I'll add on the "who you know" that it never hurts to get hooked up with some of the local professional organizations.
The local Linux Users Group, any groups that are sponsored by a big name company or professional associations such PMI or SAGE are all good examples.
These people all allow for both soft networking and sharpening those all important "people" skills.
Regarding the breadth and depth of your skill set, yes, it is good to know more than one area, but you need to choose a category of related skills and drill down.
Generalists only succeed in two places: consulting and management.
From the sound of your situation, you aren't ready for management.
Consulting can be a risky business, but can also be very profitable. That loops back to my original topic, because you have to keep networking to get work as a consultant.
Blaming the military is also pointless from a political standpoint, as the military is the enforcer of policy for the political entity of the United States.
The military does not decide what needs to be done, they decide how to implement someone else's decisions.
In regard to Iraq, I don't care if the Joint Chiefs take over command of operations directly, they are still executing the policy laid out by the Oval Office.
Just as a side note, this doesn't even cover the preposterous notion that we could have peace without a military. Lest someone point out that the discussion is not about the military at large, at a level higher than Iraq, it is. Someone, Russia or China are most likely, would roll right over us if we gave up on having a military.
You are laboring under the common misconception that comic books are for children. Comic books, like most periodicals, usually aim at adults. Stan Lee has been a long time social commentator, by his own statement in other interviews. Much of the material he wrote or supervised deals with politics or social problems.
Marvel released the first "out of the closet" gay character in the early/mid 90's and almost lost their sanction through the Comics Magazine Association of America. Later, they abandoned the code.
The point is, Marvel, and, to a certain extent, any comic that isn't "Disney" type material, gets its relevence by taking the real world and playing "what-if".
I admit to not having read the article, but an automated system that doesn't take into account ALL of the data of the circumstance would be flawed.
Like so:
I see the vehicle behind me go out of control. It is headed for me and likely to damage my vehicle and/or injure/kill myself or my passengers. As a result, I (correctly) instinctively stomp the gas, thereby avoiding an MVA (multi-vehicle accident). With this system, I get penalized for not getting into a potentially lethal accident...
So, if SCO's claims that the GPL is invalid are correct, any material that was taken for their distribution that is not licensed by the project/developer is in violation of copyright.
Under the logic they have just employed, you have a right and duty to sue them for copyright violation under federal law.
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
Gotta love this. The appelate court just admitted to discriminating in favor of the previous court. The emphasis is my own.
The worst part in my mind isn't that the case was brought, although that is definitely bad, but that the court/DA prosecuted for a book that specifically states on the cover:
Warning: Absolutely Not for Children
http://store6.yimg.com/I/tisinc99_1751_26791046
The logic used was that the comic book is children's literature. Hmmm...
Yet, the adult comic industry has been labelling such books for at least ten years.
The problem with the system proposed is that it no longer relies on the the probability of committing a crime. It now relies on the fact that you fit a set of criteria typed into the search engine. Like so:
1. Blonde hair 2. Blue eyes 3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4. Lives in [insert relevent locality]
Now, instead of looking for a potential criminal by back tracking, we are now looking for everyone that fits that the search criteria.
"Good evening, Chrystoph. Where were you...."
I see this as a great way to a) spend more money investigating innocent people b) generate more false positives c)waste more citizens' private funds protecting themselves from wrongful incriminatation.
If you wanted to control the application, the way to do it is through a central data center that records all transactions and is subject to audit and review as part of the legal process.
There is far too much prsumption of knowledge in this forum.
Did you sign a document seeding the company IP rights. This is important because you have the rights to the software based on the fact that you never sold them to the company in exchange for employment. This is done on a per person basis.
If not, retreat to the fellow who outlined the several steps of discovery for who acquired the company's assets.
What is the practical value of science that determines "...how the universe will end..."? I understand that this is those particular scientists' passion, but what "use" is it?
The human genome project(s) move toward a goal of improving the standard of living, etc.
Please note, I am not against it; in fact, it is a casual enjoyment of mine.
Know your rights well. Know where they stop even better -- you don't want to come off as a maniac claiming rights to that which isn't yours, but be sure that you know what rights are provided to you.
Wait, wait. If I claim rights that I don't have, won't that make it easier for me to get a job with the RIAA?
Re-read the answer. The perjury bit does not refer to the accuracy of the claim, but to the authority of the complainant to act on the behalf of the allegedly damaged party.
However, if you read the actul content of the perjury claim, they have made a statement that does not work.
I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member record companies. The RIAA is
a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate sound recordings sold in the United States. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.
As a result of reading the entire statement, they have committed perjury by claiming that the organization that they represent is the copyright holder, or its legal agent (inferred in this paragraph, but stated in the next), of the infringing material.
I find it disappointing that the perjury issue was not, IMO, addequately addressed.
Yes, it defined the circumstances of perjuring, but it said absolutely nothing about the effects of that action.
My logic is thus: The individual perjures himself by falsely claiming to represent the copyright holder, as in the example above. Perjury is the offering of false testimony under oath (paraphrased) Definition. What court is the individual/organization guilty of perjuring in? If it is, in fact, perjury, how does one get a court to act upon it. It is a criminal act, not a civil one; therefore, it is not, so far as I know, the appropriate case to sue, although that is within the accused's rights for the false claims of copyright.
While I agree that we will not, as a society, allow robots to render 50% of the populace unemployed, I find it far more likely that a rising unemployment rate would kill off the robots' deployment.
Consider this: We deploy robots (3.5 million was bandied about), thereby rendering a large portion of the populace without jobs. We now have all of those people that cannot afford to eat at McDonalds, go to the amusement park, etc. Why? Welfare/unemployment compensation is not designed to support that kind of lifestyle.
Until, and unless, the world can employ the menial labor populace in some fashion that robots cannot be used for, robots in the work force are financial suicide.
As a closing thought, I don't care how efficient the robot is, I will NOT go to a hospital that uses robots for bedside tasks.
Most non-Windows print applications work with a JetDirect solution. The 170x run about $170 (no pun). Then, it doesn't matter whether the printer supports network printing.
There is a bigger issue at stake than whether or not free e-mail systems go away.
The issue at hand is the fact that law enforcement (police AND the politicians that support them) are operating from a, "Take away the rights of innocent citizens to catch the criminals" mentality.
While I recognize that my view is American and not Australian, this is not the way to do things. This is the equivelent of arming the police exclusively with grenade launchers and fragmentation grenades.
"We got the criminal, and the 20 innocent victims around him...."
Also, when you leave active service aren't you actually considered in the reserves for something like 2 years(?)
Military service contracts, as of the time I left service, were for a minimun of eight years. This is divided into active service, active reserves (combined minimum of six years) and inactive reserves. If the first two categories make eight or more years, you are done with your obligation at discharge, subject only to recall under special circumstances.
Personally, I had 12.5 years of service and was medically discharged, inelligible for reactivation even in time of war.
I get the impression that people will be entirely up in arms about this. I am all for protecting personal rights but, it is really hard to condemn a case like this, where a man has been brought to justice as a result.
I have two faults of logic for this.
First, you are on a very slippery slope with an "Ends justify the means" argument. Where do you stop with such a thing?
Second, and more specifically relevent, the information may, I hope, be thrown out as evidence. My reason for this is thus: As a discharged sailor, I was ordered, at threat of disobeying a direct order (a potential court martial offense), to give the sample mentioned. I need to point out that my sample was given one week prior to leaving the Navy during my separation physical. In order to get DNA evidence in every other circumstance the individual has legal protections that have been circumvented here.
Also, the military has, as in my case, reported falsely to the service member the reason for gathering the DNA sample in the first place. The link for the stated purpose of the repository has it that the sample is collected for identification of remains. That being the case, why take a sample for someone leaving the military?
It's surprising how often sceptics about the link between portrayals of violence and the actuality of copycat violence often shelter behind demands for unusual levels of evidence. In ordinary life, people tend to judge that when there is a striking similarity between the individual characteristics of what first of all one person does in public or shows to the public, and then what other people do shortly afterwards, it _is_ evidence of copying -- absent something that would reasonably account for the similarity even if the activities were independently conceived. What else is fashion?
The fault with this logic lies in the fact that the exact same logic can be used to dis-prove that your statement is true.
Like so: One million people go to see (insert currently popular gun violence movie). The next day, one individual, for whatever reason, goes on a killing spree.
While it is potentially correct to say that the movie influenced the person in question, it is a numerical certainty (truth) that the movie did not incite 99.99% of the attendees to kill.
Your argument is idiotic. Your argument mentions circumstantial evidence, i.e. an item is missing, and they have a video of you looking at it, but no video of you taking the item out of the store.
This doesn't apply to material that requires a license. If you have the material, and you don't have a license, you have broken the fucking law. In the case of music, if you have the mp3's, and you don't have the CD or tape or whatever media you bought it on, chances are you pirated it. Yes, your original CD might have been consumed in a fire or stepped upon, but that is very unlikely all things considered, so if you want to run a discussion about how better to prove licenses, fine, but your argument lacks any thought or depth.
The problem here is that you are working from the opposite end of the fallacy. The RIAA presumes that because there is music available, it must be pirated. If I do have the CD and I have the MP3, I am still REQUIRED to defend myself against a charge of piracy.
The RIAA is acting on a presumption of guilt, not a presumption of innocence.
This is the fundamental reason that the proposed legislation last year allowing "copyright holders" (read that: RIAA/MPAA) to be held exempt from retribution for acts of vigilantism failed.
"Oops, this one doesn't have any copyright violations. Oh, well! We can plant evidence or just continue on. What are they going to do about it..."
As a last thought, let's apply your reasoning to other crimes. Ex: A man is found with a gun in his pocket. Another man is found shot dead near the first man. Using your reasoning, we can lock the first man up for murder, as, chances are, he committed the murder.
You miss the point that eBay, not the law (statutes, courts, etc), is determining what material the LEOs are given.
This totally voids several rights of due process. I would also be concerned as to its validity in a court. A third party may be rendering the evidence inadmissible or rendering it heresay.
Also, try this. You get convicted by something that eBay submits to law enforcement. What rights do you have to retaliate against eBay for not following legal procedure. They aren't LEO, so the safe guards built into the legal system don't apply.
However, he's not just a hacker, he's a felon. Big difference.
One fault with your logic is that, unless convicted of certain crimes that REQUIRE discolsure, child molestation being the most obvious, unless you force a background check on the person, they are not required to tell you they are felons.
In fact, it could be argued that you are being discriminating. Society says that the released criminal is a functioning member of society. If everyone had your attitude, society would be forcing the criminal to either get on welfare or go back to a life of crime. Great reform system you propose.
Try looking at it from the side of the person you abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll add on the "who you know" that it never hurts to get hooked up with some of the local professional organizations.
The local Linux Users Group, any groups that are sponsored by a big name company or professional associations such PMI or SAGE are all good examples.
These people all allow for both soft networking and sharpening those all important "people" skills.
Regarding the breadth and depth of your skill set, yes, it is good to know more than one area, but you need to choose a category of related skills and drill down.
Generalists only succeed in two places: consulting and management.
From the sound of your situation, you aren't ready for management.
Consulting can be a risky business, but can also be very profitable. That loops back to my original topic, because you have to keep networking to get work as a consultant.
Blaming the military is also pointless from a political standpoint, as the military is the enforcer of policy for the political entity of the United States.
The military does not decide what needs to be done, they decide how to implement someone else's decisions.
In regard to Iraq, I don't care if the Joint Chiefs take over command of operations directly, they are still executing the policy laid out by the Oval Office.
Just as a side note, this doesn't even cover the preposterous notion that we could have peace without a military. Lest someone point out that the discussion is not about the military at large, at a level higher than Iraq, it is. Someone, Russia or China are most likely, would roll right over us if we gave up on having a military.
I think that the whole spying thing can be summed up with a poster the Security Officer at one of my Navy commands had on his wall.
"Countries do not have friends, only interests."
You are laboring under the common misconception that comic books are for children. Comic books, like most periodicals, usually aim at adults. Stan Lee has been a long time social commentator, by his own statement in other interviews. Much of the material he wrote or supervised deals with politics or social problems.
Marvel released the first "out of the closet" gay character in the early/mid 90's and almost lost their sanction through the Comics Magazine Association of America. Later, they abandoned the code.
http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2001/07/0 00007.html
The point is, Marvel, and, to a certain extent, any comic that isn't "Disney" type material, gets its relevence by taking the real world and playing "what-if".
Warning! Potential Adult Content in the thread's original post!
I had forgotten all about those until I got on the Sun's webpage! Now there is a newspaper.
Hit the goto drop down on the left hand side column and look for Page 3.
Yes! I am trolling!
I admit to not having read the article, but an automated system that doesn't take into account ALL of the data of the circumstance would be flawed.
Like so:
I see the vehicle behind me go out of control. It is headed for me and likely to damage my vehicle and/or injure/kill myself or my passengers. As a result, I (correctly) instinctively stomp the gas, thereby avoiding an MVA (multi-vehicle accident). With this system, I get penalized for not getting into a potentially lethal accident...
Under the logic they have just employed, you have a right and duty to sue them for copyright violation under federal law.
Gotta love this. The appelate court just admitted to discriminating in favor of the previous court. The emphasis is my own.
The worst part in my mind isn't that the case was brought, although that is definitely bad, but that the court/DA prosecuted for a book that specifically states on the cover:
Warning: Absolutely Not for Children
http://store6.yimg.com/I/tisinc99_1751_26791046
The logic used was that the comic book is children's literature. Hmmm...
Yet, the adult comic industry has been labelling such books for at least ten years.
The problem with the system proposed is that it no longer relies on the the probability of committing a crime. It now relies on the fact that you fit a set of criteria typed into the search engine. Like so:
1. Blonde hair
2. Blue eyes
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee
4. Lives in [insert relevent locality]
Now, instead of looking for a potential criminal by back tracking, we are now looking for everyone that fits that the search criteria.
"Good evening, Chrystoph. Where were you...."
I see this as a great way to a) spend more money investigating innocent people b) generate more false positives c)waste more citizens' private funds protecting themselves from wrongful incriminatation.
If you wanted to control the application, the way to do it is through a central data center that records all transactions and is subject to audit and review as part of the legal process.
There is far too much prsumption of knowledge in this forum.
Did you sign a document seeding the company IP rights. This is important because you have the rights to the software based on the fact that you never sold them to the company in exchange for employment. This is done on a per person basis.
If not, retreat to the fellow who outlined the several steps of discovery for who acquired the company's assets.
The human genome project(s) move toward a goal of improving the standard of living, etc.
Please note, I am not against it; in fact, it is a casual enjoyment of mine.
Wait, wait. If I claim rights that I don't have, won't that make it easier for me to get a job with the RIAA?
However, if you read the actul content of the perjury claim, they have made a statement that does not work.
I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member record companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate sound recordings sold in the United States. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.
As a result of reading the entire statement, they have committed perjury by claiming that the organization that they represent is the copyright holder, or its legal agent (inferred in this paragraph, but stated in the next), of the infringing material.
Yes, it defined the circumstances of perjuring, but it said absolutely nothing about the effects of that action.
My logic is thus: The individual perjures himself by falsely claiming to represent the copyright holder, as in the example above. Perjury is the offering of false testimony under oath (paraphrased) Definition. What court is the individual/organization guilty of perjuring in? If it is, in fact, perjury, how does one get a court to act upon it. It is a criminal act, not a civil one; therefore, it is not, so far as I know, the appropriate case to sue, although that is within the accused's rights for the false claims of copyright.
Consider this: We deploy robots (3.5 million was bandied about), thereby rendering a large portion of the populace without jobs. We now have all of those people that cannot afford to eat at McDonalds, go to the amusement park, etc. Why? Welfare/unemployment compensation is not designed to support that kind of lifestyle.
Until, and unless, the world can employ the menial labor populace in some fashion that robots cannot be used for, robots in the work force are financial suicide.
As a closing thought, I don't care how efficient the robot is, I will NOT go to a hospital that uses robots for bedside tasks.
Most non-Windows print applications work with a JetDirect solution. The 170x run about $170 (no pun). Then, it doesn't matter whether the printer supports network printing.
The issue at hand is the fact that law enforcement (police AND the politicians that support them) are operating from a, "Take away the rights of innocent citizens to catch the criminals" mentality.
While I recognize that my view is American and not Australian, this is not the way to do things. This is the equivelent of arming the police exclusively with grenade launchers and fragmentation grenades.
"We got the criminal, and the 20 innocent victims around him...."
Military service contracts, as of the time I left service, were for a minimun of eight years. This is divided into active service, active reserves (combined minimum of six years) and inactive reserves. If the first two categories make eight or more years, you are done with your obligation at discharge, subject only to recall under special circumstances.
Personally, I had 12.5 years of service and was medically discharged, inelligible for reactivation even in time of war.
I have two faults of logic for this.
First, you are on a very slippery slope with an "Ends justify the means" argument. Where do you stop with such a thing?
Second, and more specifically relevent, the information may, I hope, be thrown out as evidence. My reason for this is thus: As a discharged sailor, I was ordered, at threat of disobeying a direct order (a potential court martial offense), to give the sample mentioned. I need to point out that my sample was given one week prior to leaving the Navy during my separation physical. In order to get DNA evidence in every other circumstance the individual has legal protections that have been circumvented here.
Also, the military has, as in my case, reported falsely to the service member the reason for gathering the DNA sample in the first place. The link for the stated purpose of the repository has it that the sample is collected for identification of remains. That being the case, why take a sample for someone leaving the military?
The fault with this logic lies in the fact that the exact same logic can be used to dis-prove that your statement is true.
Like so: One million people go to see (insert currently popular gun violence movie). The next day, one individual, for whatever reason, goes on a killing spree.
While it is potentially correct to say that the movie influenced the person in question, it is a numerical certainty (truth) that the movie did not incite 99.99% of the attendees to kill.
This doesn't apply to material that requires a license. If you have the material, and you don't have a license, you have broken the fucking law. In the case of music, if you have the mp3's, and you don't have the CD or tape or whatever media you bought it on, chances are you pirated it. Yes, your original CD might have been consumed in a fire or stepped upon, but that is very unlikely all things considered, so if you want to run a discussion about how better to prove licenses, fine, but your argument lacks any thought or depth.
The problem here is that you are working from the opposite end of the fallacy. The RIAA presumes that because there is music available, it must be pirated. If I do have the CD and I have the MP3, I am still REQUIRED to defend myself against a charge of piracy.
The RIAA is acting on a presumption of guilt, not a presumption of innocence.
This is the fundamental reason that the proposed legislation last year allowing "copyright holders" (read that: RIAA/MPAA) to be held exempt from retribution for acts of vigilantism failed.
"Oops, this one doesn't have any copyright violations. Oh, well! We can plant evidence or just continue on. What are they going to do about it..."
As a last thought, let's apply your reasoning to other crimes. Ex: A man is found with a gun in his pocket. Another man is found shot dead near the first man. Using your reasoning, we can lock the first man up for murder, as, chances are, he committed the murder.
This totally voids several rights of due process. I would also be concerned as to its validity in a court. A third party may be rendering the evidence inadmissible or rendering it heresay.
Also, try this. You get convicted by something that eBay submits to law enforcement. What rights do you have to retaliate against eBay for not following legal procedure. They aren't LEO, so the safe guards built into the legal system don't apply.
One fault with your logic is that, unless convicted of certain crimes that REQUIRE discolsure, child molestation being the most obvious, unless you force a background check on the person, they are not required to tell you they are felons.
In fact, it could be argued that you are being discriminating. Society says that the released criminal is a functioning member of society. If everyone had your attitude, society would be forcing the criminal to either get on welfare or go back to a life of crime. Great reform system you propose.
Try looking at it from the side of the person you abuse.