the patch is available, and tests to make sure the patch works.
It looks like one workaround is to upgrade to 2.0.36, the bug is still there, but according to the the advisory, in Apache 2 it's only a partial DoS attack, rather than the Compromise / Full DoS (depending on platform) it is with Apache 1.3. Even with the upgrade, you need to babysit the server for attacked processes.
How long will it take before this is exploited?
Apparently It's already happening, though this report is unconfirmed and possibly a troll (stop Apache running to prevent any DoS??? All the DoS does is stop Apache from running).
Then how many servers will get rooted because they haven't installed a patch?
Probably not many, it's only exploitable that way on Apache 1.3.x running on Windows and 64-bit Unix systems. I don't know actual statistics, but I think it's safe to assume that the plurality (if not the majority) of Apache installations are 1.3.x running on 32 bit Linux and BSD platforms.
Tony writes: The secondary costs of installing and using MS-Windows is about the same (or perhaps more) than installing and using Linux. That, coupled with the primary costs of using MS-Windows (licensing and media fees) puts MS-Windows at a higher cost than Linux. ... This idea that MS-Windows has no secondary cost because it has a primary cost is stupid.
Yes, and to add some figures behind your statements, Paul Murphy has done some extensive TCO studies of Windows vs Various unix systems, and found that in many cases, a sanely configured Solaris solution (far from the bargain basement of the *nix world) can often save over 60% compared to the comparable Windows solution. The real world numbers are likely even more slanted towards Unix, because he leaves out the expensive hardware replacement that Windows pushes on you to keep running their software. A strategic comparison of Windows vs. Unix, LinuxWorld, October 2001
Where is the problem exactly with patents in GPL-ed software?
Worst case scenario: a patent could make it illegal to use a particular software package, even one licensed under the GPL. Depending on patent laws, it could also interfere with redistributing GPL code.
If a company has a patent on a software technique and writes and distributes GPL code to implement it, anybody can use this code. Or can't they?
Potentially not. The GPL is a copyright license, it gives people the right to distribute the software. It is not a patent license, it does not grant people the right to use any patents.
A patent holder who is friendly to the Free software community will provide, seperately from the GPL, a license permitting anyone to use, for free, the patent within the context of software licensed under a Free Software license. The DFSG makes a good set of guidelines for this purpose. Generally such licenses are void if you sue the patent holder over their use of your own patents. These are called Royalty-Free patents (or RF Patents). Some companies, whose patents are purely defensive, give a royalty-free license to everyone who isn't suing them.
To my knowledge, SCC has not done this for the patents connected to SELinux. This is why people are upset.
And can people modify that code? I guess one cannot write new GPL-ed code that does the same thing.
You can modify existing code or write new code if and only if you do so within the bounds of the above discussed patent licenses.
Or can a company charge you for using the GPL-ed code with patents?
Yes they can. Let's say the ACME Software company comes up with a great streaming video codec, they post the specifications online and encourage people to use it. A group of people take those specifications and make programs to make, broadcast and view ACME video, the program gets distributed widely. Two years later we find that prior to publishing the spec, ACME quietly filed for a patent, and it has come through.
My understanding is that ACME would have the legal right (though not the moral right, IMHO) to charge everyone who uses that software, or who has used it in the two year period while the patent is pending, for each time they use the software, or distribute files that were made with that software. This scenario is not that different from what Unisys did with LZW encryption, and GIF files.
Note: I am not a lawyer, none of the above should be construed as legal advice.
> I suspect if they use this agreement to disable the device of a New York State customer within 90 days of the customer purchasing the product, they will be in violation of NYS law.
SONICblue is based in California and has no business presence in NY. Where's the jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction is one of those thorny issues which you need a real lawyer to properly sort out (I am not a lawyer, nor is any of this legal advice). My limited understanding of it is, if a company screws over a consumer in NYS they don't need an office there to get sued under New York law in a New York court.
The bit of my rant you quote is referring to the product's warranty, even if my other argument (i.e. SonicBLUE damaged my property) doesn't hold any water, when a company sells a consumer product, they warrant that it will function for a set period. Even if the ReplayTV box comes with no paper warranty, in New York State (and many others) the product has an "implied" 90 day warranty. In retrospect, the warranty argument is a bit hazy (although I'd call a product defective if it stopped working because I used a service run by the manufacturer in accordance with all instructions and service agreements).
Read Applied Cryptography, by Bruce Schneier (ISBN 0471117099). It covers all the basics of cryptographic systems, in depth, including when to use which kind of setup.
After you've read that, if you want more information about Alice and Bob, read here.
This is a common myth. Regardless of health or happiness levels, it has been shown time and time again that the vast majority of (American) consumers:
* Shop for price and are easily conned by 'safe' and 'convenient' features
* Tell their friends where the good deals are
I disagree partially. My (admitedly anecdotal experience) is that I have seen a great deal of brand loyalty to brands that have proven themselves to a consumer's satisfaction, and I've seen this brand loyalty override both price and competitors advertisements. It is tricky to do this, since "to a consumer's satisfaction" is different for each and every consumer, but offering a good product at a fair price and not screwing the customer over is a healthy start towards this path.
When a consumer is in a market where they haven't developed any brand loyalty, you are completely right, most consumers choose on the basis of price and half remembered lies from advertisements.
* Can't muster up enough energy to put down a bag or Doritos, let alone participate in a lawsuit.
This is America we're talking about here, land of the lawyers. If your typical American is merely annoyed, sure, Doritos not torts. If he's a little more than annoyed, he'll say "sure" when the lawyer calls to ask if he wants to be in on the juicy class action suit (which will end with the company paying $10 million, the lawyer getting $5 million and the actual people getting $2.13 each). It doesn't take much more beyond that point for someone to call a lawyer and ask how much they can get from the bastard company with deep pockets. Sure, not everyone is going to do this, but it doesn't take very many lawsuits to destroy the profits from a product.
You just signed up for Business 101, right? It shows.
Nope, computer programmer, no formal business education. But I've observed that a business doesn't have to be slimey to succeed.
The 'best', most compassionate companies do respect their consumers. However, many 'decent' companies go under with barely a whimper.
Yes, and so do many slimey ones. 95% of new business fail from what I've heard.
And when you've got shareholders (ie, you and me and our fund managers) screaming for profit or growth, then the board (and hence, the executive) have little choice but to steam ever forward in search of the quick profits and/or growth for the next quarter or else be out of a job.
Yes, this happens far far too often. This doesn't excuse a company for screwing their customers in a way that doesn't result in quick profits and growth. Disabling peoples boxes will generate ill-will and lost sales.
Much like politics, you're remembered for what you did just before election time. Politicians can't buy into 10- or 20- or 50- years plans that are good for the country and not for their careers and lifestyle.
I'm not talking about good for the country, that's a lot to ask out of a corporation, even for an idealist like me. I'd like good for the company and their customers. I'll settle for good for the company and not bad for their customers. Good for the company and bad for the customers is parasitic and bad but understandible.
The ReplayTV thing strikes me as potentially bad for both the company and their customers, and that's just stupid. Not to blow this out of proportion, in this case we're talking about them reserving the right to do something stupid, they haven't actually done it, but still.
So yeah, I mostly agree with you, the greed and stupitidy is par for the course given the current crop of laws and people. I just don't feel it is necessary given the current crop of laws and people. Since I think we both feel it's not 'Good', I try to nudge a little bit of laziness away when I can, and suggest that long-term greed is more productive than short-term greed.
Actually, those who are religiously opposed to Usury can't receive interest either, which makes it very difficult for them to get bank accounts, but that's a tangent.
If you don't like the agreement, return your ReplayTV.
Returns are at best annoying, at worst they can be impossible, depending on the store and where you live. Some stores in some states won't accept returns except under very specific circumstances, and "not liking the service agreement" isn't one of them.
Are you deliberately being stupid? So you don't like the fact that they can "actively disable the box that you spent at least $450 to own" - then WHY THE FUCK DID YOU SPEND $450!!! You IDIOT! Who FORCED you to buy, and keep, a ReplayTV!
I am more familiar with Tivo than ReplayTV, I am assuming ReplayTV is similar enough for my argument to make sense. If I go to the store to buy a Tivo, I have a very useful and flexible digital recording device, if I pay for the Tivo service then my digital recording device also knows alot about upcoming shows. If I cancel my service, I still have a useful device it just doesn't know about upcoming shows anymore.
My limited understanding is that older ReplayTV boxes are the same way. This new box with the new service agreement has the added "feature" of, if someone accuses me of copyright infringment, then with no due process I not only have no service, but they've made my device not work as well, no refund. No actual infringement is necessary, just someone accusing you of breaking a civil law against someone unaffiliated with ReplayTV.
My cable provider has no right to destroy my TV, my "Digital TV Guide" provider has no right to destroy my digital recorder. A non-negotiated contract should not be sufficient to give them that right.
Your morals are no basis for forcing anyone to offer you a contract that you like.
My morals are a basis for what I will and won't accept, which is the whole basis of a contract. My morals are also one of the guides I use in deciding which laws I do and don't support.
While Contract Law has a great deal of breadth and power, it is not limitless. This is a Contract of Adhesion (i.e. no negotiation has taken place), and the power of such contracts is even more limited. I feel it is (or if not, it ought to be) Unconscionablefor such a contract, where I am merely purchasing a service, to give someone the right to damage or destroy my property. Actual negotiation for mutually agreeable terms is required before I can accept that I have agreed to give someone the right to destroy my property.
Sorry, I posted too early in the morning as I was rushing and I left out the bit tying them together. Both the outcry over this contract and the historic outcry over Usury are people upset over a contract term they consider morally wrong. In the Usury case, it was against their religion, in this case there is an expectation that if you pay for something, you actually get it, and they don't take it away from you. Discussing the morality of the contract, and comparing it to another "morality of the contract" issue is on-topic, in my opinion.
There would be far less outcry if they were just talking about stopping the service if they didn't like you (assuming these boxes are useful without the service), but they are reserving the right to actively disable the box that you spent at least $450 to own. I consider this immoral.
Once again/. readers look at the issue backwards. WHY do you think a business is even remotely concerned with what is good for consumers? Why should they be?
Because healthy, happy, non-screwed-over customers:
* Buy more products and services from them in the future; and
* Tell their friends and acquaintances how great the company is, and encourage other people to become customers; and
* Don't involve the company in expensive lawsuits. Well-run businesses that take the long-term view realize this and treat their customers with respect. After all, the customers are the people who are feeding them.
The trouble is, poorly run businesses are rampant, and almost nobody cares what they're doing 20 years from now. Most companies don't seem to look much farther than next year (many no farther than next quarter).
Do you want the whole world to be looking out for you? Oh no, you can't have a car that goes too fast, you might crash! You can't have inline skates, people have broken bones with those!
This is off-topic fluff, we're not talking about laws designed to "protect" you whether you like it or not, we're talking about a company reserving the right to screw their customers royally, taking their money and withholding service, and hiding this fact in the fine print of a contract they expect less than 5% of their market to read.
You can't have a home loan because it would be unfair to make you pay interest!
This one is actually on topic. Many strict Christian (and I assume other religions) sects consider Usury (the charging of interest) to be a sin. In the early days of the US, many of the northeast states had laws written by strict Christian fundamentalists, and it was actually illegal to loan money for interest. As the population became less fundimentalist, the people made a conscious decision to allow limited Usury (there still are limits on how much interest can be charged) for the practical consideration of having a market for loans.
Consumers don't have to do anything. Especially they don't have to buy a product they don't like, or agree to terms they find unfair. But if they accept an agreement without bothering to read it they are just plain stupid and deserve what happens.
People have been conditioned (I suspect deliberately) to not read boilerplate contracts. They are long, hard to read, and often oddly worded to make them more confusing. More and more often lately, most people only have access to read the contract after they have already paid their money.
While this contract is actually accessible online, most consumers won't even see it until after they've already shelled out $450 for the product. Not agreeing to it means they will have to return their product, something that is anywhere from annoying to impossible depending on the circumstances.
On the other hand, Sonic blue can ask you to agree to anything they fucking like. If they make money out of it they'll keep doing it.
Actually, they can't. There are laws limiting what can be agreed to in contracts. In most states, there are laws further limiting what can be "agreed" to in a non-negotiated contract (such as a boilerplate terms of service). I am not a lawyer, but I suspect if they use this agreement to disable the device of a New York State customer within 90 days of the customer purchasing the product, they will be in violation of NYS law.
There are huge problems with making a business case for Microsoft encouraging Open Source. Their business model in which they would evaluate the case is antithetical to all but a token onvolvement in Open Source. Any business case (Open Source or not) would need to either fit into (or expand on) their existing model, or come up with enough evidence that a new business model is superior to theirs.
If you have a superior business model for a Software company than Microsoft's, your time is better spent developing it into a real business rather than telling it to Microsoft. Please do so.
The other problem is you are talking to "Folks at Microsoft". From everything I've heard it's fairly easy to convince programmers and other developers at Microsoft that Open Source software is a good thing. The problem is that their Exeuctive Management is convinced that Freedom is a bad thing. What little use they make of Free Software with such a mindest is likely to be exploitive. Bill Gates has esentially said he really likes the idea of Open Source licenses like BSD, because Microsoft can take those programs, adapt them to thier needs, and not worry about contributing the changes back to the community. In my opinion, there has been more than enough exploitation along these lines, we don't need someone encouraging more.
In my opinion, the only really tactic is to toss the "Business Case" idea aside, and convince Microsoft that a healthy Free Software community is important to Microsoft. This is a tough call, but here are some arguments:
Key technologies they Microsoft makes a great deal of money off of were developed by a healthy Free Software community:
* Email
* World Wide Web Having further development, in the Free Commons, will expand the computer industry as a whole. Microsoft currently has 90% of the industry, if it has only 70% of an industry three times as large, it's making more money. A healthy Free Software community can help make this happen without Microsoft having to shell out significant amounts of money.
On the flip side of the equation, many industries have a healthy commons and still make money hand over fist:
* Law
* Medicine
* Engineering
The bottom line is that Microsoft's executive management needs to be convinced that Freedom is not bad for their health before it's worth getting them involved in "Open Source".
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. Furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just wait for next year's model." -- Andrew Tanenbaum
goldspider asks: I've posted this before, and was modded down as a troll, but I'm glad someone else has noticed this too. Doesn't the fact that "there are already so many standards" imply that there is actually very little about Linux that is, in fact, standard?
In this case, they don't appear to be talking about a new standard. They appear to be talking about a new distribution, based around the existing LSB standard.
But yes, IMHO there is very little about Linux that is a true standard. There are many defacto standards (GNU, ext2, etc), but there is nothing to stop someone from making a Linux distribution that breaks all such assumptions.
Further, if someone infringes your patent, a plaintiff firm will take the case on a "contingency basis" if they feel it is a good business decision to do so, which isn't as unworkable as you say. To evaluate this, they weigh the liklihood of success, estimated damages (actual + statutory), and the contingency percentage (typically 40%). Plaintiffs lawyers are very good at controlling costs, since they are paying for them. They are also good at driving up defendents costs, since they know that defendants generally have to pay out of pocket for all legal services and that this effects their settlement calculations.
Are patents useful? Yes, absolutely, they encourage capital investment to create novel technologies. Can a small business benefit? Yes, absolutely. In fact, one of the factors that a VC will look at in evaluating whether to invest in a start-up is the potential IP assets, because these can be liquidated if the company's business model doesn't measure up.
I will certainly grant that an inventor outside of Big Business can profit from patents, and can even sue the big companies successfully. However, all too often the cases aren't as clean as what you describe. For example, a common scenario is company A (small company) sues company B (a big one) for patent infringement; company B looks through their patent portfolio and finds something vaguely reminiscent of something at company A and countersues. Now company A's lawyer won't work on contingency anymore because company B's lawyer is playing the "drive costs up" game.
An even more common scenario is Company A (small) comes up with something so obvious that they don't bother to look into patenting it. Company B (big) has a patent for it anyway and sues Company A out of existence before Company A (who is the defendant and dealing with the "drive up costs" tactic you describe) can prove that the patent is both obvious and has prior art.
My first scenario shows how it's less useful for small investors (large companies can often come up with cross-licensing arrangements, small inventors don't have the portfolio). The second shows how patents (particularly the abstract ones, software, business practices, etc) often hurt the little guy.
Back to the decision, I am happy with it. From the sound of it the Circuit court decision would have randomly rearranged the system rather than fixing any problem I have with it. The Supreme Court decision mostly keeps current practice, with a baby step in the right direction (i.e. more of the burden of proof is on the patent holders shoulders).
1. Longer albums. Back in the day, when vinyl was king, 35 minutes was considered an album; nowadays, CD albums average 70 minutes.
Double albums were quite common (at least among the artists I listen to, and many artists would put extra tracks on their cassette releases because they wanted to get the music out and it wouldn't fit on the vinyl.
Yes, CD albums are probably longer on average than Vinyl albums were (Vinyl you could get about 18 minutes per side / 36 total before having to make sound quality compromises), but I question your "70 minutes" figure for the average CD albums. The longest many CD players can handle is 74 minutes, and most albums are far from full. My guess is the average new music CD is about 45 minutes (not counting compilation or "Best of" CD's, where it's trivial to just add tracks until it's full).
2. Inflation. CDs cost USD 17 now, but $17 in AD2002 dollars is worth about $9 in AD1983 dollars (when CDs were first released).
According to the CPI, $17 in 2001 money (USD) is $9.65 in 1983 dollars. I don't think there are formal figures for 2002 yet, but your figure sounds plausible.
The thing is, how many people were buying CD's in 1983? CD sales didn't pass Vinyl sales until 1988 ($11.36). CD's didn't become the dominant form of music sales until they passed the cassette in 1992, and $17 in 2001 was $13.61 then (in terms of sales, cassettes were king from 1983 to 1992). As I recall, CDs themselves often sold for $9.95 in 1992 (because they were still competing with cassettes). We're talking about much more than just inflation here.
I don't have figures onhand, but my understanding is that CD production costs have dropped to the point where they are considerably cheaper to produce than cassettes (and have been for a while), yet the cassette version is sold for less than the CD of the same album. We're definately talking about much more than inflation here, and more than "longer albums".
Yes, you get copyright whether you formally register it or not. There are two advantages to formally registering it (at least in the US):
You get paperwork regarding when the document was written that makes excellent evidence if a lawsuit arises regarding your copyright.
You are entitled to sue for more in damages if your copyright is threatened.
Basically, if you care enough about your work that you would be willing to defend your copyright in court, you should consider registering it. If you are formally publishing the work, you definately should consider registering it.
I am also not a lawyer, the above should not be interpreted as legal advice.
I would seriously consider the unlicensed "Quack" doctor with a 20 year practice, assuming he also comes with good references. There is a lot to be said for real world experience over someone who just got his MD last week by the skin of his teeth.
The biggest problems with the above hypothetical Quack are he couldn't write legal prescriptions; and if complications arose, he couldn't make use of a hospital's resources. All the limitations on such a person are external, because our legal system demands Doctors have that piece of paper. They say nothing about the person's competance.
"What do you call the medical student who graduates last in his class?" "Doctor."
If you KNOW your stuff, you can write your ticket.
Not from what I've seen. When it comes to getting a job, knowledge is much less important than experience. Experience is what gets you the interview, you can't even try to wow them with your knowledge until you are sitting in front of them.
But asking "what certs will help?" Shows one thing - you don't.
Certifications have clearly helped some people get jobs. I don't think they help as much now. The certification attempts to say "I know this", whether or not you have done it. Again, knowledge is less important than experience.
Most people making hiring decisions for technical staff aren't technical themselves. An intellegent manager with no technical knowledge or political agenda would probably take the following people, in order of preference:
1) The person who has done the job before, on an equal or larger scale, elsewhere (with references)
2) The person who has done the job before, on a smaller scale, elsewhere (with references)
3) The person with a certification saying they know how to do the job.
4) The person without a certification or relevant experience who can convince me that they know how to do the job.
5) The intelligent, self starter who I'm convinced can teach themselves the job as they go.
6) There is no 6, the risk involved in 5 is bad enough that most managers refuse to go there.
If #'s 1 and 2 are scarce, having a cert can bounce you from 5 or 6 up to 3, and get you a job. Whether or not this is actualy intellegent on the managers part is subject to debate, but remember the manager doesn't have technical knowledge, and therefore doesn't know which certs are meaningul and which aren't.
If there are many 1's and 2's, then a cert is meaningless. Right now, there seem to be many 1's and 2's for most computer jobs.
That is harsh. I know. I from the other end of 20+ years of experience, with no degree, no certs AND DO NOT WANT THEM.
Wise, with 20+ years of experience, certifications would just be badly flavored icing on your resume.
All certs prove is that you can read a manual and type answers. You too could be MENSA, same entrance exam, and same benfits (none). The only proof is showing your skills, that means taking over the interview controling thier attention, showing you have some thing to provide.
There are jobs out there where you won't actually get to an interview without a certification or solid experience.
There are even some jobs out there where you need a certification for them to even look at your resume. I would say that those jobs just aren't worth it, there's no loss to missing out on such a position (unless the job is to teach certification courses).
But the orginal writer said that he got a CS degree and can not code, then what good is it? Why not have history degree instead? Gives you the same advange, in the tech world.
I'd have to agree with this one. A valid (i.e. College Board Certified) Bachelors in Computer Science teaches you how to code, but doesn't teach you how to administer a system. If the writer got through such a CS program without learning how to code, then all they have is an expensive piece of paper.
Remember, tech breaks down to operators and designers.
You oversimplify horribly. The computer industry breaks down into, at minimum:
* Software designers (programmers, analysts, etc.)
* Hardware designers (EE's, Computer Engineers, IC Designers)
* Systems/Network Administrators
* Tech Support
* Operations (Print room, backup systems, etc)
* Training Even this oversimplifies, and leaves out significant job descriptions (Technical Writer, Web Designer)
If you can not code, design a database (500+ tables) or build a network (1000+ seats in multiple locations) then you are an operator.
Now you are just using labels to be elitist.
There is[sic] a lot of operators out there. That is what[sic] is a buyers market.
There are a lot of all levels of technical people out there. That is why it is a buyers market.
First of all, no databases are 500+ tables. I'm serious. There aren't databases that big out there in real world applications.
I don't know about your real world, but in mine they aren't uncommon. I work in a mid-sized company (about 140 employees), and we have more than one database with almost that many tables. Representing a complex system can easily take 100-200 tables. Take three such systems that need to interact, and you have 500+ tables. Many companies achieve this (eg a merchant with accounting, inventory and CRM systems).
If you are getting pasta[sic] few dozen, you need to start using table domains
What do you mean "table domains"? SQL domains have to do with field types, not tables, and I don't see what they have to do with managing lots of tables.
and if you get to hundreds of tables, you need to look at what you're doing wrong.
No, you just have a reasonably complex system, i.e. you are in the real world.
And what if you are working for a company of 100 people? You need to design a network of 1000+ seats to be a "designer?"
The person you were responding to had an annoying, elitist tone. I certainly wouldn't say you need what he's talking about to be a "real" programmer/DBA/Designer/whatever. On the other hand, if I were comparing two DBA applicants, and one had managed a few MS Access files with 10-40 tables each, while another managed a 650 table Sybase database, I'd treat the Sybase DBA much more seriously.
If I'm the only computer tech for a company of 25, am I a lowly "operator" even though there's no designer?
You're a systems administrator, although on a small scale. I, for one, don't buy into jackb_guppy's oversimplification of the computer industry.
It's impossile for technology to distinguish fair use from illegal use. They just lump it together.
Exactly, my point is that it can't legitimately call it "protecting copyright" if it doesn't permit copying that is permissible under copyright law. If they can't separate legal from illegal copying (which nobody can see how to do accurately), they would need to allow all copying. This would, of course, defeat the whole purpose from their point of view.
Therefore, rhetoric aside, their point of view has nothing to do with protecting copyrights. It is merely about preventing copying.
From Apple's Knowledgebase Article regarding this it implies that this product (and a couple of others) fall into that category of disks that do not qualify for the CD logo. Therefore they are not CDs.
If you have purcased a copy protected disk without the CD logo, and it was marketed as an actual CD, you do have grounds to return the disk. Even more so if you got it online and had no opportunity to examine the logo and see warning labels on the disk. If they give you any problems, report them to the Better Business Bureau and/or your state's Attorney General.
> didn't Sony just damage their computer with malicious intent? No, there was no malicious intent. They were designed to protect copyright. The fact that they *do* cause damage is gross negligence. It's easier to sue people to hell and back when you get your terms right:)
These discs were designed to interfere with people's ability to copy the disk (if they were designed to protect copyright they would permit fair use copying). I read this incident as along the lines of "when I shot him, I only intended to wound, I didn't mean to kill him". There was definately deliberate intent to disrupt the operation of the device, but they probably did not intend to lock up the CD-ROM drive completely.
I'm not 100% sure what the correct term is, but I am sure this goes beyond gross negligence. Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, this should not be construed as legal advice.
I agree, I do believe that the advertisers are taking things too far. I do also think that advertising is a necessary evil for many stations.
Advertising makes sense for commercial broadcast television, they are not in a position to change their entire business model overnight, or even over a few years.
Where it fails to make sense is the commercial cable companies. A typical non-premium (eg. Comedy Central, CNN, etc) gets a certain amount per subscriber (often $0.25 - $0.50) from each cable company that shows their services. That's many millions of dollars per year without showing a single ad, and they still have the same 10 minutes of ads for each 20 minutes of content as the broadcast stations.
Though I do wonder, and perhaps someone knows, how do HBO, SkinaMax and other manage to be profitable and provide programming at the same time. I imagine because we pay extra for those as premium channels the cable providers pass that on to the these companies.
The premium channels get far more per subscriber, although how much is probably a matter of contract between the cable company and the channel. This is further complicated by the fact that one of the biggest cable companies in the US (Time Warner Cable) and the most popular premium channel (HBO) are both owned by the same company (AOL-Time Warner).
Perhaps with the advent of digital people can have 2 cable options:
1. Cheaper package you get commercials. 2. A premium package you pay more per month for but you don't get the ad.
I, for one, would welcome that, provided the prices were reasonable. Cable deregulation has unfortunately encouraged cable companies to do unreasonable things with their pricing, since they have state-granted local monopolies without state regulation.
And the $200 payed in Britain is something everyone with a TV pays even if you don't have cable and even if you don't watch the BBC.
From what I understand, in Britain, if you have a mainstream television, you have to pay the license fee. People without TV's don't have to pay anything. People who hook up cable or satellite systems to antennaless monitors that can't get broadcast TV don't have to pay the fee. Elderly don't have to pay. Sounds reasonably fair to me, since if you really don't want to pay the fee, there are many other options. The only thing I would add to such a system is an exemption for the first television if your household income is below a certain amount.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I remember, even with all these obstacles, OS/2 Warp sold more retail copies than Windows 95. Microsoft's big marketing coup for Windows 95 was with the OEM's, IBM just didn't have the pull there, especially since IBM directly competed with OEM's with their PS/2 line of computers at the time.
After it was clear that they had lost the consumer desktop, they focussed marketing efforts on direct sales to corporations, and a little on large embedded machines (eg ATMs) and apparently had reasonable success in both those arenas.
sheldon writes:
:-)
The spin from the linux camp on this one has been pretty funny to read.
Speaking as someone who is generally in the Linux camp, I have to agree. Yes, Apache is superior, yes, Windows is more vulnerable, that doesn't change the fact that there is a security hole and lots of production machines need to be patched. I don't care about how great Apache is, or the "I told you so's" from the MS apologists. I'm more interested in discussion on how bad the vulnerability is, workarounds to use until the patch is available, and tests to make sure the patch works.
It looks like one workaround is to upgrade to 2.0.36, the bug is still there, but according to the the advisory, in Apache 2 it's only a partial DoS attack, rather than the Compromise / Full DoS (depending on platform) it is with Apache 1.3. Even with the upgrade, you need to babysit the server for attacked processes.
How long will it take before this is exploited?
Apparently It's already happening, though this report is unconfirmed and possibly a troll (stop Apache running to prevent any DoS??? All the DoS does is stop Apache from running).
Then how many servers will get rooted because they haven't installed a patch?
Probably not many, it's only exploitable that way on Apache 1.3.x running on Windows and 64-bit Unix systems. I don't know actual statistics, but I think it's safe to assume that the plurality (if not the majority) of Apache installations are 1.3.x running on 32 bit Linux and BSD platforms.
TWR writes:
...or getting $1,000,000 (which is what a Nobel Prize is worth).
The cash award of the Nobel Prize is 10,000,000 Krona (Swedish Crowns), which is roughly $1,036,055 USD today (or 1,096,383 Euros)
Tony writes:
The secondary costs of installing and using MS-Windows is about the same (or perhaps more) than installing and using Linux. That, coupled with the primary costs of using MS-Windows (licensing and media fees) puts MS-Windows at a higher cost than Linux.
...
This idea that MS-Windows has no secondary cost because it has a primary cost is stupid.
Yes, and to add some figures behind your statements, Paul Murphy has done some extensive TCO studies of Windows vs Various unix systems, and found that in many cases, a sanely configured Solaris solution (far from the bargain basement of the *nix world) can often save over 60% compared to the comparable Windows solution. The real world numbers are likely even more slanted towards Unix, because he leaves out the expensive hardware replacement that Windows pushes on you to keep running their software.
A strategic comparison of Windows vs. Unix, LinuxWorld, October 2001
oever asks:
Where is the problem exactly with patents in GPL-ed software?
Worst case scenario: a patent could make it illegal to use a particular software package, even one licensed under the GPL. Depending on patent laws, it could also interfere with redistributing GPL code.
If a company has a patent on a software technique and writes and distributes GPL code to implement it, anybody can use this code. Or can't they?
Potentially not. The GPL is a copyright license, it gives people the right to distribute the software. It is not a patent license, it does not grant people the right to use any patents.
A patent holder who is friendly to the Free software community will provide, seperately from the GPL, a license permitting anyone to use, for free, the patent within the context of software licensed under a Free Software license. The DFSG makes a good set of guidelines for this purpose. Generally such licenses are void if you sue the patent holder over their use of your own patents. These are called Royalty-Free patents (or RF Patents). Some companies, whose patents are purely defensive, give a royalty-free license to everyone who isn't suing them.
To my knowledge, SCC has not done this for the patents connected to SELinux. This is why people are upset.
And can people modify that code? I guess one cannot write new GPL-ed code that does the same thing.
You can modify existing code or write new code if and only if you do so within the bounds of the above discussed patent licenses.
Or can a company charge you for using the GPL-ed code with patents?
Yes they can. Let's say the ACME Software company comes up with a great streaming video codec, they post the specifications online and encourage people to use it. A group of people take those specifications and make programs to make, broadcast and view ACME video, the program gets distributed widely. Two years later we find that prior to publishing the spec, ACME quietly filed for a patent, and it has come through.
My understanding is that ACME would have the legal right (though not the moral right, IMHO) to charge everyone who uses that software, or who has used it in the two year period while the patent is pending, for each time they use the software, or distribute files that were made with that software. This scenario is not that different from what Unisys did with LZW encryption, and GIF files.
Note: I am not a lawyer, none of the above should be construed as legal advice.
That is the link to the Astronomy Picture of the day, which has since changed.
The ring of fire can be seen here
They at least should have included OpenBSD in the testing, for comparison's sake.
Anonymous Coward asks:
> I suspect if they use this agreement to disable the device of a New York State customer within 90 days of the customer purchasing the product, they will be in violation of NYS law.
SONICblue is based in California and has no business presence in NY. Where's the jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction is one of those thorny issues which you need a real lawyer to properly sort out (I am not a lawyer, nor is any of this legal advice). My limited understanding of it is, if a company screws over a consumer in NYS they don't need an office there to get sued under New York law in a New York court.
The bit of my rant you quote is referring to the product's warranty, even if my other argument (i.e. SonicBLUE damaged my property) doesn't hold any water, when a company sells a consumer product, they warrant that it will function for a set period. Even if the ReplayTV box comes with no paper warranty, in New York State (and many others) the product has an "implied" 90 day warranty. In retrospect, the warranty argument is a bit hazy (although I'd call a product defective if it stopped working because I used a service run by the manufacturer in accordance with all instructions and service agreements).
Read Applied Cryptography, by Bruce Schneier (ISBN 0471117099). It covers all the basics of cryptographic systems, in depth, including when to use which kind of setup.
After you've read that, if you want more information about Alice and Bob, read here.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
This is a common myth. Regardless of health or happiness levels, it has been shown time and time again that the vast majority of (American) consumers:
* Shop for price and are easily conned by 'safe' and 'convenient' features
* Tell their friends where the good deals are
I disagree partially. My (admitedly anecdotal experience) is that I have seen a great deal of brand loyalty to brands that have proven themselves to a consumer's satisfaction, and I've seen this brand loyalty override both price and competitors advertisements. It is tricky to do this, since "to a consumer's satisfaction" is different for each and every consumer, but offering a good product at a fair price and not screwing the customer over is a healthy start towards this path.
When a consumer is in a market where they haven't developed any brand loyalty, you are completely right, most consumers choose on the basis of price and half remembered lies from advertisements.
* Can't muster up enough energy to put down a bag or Doritos, let alone participate in a lawsuit.
This is America we're talking about here, land of the lawyers. If your typical American is merely annoyed, sure, Doritos not torts. If he's a little more than annoyed, he'll say "sure" when the lawyer calls to ask if he wants to be in on the juicy class action suit (which will end with the company paying $10 million, the lawyer getting $5 million and the actual people getting $2.13 each). It doesn't take much more beyond that point for someone to call a lawyer and ask how much they can get from the bastard company with deep pockets. Sure, not everyone is going to do this, but it doesn't take very many lawsuits to destroy the profits from a product.
You just signed up for Business 101, right? It shows.
Nope, computer programmer, no formal business education. But I've observed that a business doesn't have to be slimey to succeed.
The 'best', most compassionate companies do respect their consumers. However, many 'decent' companies go under with barely a whimper.
Yes, and so do many slimey ones. 95% of new business fail from what I've heard.
And when you've got shareholders (ie, you and me and our fund managers) screaming for profit or growth, then the board (and hence, the executive) have little choice but to steam ever forward in search of the quick profits and/or growth for the next quarter or else be out of a job.
Yes, this happens far far too often. This doesn't excuse a company for screwing their customers in a way that doesn't result in quick profits and growth. Disabling peoples boxes will generate ill-will and lost sales.
Much like politics, you're remembered for what you did just before election time. Politicians can't buy into 10- or 20- or 50- years plans that are good for the country and not for their careers and lifestyle.
I'm not talking about good for the country, that's a lot to ask out of a corporation, even for an idealist like me. I'd like good for the company and their customers. I'll settle for good for the company and not bad for their customers. Good for the company and bad for the customers is parasitic and bad but understandible.
The ReplayTV thing strikes me as potentially bad for both the company and their customers, and that's just stupid. Not to blow this out of proportion, in this case we're talking about them reserving the right to do something stupid, they haven't actually done it, but still.
So yeah, I mostly agree with you, the greed and stupitidy is par for the course given the current crop of laws and people. I just don't feel it is necessary given the current crop of laws and people. Since I think we both feel it's not 'Good', I try to nudge a little bit of laziness away when I can, and suggest that long-term greed is more productive than short-term greed.
Anonymous Coward wrote/flamed:
If you don't like usury, don't borrow money.
Actually, those who are religiously opposed to Usury can't receive interest either, which makes it very difficult for them to get bank accounts, but that's a tangent.
If you don't like the agreement, return your ReplayTV.
Returns are at best annoying, at worst they can be impossible, depending on the store and where you live. Some stores in some states won't accept returns except under very specific circumstances, and "not liking the service agreement" isn't one of them.
Are you deliberately being stupid? So you don't like the fact that they can "actively disable the box that you spent at least $450 to own" - then WHY THE FUCK DID YOU SPEND $450!!! You IDIOT! Who FORCED you to buy, and keep, a ReplayTV!
I am more familiar with Tivo than ReplayTV, I am assuming ReplayTV is similar enough for my argument to make sense. If I go to the store to buy a Tivo, I have a very useful and flexible digital recording device, if I pay for the Tivo service then my digital recording device also knows alot about upcoming shows. If I cancel my service, I still have a useful device it just doesn't know about upcoming shows anymore.
My limited understanding is that older ReplayTV boxes are the same way. This new box with the new service agreement has the added "feature" of, if someone accuses me of copyright infringment, then with no due process I not only have no service, but they've made my device not work as well, no refund. No actual infringement is necessary, just someone accusing you of breaking a civil law against someone unaffiliated with ReplayTV.
My cable provider has no right to destroy my TV, my "Digital TV Guide" provider has no right to destroy my digital recorder. A non-negotiated contract should not be sufficient to give them that right.
Your morals are no basis for forcing anyone to offer you a contract that you like.
My morals are a basis for what I will and won't accept, which is the whole basis of a contract. My morals are also one of the guides I use in deciding which laws I do and don't support.
While Contract Law has a great deal of breadth and power, it is not limitless. This is a Contract of Adhesion (i.e. no negotiation has taken place), and the power of such contracts is even more limited. I feel it is (or if not, it ought to be) Unconscionablefor such a contract, where I am merely purchasing a service, to give someone the right to damage or destroy my property. Actual negotiation for mutually agreeable terms is required before I can accept that I have agreed to give someone the right to destroy my property.
Sorry, I posted too early in the morning as I was rushing and I left out the bit tying them together. Both the outcry over this contract and the historic outcry over Usury are people upset over a contract term they consider morally wrong. In the Usury case, it was against their religion, in this case there is an expectation that if you pay for something, you actually get it, and they don't take it away from you. Discussing the morality of the contract, and comparing it to another "morality of the contract" issue is on-topic, in my opinion.
There would be far less outcry if they were just talking about stopping the service if they didn't like you (assuming these boxes are useful without the service), but they are reserving the right to actively disable the box that you spent at least $450 to own. I consider this immoral.
Anonymous Coward:
/. readers look at the issue backwards. WHY do you think a business is even remotely concerned with what is good for consumers?
Once again
Why should they be?
Because healthy, happy, non-screwed-over customers:
* Buy more products and services from them in the future; and
* Tell their friends and acquaintances how great the company is, and encourage other people to become customers; and
* Don't involve the company in expensive lawsuits.
Well-run businesses that take the long-term view realize this and treat their customers with respect. After all, the customers are the people who are feeding them.
The trouble is, poorly run businesses are rampant, and almost nobody cares what they're doing 20 years from now. Most companies don't seem to look much farther than next year (many no farther than next quarter).
Do you want the whole world to be looking out for you? Oh no, you can't have a car that goes too fast, you might crash! You can't have inline skates, people have broken bones with those!
This is off-topic fluff, we're not talking about laws designed to "protect" you whether you like it or not, we're talking about a company reserving the right to screw their customers royally, taking their money and withholding service, and hiding this fact in the fine print of a contract they expect less than 5% of their market to read.
You can't have a home loan because it would be unfair to make you pay interest!
This one is actually on topic. Many strict Christian (and I assume other religions) sects consider Usury (the charging of interest) to be a sin. In the early days of the US, many of the northeast states had laws written by strict Christian fundamentalists, and it was actually illegal to loan money for interest. As the population became less fundimentalist, the people made a conscious decision to allow limited Usury (there still are limits on how much interest can be charged) for the practical consideration of having a market for loans.
Consumers don't have to do anything. Especially they don't have to buy a product they don't like, or agree to terms they find unfair. But if they accept an agreement without bothering to read it they are just plain stupid and deserve what happens.
People have been conditioned (I suspect deliberately) to not read boilerplate contracts. They are long, hard to read, and often oddly worded to make them more confusing. More and more often lately, most people only have access to read the contract after they have already paid their money.
While this contract is actually accessible online, most consumers won't even see it until after they've already shelled out $450 for the product. Not agreeing to it means they will have to return their product, something that is anywhere from annoying to impossible depending on the circumstances.
On the other hand, Sonic blue can ask you to agree to anything they fucking like. If they make money out of it they'll keep doing it.
Actually, they can't. There are laws limiting what can be agreed to in contracts. In most states, there are laws further limiting what can be "agreed" to in a non-negotiated contract (such as a boilerplate terms of service). I am not a lawyer, but I suspect if they use this agreement to disable the device of a New York State customer within 90 days of the customer purchasing the product, they will be in violation of NYS law.
There are huge problems with making a business case for Microsoft encouraging Open Source. Their business model in which they would evaluate the case is antithetical to all but a token onvolvement in Open Source. Any business case (Open Source or not) would need to either fit into (or expand on) their existing model, or come up with enough evidence that a new business model is superior to theirs.
If you have a superior business model for a Software company than Microsoft's, your time is better spent developing it into a real business rather than telling it to Microsoft. Please do so.
The other problem is you are talking to "Folks at Microsoft". From everything I've heard it's fairly easy to convince programmers and other developers at Microsoft that Open Source software is a good thing. The problem is that their Exeuctive Management is convinced that Freedom is a bad thing. What little use they make of Free Software with such a mindest is likely to be exploitive. Bill Gates has esentially said he really likes the idea of Open Source licenses like BSD, because Microsoft can take those programs, adapt them to thier needs, and not worry about contributing the changes back to the community. In my opinion, there has been more than enough exploitation along these lines, we don't need someone encouraging more.
In my opinion, the only really tactic is to toss the "Business Case" idea aside, and convince Microsoft that a healthy Free Software community is important to Microsoft. This is a tough call, but here are some arguments:
Key technologies they Microsoft makes a great deal of money off of were developed by a healthy Free Software community:
* Email
* World Wide Web
Having further development, in the Free Commons, will expand the computer industry as a whole. Microsoft currently has 90% of the industry, if it has only 70% of an industry three times as large, it's making more money. A healthy Free Software community can help make this happen without Microsoft having to shell out significant amounts of money.
On the flip side of the equation, many industries have a healthy commons and still make money hand over fist:
* Law
* Medicine
* Engineering
The bottom line is that Microsoft's executive management needs to be convinced that Freedom is not bad for their health before it's worth getting them involved in "Open Source".
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. Furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just wait for next year's model." -- Andrew Tanenbaum
goldspider asks:
I've posted this before, and was modded down as a troll, but I'm glad someone else has noticed this too. Doesn't the fact that "there are already so many standards" imply that there is actually very little about Linux that is, in fact, standard?
In this case, they don't appear to be talking about a new standard. They appear to be talking about a new distribution, based around the existing LSB standard.
But yes, IMHO there is very little about Linux that is a true standard. There are many defacto standards (GNU, ext2, etc), but there is nothing to stop someone from making a Linux distribution that breaks all such assumptions.
bwt writes:
Further, if someone infringes your patent, a plaintiff firm will take the case on a "contingency basis" if they feel it is a good business decision to do so, which isn't as unworkable as you say. To evaluate this, they weigh the liklihood of success, estimated damages (actual + statutory), and the contingency percentage (typically 40%). Plaintiffs lawyers are very good at controlling costs, since they are paying for them. They are also good at driving up defendents costs, since they know that defendants generally have to pay out of pocket for all legal services and that this effects their settlement calculations.
Are patents useful? Yes, absolutely, they encourage capital investment to create novel technologies. Can a small business benefit? Yes, absolutely. In fact, one of the factors that a VC will look at in evaluating whether to invest in a start-up is the potential IP assets, because these can be liquidated if the company's business model doesn't measure up.
I will certainly grant that an inventor outside of Big Business can profit from patents, and can even sue the big companies successfully. However, all too often the cases aren't as clean as what you describe. For example, a common scenario is company A (small company) sues company B (a big one) for patent infringement; company B looks through their patent portfolio and finds something vaguely reminiscent of something at company A and countersues. Now company A's lawyer won't work on contingency anymore because company B's lawyer is playing the "drive costs up" game.
An even more common scenario is Company A (small) comes up with something so obvious that they don't bother to look into patenting it. Company B (big) has a patent for it anyway and sues Company A out of existence before Company A (who is the defendant and dealing with the "drive up costs" tactic you describe) can prove that the patent is both obvious and has prior art.
My first scenario shows how it's less useful for small investors (large companies can often come up with cross-licensing arrangements, small inventors don't have the portfolio). The second shows how patents (particularly the abstract ones, software, business practices, etc) often hurt the little guy.
Back to the decision, I am happy with it. From the sound of it the Circuit court decision would have randomly rearranged the system rather than fixing any problem I have with it. The Supreme Court decision mostly keeps current practice, with a baby step in the right direction (i.e. more of the burden of proof is on the patent holders shoulders).
yerricde wrote:
1. Longer albums. Back in the day, when vinyl was king, 35 minutes was considered an album; nowadays, CD albums average 70 minutes.
Double albums were quite common (at least among the artists I listen to, and many artists would put extra tracks on their cassette releases because they wanted to get the music out and it wouldn't fit on the vinyl.
Yes, CD albums are probably longer on average than Vinyl albums were (Vinyl you could get about 18 minutes per side / 36 total before having to make sound quality compromises), but I question your "70 minutes" figure for the average CD albums. The longest many CD players can handle is 74 minutes, and most albums are far from full. My guess is the average new music CD is about 45 minutes (not counting compilation or "Best of" CD's, where it's trivial to just add tracks until it's full).
2. Inflation. CDs cost USD 17 now, but $17 in AD2002 dollars is worth about $9 in AD1983 dollars (when CDs were first released).
According to the CPI, $17 in 2001 money (USD) is $9.65 in 1983 dollars. I don't think there are formal figures for 2002 yet, but your figure sounds plausible.
The thing is, how many people were buying CD's in 1983? CD sales didn't pass Vinyl sales until 1988 ($11.36). CD's didn't become the dominant form of music sales until they passed the cassette in 1992, and $17 in 2001 was $13.61 then (in terms of sales, cassettes were king from 1983 to 1992). As I recall, CDs themselves often sold for $9.95 in 1992 (because they were still competing with cassettes). We're talking about much more than just inflation here.
I don't have figures onhand, but my understanding is that CD production costs have dropped to the point where they are considerably cheaper to produce than cassettes (and have been for a while), yet the cassette version is sold for less than the CD of the same album. We're definately talking about much more than inflation here, and more than "longer albums".
- You get paperwork regarding when the document was written that makes excellent evidence if a lawsuit arises regarding your copyright.
- You are entitled to sue for more in damages if your copyright is threatened.
Basically, if you care enough about your work that you would be willing to defend your copyright in court, you should consider registering it. If you are formally publishing the work, you definately should consider registering it.I am also not a lawyer, the above should not be interpreted as legal advice.
I would seriously consider the unlicensed "Quack" doctor with a 20 year practice, assuming he also comes with good references. There is a lot to be said for real world experience over someone who just got his MD last week by the skin of his teeth.
The biggest problems with the above hypothetical Quack are he couldn't write legal prescriptions; and if complications arose, he couldn't make use of a hospital's resources. All the limitations on such a person are external, because our legal system demands Doctors have that piece of paper. They say nothing about the person's competance.
"What do you call the medical student who graduates last in his class?"
"Doctor."
jackb_guppy writes:
If you KNOW your stuff, you can write your ticket.
Not from what I've seen. When it comes to getting a job, knowledge is much less important than experience. Experience is what gets you the interview, you can't even try to wow them with your knowledge until you are sitting in front of them.
But asking "what certs will help?" Shows one thing - you don't.
Certifications have clearly helped some people get jobs. I don't think they help as much now. The certification attempts to say "I know this", whether or not you have done it. Again, knowledge is less important than experience.
Most people making hiring decisions for technical staff aren't technical themselves. An intellegent manager with no technical knowledge or political agenda would probably take the following people, in order of preference:
1) The person who has done the job before, on an equal or larger scale, elsewhere (with references)
2) The person who has done the job before, on a smaller scale, elsewhere (with references)
3) The person with a certification saying they know how to do the job.
4) The person without a certification or relevant experience who can convince me that they know how to do the job.
5) The intelligent, self starter who I'm convinced can teach themselves the job as they go.
6) There is no 6, the risk involved in 5 is bad enough that most managers refuse to go there.
If #'s 1 and 2 are scarce, having a cert can bounce you from 5 or 6 up to 3, and get you a job. Whether or not this is actualy intellegent on the managers part is subject to debate, but remember the manager doesn't have technical knowledge, and therefore doesn't know which certs are meaningul and which aren't.
If there are many 1's and 2's, then a cert is meaningless. Right now, there seem to be many 1's and 2's for most computer jobs.
That is harsh. I know. I from the other end of 20+ years of experience, with no degree, no certs AND DO NOT WANT THEM.
Wise, with 20+ years of experience, certifications would just be badly flavored icing on your resume.
All certs prove is that you can read a manual and type answers. You too could be MENSA, same entrance exam, and same benfits (none).
The only proof is showing your skills, that means taking over the interview controling thier attention, showing you have some thing to provide.
There are jobs out there where you won't actually get to an interview without a certification or solid experience.
There are even some jobs out there where you need a certification for them to even look at your resume. I would say that those jobs just aren't worth it, there's no loss to missing out on such a position (unless the job is to teach certification courses).
But the orginal writer said that he got a CS degree and can not code, then what good is it? Why not have history degree instead? Gives you the same advange, in the tech world.
I'd have to agree with this one. A valid (i.e. College Board Certified) Bachelors in Computer Science teaches you how to code, but doesn't teach you how to administer a system. If the writer got through such a CS program without learning how to code, then all they have is an expensive piece of paper.
Remember, tech breaks down to operators and designers.
You oversimplify horribly. The computer industry breaks down into, at minimum:
* Software designers (programmers, analysts, etc.)
* Hardware designers (EE's, Computer Engineers, IC Designers)
* Systems/Network Administrators
* Tech Support
* Operations (Print room, backup systems, etc)
* Training
Even this oversimplifies, and leaves out significant job descriptions (Technical Writer, Web Designer)
If you can not code, design a database (500+ tables) or build a network (1000+ seats in multiple locations) then you are an operator.
Now you are just using labels to be elitist.
There is[sic] a lot of operators out there. That is what[sic] is a buyers market.
There are a lot of all levels of technical people out there. That is why it is a buyers market.
Bouncings wrote:
First of all, no databases are 500+ tables. I'm serious. There aren't databases that big out there in real world applications.
I don't know about your real world, but in mine they aren't uncommon. I work in a mid-sized company (about 140 employees), and we have more than one database with almost that many tables. Representing a complex system can easily take 100-200 tables. Take three such systems that need to interact, and you have 500+ tables. Many companies achieve this (eg a merchant with accounting, inventory and CRM systems).
If you are getting pasta[sic] few dozen, you need to start using table domains
What do you mean "table domains"? SQL domains have to do with field types, not tables, and I don't see what they have to do with managing lots of tables.
and if you get to hundreds of tables, you need to look at what you're doing wrong.
No, you just have a reasonably complex system, i.e. you are in the real world.
And what if you are working for a company of 100 people? You need to design a network of 1000+ seats to be a "designer?"
The person you were responding to had an annoying, elitist tone. I certainly wouldn't say you need what he's talking about to be a "real" programmer/DBA/Designer/whatever. On the other hand, if I were comparing two DBA applicants, and one had managed a few MS Access files with 10-40 tables each, while another managed a 650 table Sybase database, I'd treat the Sybase DBA much more seriously.
If I'm the only computer tech for a company of 25, am I a lowly "operator" even though there's no designer?
You're a systems administrator, although on a small scale. I, for one, don't buy into jackb_guppy's oversimplification of the computer industry.
Alsee writes:
It's impossile for technology to distinguish fair use from illegal use. They just lump it together.
Exactly, my point is that it can't legitimately call it "protecting copyright" if it doesn't permit copying that is permissible under copyright law. If they can't separate legal from illegal copying (which nobody can see how to do accurately), they would need to allow all copying. This would, of course, defeat the whole purpose from their point of view.
Therefore, rhetoric aside, their point of view has nothing to do with protecting copyrights. It is merely about preventing copying.
From Apple's Knowledgebase Article regarding this it implies that this product (and a couple of others) fall into that category of disks that do not qualify for the CD logo. Therefore they are not CDs.
However, stores are marketing this as if it were a CD:
* CDNow lists it as a "CD"
* Amazon lists the media type as "Audio CD"
* CD Universe lists it as a "CD"
If you have purcased a copy protected disk without the CD logo, and it was marketed as an actual CD, you do have grounds to return the disk. Even more so if you got it online and had no opportunity to examine the logo and see warning labels on the disk. If they give you any problems, report them to the Better Business Bureau and/or your state's Attorney General.
Alsee writes:
:)
> didn't Sony just damage their computer with malicious intent?
No, there was no malicious intent. They were designed to protect copyright.
The fact that they *do* cause damage is gross negligence. It's easier to sue people to hell and back when you get your terms right
These discs were designed to interfere with people's ability to copy the disk (if they were designed to protect copyright they would permit fair use copying). I read this incident as along the lines of "when I shot him, I only intended to wound, I didn't mean to kill him". There was definately deliberate intent to disrupt the operation of the device, but they probably did not intend to lock up the CD-ROM drive completely.
I'm not 100% sure what the correct term is, but I am sure this goes beyond gross negligence. Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, this should not be construed as legal advice.
Manticor writes:
I agree, I do believe that the advertisers are taking things too far. I do also think that advertising is a necessary evil for many stations.
Advertising makes sense for commercial broadcast television, they are not in a position to change their entire business model overnight, or even over a few years.
Where it fails to make sense is the commercial cable companies. A typical non-premium (eg. Comedy Central, CNN, etc) gets a certain amount per subscriber (often $0.25 - $0.50) from each cable company that shows their services. That's many millions of dollars per year without showing a single ad, and they still have the same 10 minutes of ads for each 20 minutes of content as the broadcast stations.
Though I do wonder, and perhaps someone knows, how do HBO, SkinaMax and other manage to be profitable and provide programming at the same time. I imagine because we pay extra for those as premium channels the cable providers pass that on to the these companies.
The premium channels get far more per subscriber, although how much is probably a matter of contract between the cable company and the channel. This is further complicated by the fact that one of the biggest cable companies in the US (Time Warner Cable) and the most popular premium channel (HBO) are both owned by the same company (AOL-Time Warner).
Perhaps with the advent of digital people can have 2 cable options:
1. Cheaper package you get commercials.
2. A premium package you pay more per month for but you don't get the ad.
I, for one, would welcome that, provided the prices were reasonable. Cable deregulation has unfortunately encouraged cable companies to do unreasonable things with their pricing, since they have state-granted local monopolies without state regulation.
And the $200 payed in Britain is something everyone with a TV pays even if you don't have cable and even if you don't watch the BBC.
From what I understand, in Britain, if you have a mainstream television, you have to pay the license fee. People without TV's don't have to pay anything. People who hook up cable or satellite systems to antennaless monitors that can't get broadcast TV don't have to pay the fee. Elderly don't have to pay. Sounds reasonably fair to me, since if you really don't want to pay the fee, there are many other options. The only thing I would add to such a system is an exemption for the first television if your household income is below a certain amount.