No, the problem is nobody wants to work for minimum wage PERIOD, especuially in a field that pays far, far more than minimum wage.
he wants to pay minimum wage for a programmer? Imagine that, I want to pay fifty cents a gallon for gasoline like I used to. Guess what? I know I'm not getting that 50 cent gas, he's an idiot if he thinks he'll get minimum wage programers.
First, that was known, and people didn't really care
It was revealed the night before the 2000 election.
Or might you feel that, even had they actually had written something stupid or done something stupid, there was some point at which that act should fade from public memory?
It depends on what they wrote or did. Robbed a bank, or cheated two decades earlier on a former wife but now has been married 15 years? What you do today can haunt you tomorrow. This has always been the case. There's an old quote I can't remember properly (or its author) that states that once something is written, it can't be unwritten.
If I found that a candidate had cheated on college exams. I would vote against him.
90% of the time, the guy is probably just a cheating asshole
I know you mean "90% of cheaters", but it's assumed that it's usually the husband doing the cheating. This is blatantly false. I saw a study a couple of years ago where around 50% of men admitted to having an affair, but 75% of women admitted having an affair.
I know married prostitutes whose husbands are clueless. And no, I avoid the married ones.
The real question is how much does correspondence fall into traditional copyright protection for literary works?
If it's written down, it's protected. Period.
That could qualify it as a solicited work, which could make the copyright fall into a work for hire category, like the answer to a test question which, though written by the student, belongs to the professor.
No, simply soliciting work doesn't make it a "work for hire", you have to have a signed document for it to be a "work for hire". Even though copyright law states that phonorecordings are works for hire, the recoprd label still needs a contract.
The professor has rights to the student's work because of all that paper he signed to get into school. Read your own some time; you specifically signed away your rights to those answers.
Instead of linking some guy's blog, you might think about linking Wikipedia or, better yet, a psyc professor at an EDU domain. From the wiki:
Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a mental disorder defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: "The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood due to the lack of love and care for the child."[1] Deceit and manipulation are considered essential features of the disorder. Therefore, it is essential in making the diagnosis to collect material from sources other than the individual being diagnosed. Also, the individual must be age 18 or older as well as have a documented history of a conduct disorder before the age of 15.[1]
It looks to me like your blogger is a bit of a sociopath himself, having plagairized the encyclopedia and thereby violated Wikipedia's copyright.
Diagnostic criteria Three or more of the following are required:[1]
Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; Reckless disregard for safety of self or others; Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. The antisocial behavior must not occur exclusively during an episode of schizophrenia or a manic episode.[3]
Sex differences: According to DSM-IV (in a 1994 publication by the APA), Antisocial Personality disorder is diagnosed in approximately 3% of all males and 1% of all females.[1]
Symptoms Common characteristics of people with antisocial personality disorder include:[citation needed]
Persistent lying or stealing Recurring difficulties with the law Tendency to violate the rights and boundaries of others Substance abuse Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights A persistent agitated or depressed feeling (dysphoria) Inability to tolerate boredom Disregard for the safety of self or others A childhood diagnosis of conduct disorders - this is not a symptom but "a history of" Lack of remorse, related to hurting others Superficial charm Impulsiveness A sense of extreme entitlement Inability to make or keep friends Recklessness, impulsivity[4][5] People with a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder often experience difficulties with authority figures.[6]
Note that Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons. All your blogger would have had to do would have been to cite Wikipedia (I notice he cited a tripod article. That's uber-lame).
I'm single. If I look for sex on the internet (not prostitution, mind you, but mutual pleasure) how am I going to get into legal trouble? It's legal for me to have consentual sex with any adult in my state, married of not.
And if the RIAA sues me, I'm going to try and hire Ray Beckerman (AKA NewYorkCountyLawyer) who I'd never have heard of if it hadn't been for slashdot - i.e., the internet.
I also don't really see where what he's doing is a crime.
You con't have to commit a crime to cause me harm, and you don't have to commit a crime for me to sue you and collect. All you have to do for me to sue you and collect is cause damage to me or my property, on purpose or by accident.
50 years later you're running for president, and it could pop up in the news.
That would be a GOOD thing! If the people of the US had known that George Bush and Dick Cheney had been convicted of drunk driving before ELECTION NIGHT the nightmare that has been the Bush legacy might never have happened.
It caused her the sort of pain that you probably can't even imagine. I know, because I was the victim of a cheating wife, and it took paxil for me to let her go. I would have been far better off never having met her, but barring that I would have been better off (as well as my children) if I'd never known of her adultery.
Tami is the same way; she's married to a serial adulterer. But love is blind, deaf and dumb. It does, however, smell.
If you've never been the victim of a cheating spouse you can't possiby have a clue, especially if you have never been in love with a cheater.
Yes, it's also humiliating some people. I'm not sure that this in and of itself is an awful thing. Sometimes people should be humiliated when they do something bad or stupid.
Who are you (or the sociopath at the heart of this) to judge the actions of others, the actions of total strangers? You don't know these people; maybe the guy was in an "open marriage". Maybe he was single. maybe his wife had been fucking his boss and he wanted revenge?
I do more than enough bad shit myself to go judging anybody else, and I try NOT to do bad shit.
"A normal person who does insane things on the internet." says the caption to the troll's pic in the NYT.
No, he isn't. Normal people don't do insane things on the internet any more than they do insane things in meatspace. Trolls like the asshat in the articles would harm people in meatspace if they thought they could get away with it.
Sociopathic behavior is sociopathic whether in the internet or meatspace. It's just easier to get away with on the internet. Normal people do NOT act like that.
But with six billion people on earth, there will always be online sociopaths. Personally, I prefer the word "sociopath" to "troll". It's more honest and descriptive of what trolls are and do.
There's a free utilty called EAC, Exact Audio Copy. Its two disadvanteges are it's windows only, and isn't the easiest to use. Google can find it for you. You should be able to make a pristine, new copy of your CD.
Also, scratched CDs can often be repaired with toothpaste. Only use on the bottom (laser side); do NOT use toothpaste on the top (label side) or you will ruin your CD. Do NOT wipe in a circular motion, wipe in the direction of the radius (center to outside edge). Just use your finger with a little toothpaste on it.
Alas, neither of these methods is foolproof; I have one CD that the outer tracks are rioned on.
The first thing I do with a new CD these days is to make a copy, put the original in its case and leave it there. The copy is only a copy and if it gets scratched, no matter, I still have the original.
Indeed. I'm in danger of hellfire because of my carnal desires. How can one NOT covet? The parable of the seeds coes into play; the seeds that are choked by weeds are the Christians who are overtaken by the cares of the world.
Compared to many, even some people I know, I am rich. But I have no love for money; I loathe its necessity. When you love a thing more than you love God, that is where the problem lies. The snare of riches is that you wind up loving this life, which for most of us is pretty much a miserable existance.
"one always has a constitutional protection against 'unreasonable' search and seizure" I doubt that if you're not an American citizen.
As someone whose 4th amendment rights have been violated twice, I can say that It's true whether or not you're an American citizen. Park in front of the wrong house and your car will be searched. If the cops want a look around your garage, they'll go on in.
I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?
We don't give a rat's ass if Microsoft trusts us. They're trying to infiltrate open source, not the other way around. Your argument is pointless and completely irrational.
So I'd recommend you eye them suspiciously and try to figure out if they're being open and straightforward about what they're doing
WE DON'T TRUST THEM. Is that so hard to understand? We don't believe they're being open and straightforward, why should we? They've never been open and straightforward with anyone ever.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me over and over for twenty years, shame on me. If Microsoft wants our trust they're going to have to earn it.
How odd; tha grandparen troll is unmodded, the guy who says "getting nailed to a log just for suggesting that people should try to be a little bit nicer to each other" gets modded offtopic? THE WHOLE THREAD IS OFFTOPIC!!
I'll tell you what Jesus would say - when he was asked if you should pay tribute to Ceasar, he asked whose picture was on the coin. He would say "unreasonable" means what the Supreme Court says it means. Man's laws are no concern of his, he has bigger fish to fry.
AFAIK the bible doesn't say anything about privacy or your rights. So the very question is moot. But the whole Bush administration has been pretty unreasonable if you ask me.
Since the Supreme Court has said that the Constitutional limits on Copyright, "for a limited time", that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means, then it follows that "unreasonable" means whatever Congress says it means, too.
The cops opened my unlocked garage and "had a look around", I guess that's reasonable. They searched my car because it was parked outside a dope house (I had no idea; my passengers were collecting money owed them by a slumlord they were cleaning houses for) as well as my person. I guess that's not unreasonable, either.
Why is it they had to amend the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, but not other drugs?
The Supreme court, in effect, says that the Constitutuon is meaningless. We, the people, no longer have any rights. And you can bet your wife's ass that they're already reading your mail and seeing who you connect to on the internet. The people running things today don't believe in the rule of law.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it too much to ask for you to spell GETS properly?
Dude, he's an anonymous cow... oh, shit, never mind.
Heh, try living in Illinois. Our legislature can't pass a budget either, and our last Governor is in prison.
Sell my medical records and my lawyer will be in touch with your lawyer. See Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
I have my own razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be adequately explained by greedy self-interest.
-mcgrew
No, the problem is nobody wants to work for minimum wage PERIOD, especuially in a field that pays far, far more than minimum wage.
he wants to pay minimum wage for a programmer? Imagine that, I want to pay fifty cents a gallon for gasoline like I used to. Guess what? I know I'm not getting that 50 cent gas, he's an idiot if he thinks he'll get minimum wage programers.
First, that was known, and people didn't really care
It was revealed the night before the 2000 election.
Or might you feel that, even had they actually had written something stupid or done something stupid, there was some point at which that act should fade from public memory?
It depends on what they wrote or did. Robbed a bank, or cheated two decades earlier on a former wife but now has been married 15 years? What you do today can haunt you tomorrow. This has always been the case. There's an old quote I can't remember properly (or its author) that states that once something is written, it can't be unwritten.
If I found that a candidate had cheated on college exams. I would vote against him.
90% of the time, the guy is probably just a cheating asshole
I know you mean "90% of cheaters", but it's assumed that it's usually the husband doing the cheating. This is blatantly false. I saw a study a couple of years ago where around 50% of men admitted to having an affair, but 75% of women admitted having an affair.
I know married prostitutes whose husbands are clueless. And no, I avoid the married ones.
The real question is how much does correspondence fall into traditional copyright protection for literary works?
If it's written down, it's protected. Period.
That could qualify it as a solicited work, which could make the copyright fall into a work for hire category, like the answer to a test question which, though written by the student, belongs to the professor.
No, simply soliciting work doesn't make it a "work for hire", you have to have a signed document for it to be a "work for hire". Even though copyright law states that phonorecordings are works for hire, the recoprd label still needs a contract.
The professor has rights to the student's work because of all that paper he signed to get into school. Read your own some time; you specifically signed away your rights to those answers.
Instead of linking some guy's blog, you might think about linking Wikipedia or, better yet, a psyc professor at an EDU domain. From the wiki:
It looks to me like your blogger is a bit of a sociopath himself, having plagairized the encyclopedia and thereby violated Wikipedia's copyright.
Note that Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons. All your blogger would have had to do would have been to cite Wikipedia (I notice he cited a tripod article. That's uber-lame).
I'm single. If I look for sex on the internet (not prostitution, mind you, but mutual pleasure) how am I going to get into legal trouble? It's legal for me to have consentual sex with any adult in my state, married of not.
And if the RIAA sues me, I'm going to try and hire Ray Beckerman (AKA NewYorkCountyLawyer) who I'd never have heard of if it hadn't been for slashdot - i.e., the internet.
I also don't really see where what he's doing is a crime.
You con't have to commit a crime to cause me harm, and you don't have to commit a crime for me to sue you and collect. All you have to do for me to sue you and collect is cause damage to me or my property, on purpose or by accident.
50 years later you're running for president, and it could pop up in the news.
That would be a GOOD thing! If the people of the US had known that George Bush and Dick Cheney had been convicted of drunk driving before ELECTION NIGHT the nightmare that has been the Bush legacy might never have happened.
The prank actually did a wife a favor.
It caused her the sort of pain that you probably can't even imagine. I know, because I was the victim of a cheating wife, and it took paxil for me to let her go. I would have been far better off never having met her, but barring that I would have been better off (as well as my children) if I'd never known of her adultery.
Tami is the same way; she's married to a serial adulterer. But love is blind, deaf and dumb. It does, however, smell.
If you've never been the victim of a cheating spouse you can't possiby have a clue, especially if you have never been in love with a cheater.
Yes, it's also humiliating some people. I'm not sure that this in and of itself is an awful thing. Sometimes people should be humiliated when they do something bad or stupid.
Who are you (or the sociopath at the heart of this) to judge the actions of others, the actions of total strangers? You don't know these people; maybe the guy was in an "open marriage". Maybe he was single. maybe his wife had been fucking his boss and he wanted revenge?
I do more than enough bad shit myself to go judging anybody else, and I try NOT to do bad shit.
Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads is just comedy GOLD!
Schadenfreude is only funny when it's not real - three stooges, bugs bunny, etc. Hurting real people is wrong, evil, sociopathic.
However, according to Wikipedia, a troll is "someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]"
So no, he isn't a troll. He's a sociopath. Are you?
"A normal person who does insane things on the internet." says the caption to the troll's pic in the NYT.
No, he isn't. Normal people don't do insane things on the internet any more than they do insane things in meatspace. Trolls like the asshat in the articles would harm people in meatspace if they thought they could get away with it.
Sociopathic behavior is sociopathic whether in the internet or meatspace. It's just easier to get away with on the internet. Normal people do NOT act like that.
But with six billion people on earth, there will always be online sociopaths. Personally, I prefer the word "sociopath" to "troll". It's more honest and descriptive of what trolls are and do.
Wow, thanks! I've been looking for a native Linux replacment for EAC for years.
There's a free utilty called EAC, Exact Audio Copy. Its two disadvanteges are it's windows only, and isn't the easiest to use. Google can find it for you. You should be able to make a pristine, new copy of your CD.
Also, scratched CDs can often be repaired with toothpaste. Only use on the bottom (laser side); do NOT use toothpaste on the top (label side) or you will ruin your CD. Do NOT wipe in a circular motion, wipe in the direction of the radius (center to outside edge). Just use your finger with a little toothpaste on it.
Alas, neither of these methods is foolproof; I have one CD that the outer tracks are rioned on.
The first thing I do with a new CD these days is to make a copy, put the original in its case and leave it there. The copy is only a copy and if it gets scratched, no matter, I still have the original.
It's not Linus Torvalds, but Linus from the Peanuts cartoon! He probably lives here in Springdield with all the other cartoons.
Indeed. I'm in danger of hellfire because of my carnal desires. How can one NOT covet? The parable of the seeds coes into play; the seeds that are choked by weeds are the Christians who are overtaken by the cares of the world.
Compared to many, even some people I know, I am rich. But I have no love for money; I loathe its necessity. When you love a thing more than you love God, that is where the problem lies. The snare of riches is that you wind up loving this life, which for most of us is pretty much a miserable existance.
I'm in the midwest where real estate prices aren't so insane; I paid $50k for my house. As always YMMV.
"one always has a constitutional protection against 'unreasonable' search and seizure"
I doubt that if you're not an American citizen.
As someone whose 4th amendment rights have been violated twice, I can say that It's true whether or not you're an American citizen. Park in front of the wrong house and your car will be searched. If the cops want a look around your garage, they'll go on in.
I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?
We don't give a rat's ass if Microsoft trusts us. They're trying to infiltrate open source, not the other way around. Your argument is pointless and completely irrational.
So I'd recommend you eye them suspiciously and try to figure out if they're being open and straightforward about what they're doing
WE DON'T TRUST THEM. Is that so hard to understand? We don't believe they're being open and straightforward, why should we? They've never been open and straightforward with anyone ever.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me over and over for twenty years, shame on me. If Microsoft wants our trust they're going to have to earn it.
How odd; tha grandparen troll is unmodded, the guy who says "getting nailed to a log just for suggesting that people should try to be a little bit nicer to each other" gets modded offtopic? THE WHOLE THREAD IS OFFTOPIC!!
I'll tell you what Jesus would say - when he was asked if you should pay tribute to Ceasar, he asked whose picture was on the coin. He would say "unreasonable" means what the Supreme Court says it means. Man's laws are no concern of his, he has bigger fish to fry.
AFAIK the bible doesn't say anything about privacy or your rights. So the very question is moot. But the whole Bush administration has been pretty unreasonable if you ask me.
"Little Frog Legs" and I use smoke signals. Peace, man!
Since the Supreme Court has said that the Constitutional limits on Copyright, "for a limited time", that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means, then it follows that "unreasonable" means whatever Congress says it means, too.
The cops opened my unlocked garage and "had a look around", I guess that's reasonable. They searched my car because it was parked outside a dope house (I had no idea; my passengers were collecting money owed them by a slumlord they were cleaning houses for) as well as my person. I guess that's not unreasonable, either.
Why is it they had to amend the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, but not other drugs?
The Supreme court, in effect, says that the Constitutuon is meaningless. We, the people, no longer have any rights. And you can bet your wife's ass that they're already reading your mail and seeing who you connect to on the internet. The people running things today don't believe in the rule of law.