Actually, there's a really simple way around this one: break passwords up into a common chunk and a unique chunk. The common chunk may be as strong as you want it, but it does not change. I use mine with just about every account I have. Then, I have a system for assigning a few additional characters based on the site or service I'm using. As an oversimplified example, I might use "pp" in addition to my common chunk to create a password for PayPal. The key is to make that unique portion easy for you to remember, but not easily guessed ("pp" in my example would likely be too easy), just in case someone knows about your system. Of course, you can switch up the order of how things are used, but once you have a system, you just keep using it:
[any character][site code][common chunk]
[common chunk][site code]
[site code][common chunk]
[home area code][site code][common chunk]
Thanks to that system, I'm usually able to remember passwords for almost any site I use, even if my logons are very infrequent. The only exceptions to this method are sites that limit the length of my password to eight characters, or allow for no special characters (since I use them both in the unique portion, and in my common chunk).
I can't believe that NASA would even float such a concept right now. As a kid, I was fed a constant stream of news that indicated we were planning a permanent space station that would orbit the earth. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. If they do scuttle it (something, imo, not likely to happen as early as 2016 given the international nature of the project), they'll simply be telling the world that they're great as throwing money into holes. Sure, we've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we've had there, but the US taxpayer won't think of it that way. NASA requests for funding will be met with more and more resistance. Money will dry up faster than a spilled gallon of water in the desert.
I guess I might hold out hope that one of the private space flight ventures might pony-up and put in a bid to buy the ISS. They could monetize it, by leasing compartments or general access to both space tourists and to scientific endeavors.
Sure. It's no surprise that fat people have more health problems. But that does not decrease the significance of the identified relationship in the data. For me, that's enough bad news for the short term that I might be able to shed the 100 lbs. I yet need to lose (I'm down almost 70 already, but have been stuck at this plateau for a few years). I figure I have just under six months to lose 60 pounds. In the short term, I want to live through the next round of N1H1. In the long term, I want to be able to live a longer, healther life. For me, this news is a catalyst.
The ones most likely to get wiped (or any viruses or malware) are those in the general population who don't understand--or care to understand--a thing about computers beyond power on, programs, Internet, E-mail, and shut down. Those people won't make any claims about Linux, because some of them will be oblivious to the fact that it even exists and others only know Windows "because that's what came on my computer."
In close second might be families with kids/teens. I'm a techie and have taken great care to safeguard my home network. Until one month ago, I hadn't had a single bit of malware that got enough access to start spreading itself to other machines. As best I can tell, someone in the house either visited a compromised site or clicked a link to activate a trojan. Afterwards, I sat everyone down for Security 101 again!
If the GPS system continues to be maintained, there may still be a niche market for stand-alone GPS devices. I enjoy wilderness treks, often via canoe, and that's one area where a stand-alone GPS makes some sense. In such areas, there's usually no phone reception, and little need to worry about calendars, address books, or other such features. In the backcountry, my primary concern would be battery life, and any device with extraneous features would simply chew through more power faster.
My primary use for GPS is not navigation, however--it's for tracking my route once I return home. Somemay use GPS for wilderness navigation, but unless you are carrying a portable solar charger and/or extra batteries, they have limited uses on long trips. Ideally, I'd love to see self-contained GPS recorders (no screen or UI beyond a "recording" LED, and perhaps a control to allow the frequency of writes to flash) with attached solar cells, so I can simply carry the device and set it out in the sun to charge. That, however, is another topic, about an idea I'll never be able to afford to make happen.
I agree with you fully. I was just suprised to see the 'I don't think will go that route because what we have works' argument thrown out in front of the Chrome OS, since that's a common mentality used by those who don't see a reason to leave M$.
Whether in tech or in management, you'll still need to keep your skills current. However, you already know the tech-skills game. It's fairly easy to go out and get some books or courses, or to get your hands on a new SDK and work on those skills. In management, however, your skill set will be completely different. I'm not just talking about keeping up with the method du jour made popular in current business literature, but talking about skills dealing with people. To me, one of the most interesting things on the management side is that, unlike technology, where skills learned for old technologies are still applicable to those old technologies years after the fact, the skills you develop managing people require that you always be willing to approach problems in new ways.
Whereas old technology does not change, people do change over time. So, while you may have been successful dealing with Employee A using Method A at one time, changes in Emlpoyee A's life and career may mean you now need to deal with him or her using Method X. It can be a rewarding mental exercise, but if that is only thing that motivates you (the challenge of figuring out the best way to deal with people), you might want to stick with technology. If you can make the transition to deriving your success and satisfaction from achieving organziational goals and building up your people, then give manaegment a try. You can always keep abreast of the tech changes during your off hours, just in case you ever find the need to cross back over that bridge, though the return trip might be more difficult. Some employers might see your management time as something that places you out of the current flow of things in tech, and others might believe you wouldn't be happy in a tech job anymore, so your goal will be to sell them on the idea that your management experience made you a better tech. It will, if you let it.
I find it ironic that the same arguments many have used to support Windows-over-Linux over the years are now making their way into reasoning against other new technologies:
What we have at the moment is not perfect but it's understood and has been shown to work fairly well for many years.
It just goes to illustrate what I've said all along: It's not a question about which technology is better. It's about which technology is established in business. Any time you face an entrenched user base, you really need to present compelling reasons to make a change. It took years for Linux to do that in the server market, and it is still strugling in the consumer market. Google's vision is admirable, but I wonder if they factored in the possibility that it won't just be Microsoft that opposes the Chrome concept, but perhaps every "traditional" Linux distro team on the planet.
I'm with you there. I can be away for months and yet get back into the game. It is, admittedly, harder to get back into groups with other players, but I have some heroes and pick up a live companion from time to time. I like finding the other misfits who are also online only periodically, because when they are on, they are usually online to play and seem less likely to bail in the middle of something.
I am a casual GW player, and have been for almost three years. Graduate school, work, and family responsibilities often keep me away for months at time. My biggest gripe when trying to play PvE with other players is that many of the groups are built around one or two characters with specific skill builds (e.g., a specific type of necro, a specific type of healer). The groups form and then wait for the *one* player they need, who often has someone else with which s/he already wants to play. Someone gets booted, then his/her buddies get annoyed and leave. Then, because the special character is in a hurry, they accept an invite from another group and go with them. So, the original group is back where it started.
It seems to be a classic case of groupthink. Someone, somewhere, came up with a great build, or a great strategy for a specific mission, and then everyone elese who reads about it in one of the online forums decides that's the only way to survive the mission. The ones that have been most fun for me are the ones where I end up in a party that should have no chance of survival, yet we manage to pull it off. Those are the other misfits with whom I play. To me, the rest of the players are just out to grind. Some of us are there to have fun.
When I was a DM with my own AD&D campaign, I tried to work those things in. If the player could describe a special attack or strategy that utilized the environment which was described, he was awared extra XP. Those who just made the rolls and took the spoils advanced more slowly. I think such a system would be extremely difficult to code into any MMO, however, since the logic would need to anticipate certain methods and allocate XP for them. A player could come up with a completely novel approach that works swimmingly, but if the code doesn't interpret it as unique or particularly skillful, they would only get normal amounts of XP. To me, it seems that the XP-for-creativity option is best for the tabletop.
It may be legacy wiring that was causing some of our issues, because CFL life was markedly shorter at our old house (an 1895 make), but they still don't live up to the claims at our current home (built in the 1960s and meets current code requirements for wiring).
The nearest Home Depot is almost an hour from here, though that is a great service. I, for one, would prefer to see us skip CFLs and move to LEDs. They last even longer, and have fewer heavy metal and disposal issues.
Looking at them solely as literary works, there are more extant copies of Christian epistles dating to within as few as 50 years of Christ than there for any ancient historical work. So, theology aside, there is greater likelihood that other texts are less corrupt than the Koran/Qur'an (the professed earliest texts of which are written in a dialect that did not appear in the historical record until at least 100 years after the texts were supposedly written).
The problem I see with CFLs is that most consumers I know simply dispose of them in the trash. We have enough problems with heavy metals contamination in landfills, and a transition to mostly CFL lighting will only add to that problem.
Besides, I have yet to own a single CFL that lasts even half as long as it is claimed they will last. My wife and I switched back to using incandescents because the increased bulb cost has not been balanced by the savings (because they are burning out too quickly) and because we have to take the spent bulbs to a hazardous materials dump site to dispose of them.
Ask for (or purchase yourself, if need be) a keyboard and monitor stand that will allow you to work while standing up. If your employer is likely to balk, couch it in terms they can understand. Let them know that the sedentary nature of the job may lead to poorer health, and that poor health costs more (in health insurance and lost work). Note how a very inexpensive accomodation (some sort of podium/stand) would allow you to model healthy behavior at the office, and that healthier employees cost less to insure. It may seem like a pain when you first start out, but you'll grow accustomed to it, and your body will burn more calories just because you are standing. In the course of a week, that can add up to a significant amount.
If you can eventually add a cordless headset, you'll have greater mobility, too, allowing you to keep moving while working (when possible).
Or, what about a tire tax? I guess that could get sticky since people can purchase tires in any state.
In reality, the technology already exists that would allow States to digitally record odometer readings, but the problem there is that people often drive in more than one state.
Even with GPS, what will happen when you take that cross-country road trip? Will your home State bill you for everything and then share with the others, or will multiple states bill you for driving their roads?
Why not just get the money from motor vehicle registrations? Sure, that would drive up registration costs, but it would catch cars old and new, gas or electric.
I made no commentary on the number of "great works". Indeed, the majority of those works (prior to the industrial revolution) arose from the patronage system. Artists were commissioned for specific projects or needs. Yes, economic factors helped to facilitate a culture that allows for widespread creation of art, but I still hold that our culture would not support as many "career artists" if it were not for the development of IP. We would still have those commissioned for specific projects, but the idea that just about anyone could get out there and function professionally only from their creative endeavors is fairly novel in human history. Going back to my initial post, I clarified a difference between artist and artisan. We have always had artisans. Someone who can craft an elaborate spiral wooden staircase is an artisan. Only in relatively recent times would it have been possible for someone to use the same skills to create an elaborate spiral wooden staircase that was never intended for use as a staircase, but only as an art object to be placed on display.
If you give to someone else with the expectation of something in return, you are no longer talking about a donation, but either a financial transaction or barter. You can play the word game as much as you like, but if your character donates 100,000 gold to another player's character, and that character's player--out of the goodness of his or her heart--decides to find out who you are and send you cash, then a de facto transaction has taken place.
If your logic had any legal merit, you'd find cadres of hookers using the "I donated services" defense while the Johns make a "I made a cash donation" defense.
Besides, any time you give money to a group or individual and receive something tangible in return, the only part of the transaction that is considered a donation is the amount above the fair market value of the item. So, if you buy a tin of popcorn from your local Boy Scout for $10, and the tin would normally sell for $4 at retail, your donation is only $6.
I'd argue that IP law is what allowed more individuals to pursue careers as artists, since IP law was created (in its original forms) to protect the right of the producer of the art to income associated with that art (i.e., it prohibited and penalized others from taking an artist's work and using it for their {the non-artists'} financial gain). I concede, however, that, in its modern form, IP law has allowed for an even greater proliferation of artists. It makes it appear as if there is a chicken-and-egg scenario, but I believe that most art historians would share my view--that IP law led to the initial expansion of artist-as-career, but that the system is now badly broken and promotes art-as-perpetual-income-source rather than art-as-a-temporarily-protected-work-product.
One thing to remember about the days prior to IP law: there were far fewer artists out there.
I carefully draw a line here between artists and artisans. I see artisans as people who create something that is needed, useful, or functional with great skill and artistry. I view artists as those who produce art only for consumption (i.e., viewing or listing) on its own merits (i.e., there is no requirement that art be needed, useful, or functional).
In the days before IP law, artists earned their living by selling their services to a wealthy lord or other patron. The works that were created were created fro the one holding the purse strings. While the artist may have created other art outside of such service, it was the paying lord or patron who made it possible for the artist to produce any art at all, without needing to fall back on another career. Music and art history texts are full of examples of artists who made their way from one paying sponsor to another, often receiving room and board in addition to payment for a completed work. Artists today have a much broader marketplace, a marketplace created--like it or not--by the development of IP law.
I'm by no means supporting what IP law is today. It is far too restrictive and it favors corporate entities that have purchased IP rights to the works of others. I'm just trying to make it clear that IP law is what allowed for the proliferation of art we have seen in our modern times.
In January of this year, I went in to an outpatient surgery center for a procedure. My operation was scheduled for 10 AM, so I was on-site just before 8 AM. When I arrived and was ushered back into the staging area, I was next to a septuagenarian who, it turns out, had been at the center since 6 AM. He had been driven there by one of his adult children, and he hailed from a small town three hours away. He left home before 3 AM to make sure he arrived on time--his was to be the first procedure of the day for a particular surgeon. [I picked all this up from hearing him interact with his daughter and other family members who were also present.]
My surgeon was running late due to complications in an earlier procedure, so when 10 AM rolled around, both the septuagenarian and I were still waiting for our procedures. For me, it would clearly be a matter of time. From overhearing the family, the doctors, and the nurses, however, it was fairly clear that the old man would not have his surgery that day, because he was presenting symptoms that suggested he may have bronchitis or pneumonia.
As is standard procedure, each surgical patient has a pre-operative screening with his or her regular physician, to ensure that the patient is well before the operation. This man had his visit, including a chest x-ray, but those records never made it to the surgery center. The man's clinic had EMR technology, so one doctor suggested that they just pull up the records. That's where they ran into some problems. The only terminal with EMR access at the nurses' station in the surgery center could not access the records for that patient. Multiple people tried their logons on that terminal, but none of them could pull up the records. There were discussions as to whether or not the clinic was on the same EMR network as was the hospital. One nurse commented that she had cared for a patient in the main building and accessed records from the same clinic system. Finally, another nurse mentioned that there was another terminal in a records room in the surgery center, so she and a doctor headed off to try to access the EMR from there.
In the mean time, this poor old gent is starting to cough a lot, and appears to be in much pain. No one was able to reach his primary physician by phone, and the patient's home-town clinic was not open that day. The doctor and nurse returned from the records room, and indicated that they had no better luck. An older nurse then mentioned that she thought the main hospital had access to more healt-care networks than did the surgery center. Someone was dispatched to the hospital to try and pull up the records.
It turns out that my physician was havin a really rough time. His first patient, who was in for what was thought to be a minor rotator cuff repair, apparantly had old baseball injuries about which the physician was unaware. In the end, the doctor was able to patch him up, but three out of four of the primary ligaments or tendons were beyond repair. [That bit of information was picked up by my wife in the waiting room, when the surgeon came out to tell the other man's wife how things went and why they went long, and to tell my wife why I was not yet in surgery.] I'm just noting that so you'll understand why I was still waiting for surgery as the hour neared 1 PM.
The surgery center called over one of the on-call physicians from the hospital, who checked in on the man numerous times during the morning. He was convinced that the man was too ill for surgery, but the man insisted that his own physician had told him to go ahead. The family members were upset, because travel took a lot out of their father, and he made the three hour trip specifically for the surgery (a hip replacement). The on-call doctor made it clear that there would be no surgery that day. Why were they keeping him waiting is what the family wanted to know. The on-call doctor wanted to consult with the man's physician, because he felt the man should be admitted to the hospital. He was trying t
It doesn't matter whether N-G handled it in-house or subcontracted the task. It was their responsibility to make sure the data was kept private or properly destroyed. If it was handled by a subcontractor, there should have been oversight provisions in place. While a subcontractor may have made the ultimate error, it does not clear N-G of its responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
The common chunk may be as strong as you want it, but it does not change. I use mine with just about every account I have. Then, I have a system for assigning a few additional characters based on the site or service I'm using. As an oversimplified example, I might use "pp" in addition to my common chunk to create a password for PayPal. The key is to make that unique portion easy for you to remember, but not easily guessed ("pp" in my example would likely be too easy), just in case someone knows about your system. Of course, you can switch up the order of how things are used, but once you have a system, you just keep using it:
Thanks to that system, I'm usually able to remember passwords for almost any site I use, even if my logons are very infrequent. The only exceptions to this method are sites that limit the length of my password to eight characters, or allow for no special characters (since I use them both in the unique portion, and in my common chunk).
I can't believe that NASA would even float such a concept right now. As a kid, I was fed a constant stream of news that indicated we were planning a permanent space station that would orbit the earth. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. If they do scuttle it (something, imo, not likely to happen as early as 2016 given the international nature of the project), they'll simply be telling the world that they're great as throwing money into holes. Sure, we've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we've had there, but the US taxpayer won't think of it that way. NASA requests for funding will be met with more and more resistance. Money will dry up faster than a spilled gallon of water in the desert.
I guess I might hold out hope that one of the private space flight ventures might pony-up and put in a bid to buy the ISS. They could monetize it, by leasing compartments or general access to both space tourists and to scientific endeavors.
Sure. It's no surprise that fat people have more health problems. But that does not decrease the significance of the identified relationship in the data. For me, that's enough bad news for the short term that I might be able to shed the 100 lbs. I yet need to lose (I'm down almost 70 already, but have been stuck at this plateau for a few years). I figure I have just under six months to lose 60 pounds. In the short term, I want to live through the next round of N1H1. In the long term, I want to be able to live a longer, healther life. For me, this news is a catalyst.
The ones most likely to get wiped (or any viruses or malware) are those in the general population who don't understand--or care to understand--a thing about computers beyond power on, programs, Internet, E-mail, and shut down. Those people won't make any claims about Linux, because some of them will be oblivious to the fact that it even exists and others only know Windows "because that's what came on my computer."
In close second might be families with kids/teens. I'm a techie and have taken great care to safeguard my home network. Until one month ago, I hadn't had a single bit of malware that got enough access to start spreading itself to other machines. As best I can tell, someone in the house either visited a compromised site or clicked a link to activate a trojan. Afterwards, I sat everyone down for Security 101 again!
Thanks for the links. :)
They extended the time you can downgrade to XP by another year! Hurrah!
If the GPS system continues to be maintained, there may still be a niche market for stand-alone GPS devices. I enjoy wilderness treks, often via canoe, and that's one area where a stand-alone GPS makes some sense. In such areas, there's usually no phone reception, and little need to worry about calendars, address books, or other such features. In the backcountry, my primary concern would be battery life, and any device with extraneous features would simply chew through more power faster.
My primary use for GPS is not navigation, however--it's for tracking my route once I return home. Somemay use GPS for wilderness navigation, but unless you are carrying a portable solar charger and/or extra batteries, they have limited uses on long trips. Ideally, I'd love to see self-contained GPS recorders (no screen or UI beyond a "recording" LED, and perhaps a control to allow the frequency of writes to flash) with attached solar cells, so I can simply carry the device and set it out in the sun to charge. That, however, is another topic, about an idea I'll never be able to afford to make happen.
I agree with you fully. I was just suprised to see the 'I don't think will go that route because what we have works' argument thrown out in front of the Chrome OS, since that's a common mentality used by those who don't see a reason to leave M$.
Whether in tech or in management, you'll still need to keep your skills current. However, you already know the tech-skills game. It's fairly easy to go out and get some books or courses, or to get your hands on a new SDK and work on those skills. In management, however, your skill set will be completely different. I'm not just talking about keeping up with the method du jour made popular in current business literature, but talking about skills dealing with people. To me, one of the most interesting things on the management side is that, unlike technology, where skills learned for old technologies are still applicable to those old technologies years after the fact, the skills you develop managing people require that you always be willing to approach problems in new ways.
Whereas old technology does not change, people do change over time. So, while you may have been successful dealing with Employee A using Method A at one time, changes in Emlpoyee A's life and career may mean you now need to deal with him or her using Method X. It can be a rewarding mental exercise, but if that is only thing that motivates you (the challenge of figuring out the best way to deal with people), you might want to stick with technology. If you can make the transition to deriving your success and satisfaction from achieving organziational goals and building up your people, then give manaegment a try. You can always keep abreast of the tech changes during your off hours, just in case you ever find the need to cross back over that bridge, though the return trip might be more difficult. Some employers might see your management time as something that places you out of the current flow of things in tech, and others might believe you wouldn't be happy in a tech job anymore, so your goal will be to sell them on the idea that your management experience made you a better tech. It will, if you let it.
It just goes to illustrate what I've said all along: It's not a question about which technology is better. It's about which technology is established in business. Any time you face an entrenched user base, you really need to present compelling reasons to make a change. It took years for Linux to do that in the server market, and it is still strugling in the consumer market. Google's vision is admirable, but I wonder if they factored in the possibility that it won't just be Microsoft that opposes the Chrome concept, but perhaps every "traditional" Linux distro team on the planet.
I'm with you there. I can be away for months and yet get back into the game. It is, admittedly, harder to get back into groups with other players, but I have some heroes and pick up a live companion from time to time. I like finding the other misfits who are also online only periodically, because when they are on, they are usually online to play and seem less likely to bail in the middle of something.
I am a casual GW player, and have been for almost three years. Graduate school, work, and family responsibilities often keep me away for months at time. My biggest gripe when trying to play PvE with other players is that many of the groups are built around one or two characters with specific skill builds (e.g., a specific type of necro, a specific type of healer). The groups form and then wait for the *one* player they need, who often has someone else with which s/he already wants to play. Someone gets booted, then his/her buddies get annoyed and leave. Then, because the special character is in a hurry, they accept an invite from another group and go with them. So, the original group is back where it started.
It seems to be a classic case of groupthink. Someone, somewhere, came up with a great build, or a great strategy for a specific mission, and then everyone elese who reads about it in one of the online forums decides that's the only way to survive the mission. The ones that have been most fun for me are the ones where I end up in a party that should have no chance of survival, yet we manage to pull it off. Those are the other misfits with whom I play. To me, the rest of the players are just out to grind. Some of us are there to have fun.
When I was a DM with my own AD&D campaign, I tried to work those things in. If the player could describe a special attack or strategy that utilized the environment which was described, he was awared extra XP. Those who just made the rolls and took the spoils advanced more slowly. I think such a system would be extremely difficult to code into any MMO, however, since the logic would need to anticipate certain methods and allocate XP for them. A player could come up with a completely novel approach that works swimmingly, but if the code doesn't interpret it as unique or particularly skillful, they would only get normal amounts of XP. To me, it seems that the XP-for-creativity option is best for the tabletop.
It may be legacy wiring that was causing some of our issues, because CFL life was markedly shorter at our old house (an 1895 make), but they still don't live up to the claims at our current home (built in the 1960s and meets current code requirements for wiring).
The nearest Home Depot is almost an hour from here, though that is a great service. I, for one, would prefer to see us skip CFLs and move to LEDs. They last even longer, and have fewer heavy metal and disposal issues.
Maybe I should just switch back to oil lamps...
I'll take the flame bait: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/2564828.
Looking at them solely as literary works, there are more extant copies of Christian epistles dating to within as few as 50 years of Christ than there for any ancient historical work. So, theology aside, there is greater likelihood that other texts are less corrupt than the Koran/Qur'an (the professed earliest texts of which are written in a dialect that did not appear in the historical record until at least 100 years after the texts were supposedly written).
The problem I see with CFLs is that most consumers I know simply dispose of them in the trash. We have enough problems with heavy metals contamination in landfills, and a transition to mostly CFL lighting will only add to that problem.
Besides, I have yet to own a single CFL that lasts even half as long as it is claimed they will last. My wife and I switched back to using incandescents because the increased bulb cost has not been balanced by the savings (because they are burning out too quickly) and because we have to take the spent bulbs to a hazardous materials dump site to dispose of them.
Ask for (or purchase yourself, if need be) a keyboard and monitor stand that will allow you to work while standing up. If your employer is likely to balk, couch it in terms they can understand. Let them know that the sedentary nature of the job may lead to poorer health, and that poor health costs more (in health insurance and lost work). Note how a very inexpensive accomodation (some sort of podium/stand) would allow you to model healthy behavior at the office, and that healthier employees cost less to insure. It may seem like a pain when you first start out, but you'll grow accustomed to it, and your body will burn more calories just because you are standing. In the course of a week, that can add up to a significant amount.
If you can eventually add a cordless headset, you'll have greater mobility, too, allowing you to keep moving while working (when possible).
Or, what about a tire tax? I guess that could get sticky since people can purchase tires in any state.
In reality, the technology already exists that would allow States to digitally record odometer readings, but the problem there is that people often drive in more than one state.
Even with GPS, what will happen when you take that cross-country road trip? Will your home State bill you for everything and then share with the others, or will multiple states bill you for driving their roads?
Why not just get the money from motor vehicle registrations? Sure, that would drive up registration costs, but it would catch cars old and new, gas or electric.
I made no commentary on the number of "great works". Indeed, the majority of those works (prior to the industrial revolution) arose from the patronage system. Artists were commissioned for specific projects or needs. Yes, economic factors helped to facilitate a culture that allows for widespread creation of art, but I still hold that our culture would not support as many "career artists" if it were not for the development of IP. We would still have those commissioned for specific projects, but the idea that just about anyone could get out there and function professionally only from their creative endeavors is fairly novel in human history. Going back to my initial post, I clarified a difference between artist and artisan. We have always had artisans. Someone who can craft an elaborate spiral wooden staircase is an artisan. Only in relatively recent times would it have been possible for someone to use the same skills to create an elaborate spiral wooden staircase that was never intended for use as a staircase, but only as an art object to be placed on display.
Beyond that, I guess I will agree to disagree.
If you give to someone else with the expectation of something in return, you are no longer talking about a donation, but either a financial transaction or barter. You can play the word game as much as you like, but if your character donates 100,000 gold to another player's character, and that character's player--out of the goodness of his or her heart--decides to find out who you are and send you cash, then a de facto transaction has taken place.
If your logic had any legal merit, you'd find cadres of hookers using the "I donated services" defense while the Johns make a "I made a cash donation" defense.
Besides, any time you give money to a group or individual and receive something tangible in return, the only part of the transaction that is considered a donation is the amount above the fair market value of the item. So, if you buy a tin of popcorn from your local Boy Scout for $10, and the tin would normally sell for $4 at retail, your donation is only $6.
I'd argue that IP law is what allowed more individuals to pursue careers as artists, since IP law was created (in its original forms) to protect the right of the producer of the art to income associated with that art (i.e., it prohibited and penalized others from taking an artist's work and using it for their {the non-artists'} financial gain). I concede, however, that, in its modern form, IP law has allowed for an even greater proliferation of artists. It makes it appear as if there is a chicken-and-egg scenario, but I believe that most art historians would share my view--that IP law led to the initial expansion of artist-as-career, but that the system is now badly broken and promotes art-as-perpetual-income-source rather than art-as-a-temporarily-protected-work-product.
One thing to remember about the days prior to IP law: there were far fewer artists out there.
I carefully draw a line here between artists and artisans. I see artisans as people who create something that is needed, useful, or functional with great skill and artistry. I view artists as those who produce art only for consumption (i.e., viewing or listing) on its own merits (i.e., there is no requirement that art be needed, useful, or functional).
In the days before IP law, artists earned their living by selling their services to a wealthy lord or other patron. The works that were created were created fro the one holding the purse strings. While the artist may have created other art outside of such service, it was the paying lord or patron who made it possible for the artist to produce any art at all, without needing to fall back on another career. Music and art history texts are full of examples of artists who made their way from one paying sponsor to another, often receiving room and board in addition to payment for a completed work. Artists today have a much broader marketplace, a marketplace created--like it or not--by the development of IP law.
I'm by no means supporting what IP law is today. It is far too restrictive and it favors corporate entities that have purchased IP rights to the works of others. I'm just trying to make it clear that IP law is what allowed for the proliferation of art we have seen in our modern times.
In January of this year, I went in to an outpatient surgery center for a procedure. My operation was scheduled for 10 AM, so I was on-site just before 8 AM. When I arrived and was ushered back into the staging area, I was next to a septuagenarian who, it turns out, had been at the center since 6 AM. He had been driven there by one of his adult children, and he hailed from a small town three hours away. He left home before 3 AM to make sure he arrived on time--his was to be the first procedure of the day for a particular surgeon. [I picked all this up from hearing him interact with his daughter and other family members who were also present.]
My surgeon was running late due to complications in an earlier procedure, so when 10 AM rolled around, both the septuagenarian and I were still waiting for our procedures. For me, it would clearly be a matter of time. From overhearing the family, the doctors, and the nurses, however, it was fairly clear that the old man would not have his surgery that day, because he was presenting symptoms that suggested he may have bronchitis or pneumonia.
As is standard procedure, each surgical patient has a pre-operative screening with his or her regular physician, to ensure that the patient is well before the operation. This man had his visit, including a chest x-ray, but those records never made it to the surgery center. The man's clinic had EMR technology, so one doctor suggested that they just pull up the records. That's where they ran into some problems. The only terminal with EMR access at the nurses' station in the surgery center could not access the records for that patient. Multiple people tried their logons on that terminal, but none of them could pull up the records. There were discussions as to whether or not the clinic was on the same EMR network as was the hospital. One nurse commented that she had cared for a patient in the main building and accessed records from the same clinic system. Finally, another nurse mentioned that there was another terminal in a records room in the surgery center, so she and a doctor headed off to try to access the EMR from there.
In the mean time, this poor old gent is starting to cough a lot, and appears to be in much pain. No one was able to reach his primary physician by phone, and the patient's home-town clinic was not open that day. The doctor and nurse returned from the records room, and indicated that they had no better luck. An older nurse then mentioned that she thought the main hospital had access to more healt-care networks than did the surgery center. Someone was dispatched to the hospital to try and pull up the records.
It turns out that my physician was havin a really rough time. His first patient, who was in for what was thought to be a minor rotator cuff repair, apparantly had old baseball injuries about which the physician was unaware. In the end, the doctor was able to patch him up, but three out of four of the primary ligaments or tendons were beyond repair. [That bit of information was picked up by my wife in the waiting room, when the surgeon came out to tell the other man's wife how things went and why they went long, and to tell my wife why I was not yet in surgery.] I'm just noting that so you'll understand why I was still waiting for surgery as the hour neared 1 PM.
The surgery center called over one of the on-call physicians from the hospital, who checked in on the man numerous times during the morning. He was convinced that the man was too ill for surgery, but the man insisted that his own physician had told him to go ahead. The family members were upset, because travel took a lot out of their father, and he made the three hour trip specifically for the surgery (a hip replacement). The on-call doctor made it clear that there would be no surgery that day. Why were they keeping him waiting is what the family wanted to know. The on-call doctor wanted to consult with the man's physician, because he felt the man should be admitted to the hospital. He was trying t
It doesn't matter whether N-G handled it in-house or subcontracted the task. It was their responsibility to make sure the data was kept private or properly destroyed. If it was handled by a subcontractor, there should have been oversight provisions in place. While a subcontractor may have made the ultimate error, it does not clear N-G of its responsibility.
It's the old "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.