The problem with that is that it leaves him hiring somebody to run his business, somebody to develop the product, somebody to manage the financials, everything. Having a Masters degree means you're qualified to be a jr-level teacher, or an entry-level employee. The fact is that if he's going to be "running" a software shop, he's going to be doing a whole bunch of things he isn't qualified for or experienced with.
The real answer is, don't try to do that. It puts the cart in front of the horse.
The first thing you need to do if you want to go that route is to become a Software Consultant. Gain some experience running a 1 person software shop where you're writing code that others need. Once you have a few years of experience at that, you'll be in a position to start asking about how to set up a software shop and make your own products.
Try to understand that the degree is only useful if you want to be a teacher. Any other value from your education is what you learned; and it is a lot less, to be honest, than you'll be expected to be learning in the field from year to year on your own.
"It has the investigating ability of a thousand detectives. The firepower of a hundred tanks. It can't be out-smarted. It can't be out-run. It's Crime Buster!"
And version 2.0 hides an extra (undocumented) backup battery that actives a cellular phone-home after a few weeks.
If it is sending video home, it doesn't matter what you did to loop it, the can drive an FCC triangulation van over and be in front of your door in a few minutes.
And, city kids don't have a place to set off land mines.
If you want to keep these sorts of things from phoning home, you have to not only unplug everything obvious, you also have to soak them in salt water for a few weeks, months, or years.
I'm not at all surprised. Remember, the first thing Greenwald released from the Snowden stuff was the powerpoint slides that misrepresented the programs (because it was prepared by a contractor who wasn't actually using the stuff they were training!) He leaked out something like 8 months of lies and misrepresentations before the real programs got leaked, and by then most people had stopped paying attention to the details.
Interesting, but in the summary they don't say anything about forgeries, they talk about people with amazon seller accounts creating sales in order to have them matched. That is nothing at all like your example. In fact, your example looks to me like an intentional fraud; it claimed to have a relevant point, and even had the form of a point, but didn't match the accusation at all.
They may or may not be crooks, but that question likely comes down to pedantic details about what buttons they pushed and if their amazon listing was a legit "limited time offer" or "sale." The bar to prove fraud might be pretty high here, unless they bragged about it loosely on twitter. Which I guess most of them probably did...
In most countries anybody can add a "fine" to contract terms. Legally it is just regular revenue, using the word "fine" doesn't create any special requirements or restrictions, or require any legal authority. The authority comes from agreeing to the contract.
In the US for most students it would just increase the debt load because of the way the credit limits are calculated based on expenses, and the fact that the "fine" isn't a real legal "fine" but just an extra charge.
Just because they're aware of the problem and reacted strongly is no guarantee that they successfully avoided liability. The stronger their response, the more possibility there is for expensive human error.
Preserving protections as a neutral, unknowing middle-man is generally premised on seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil. Getting heavily involved to where they have admitted in all these specific cases to have seen the evil and received revenue for having seen it is just not the usual formula. It is somewhat dubious. If they have "no power to collect for the benefit of the rights holders," what right do they have to collect for their own benefit, based on content they don't have right to sell?
This won't go to the High Court because the University really "stepped in it" by accepting the money. They won't have liability beyond what they collected, but they have no rights to what they did collect if it was indeed contractual revenue based on sharing copyrighted works.
The university can fine you for parking violations, smoking where you're not supposed to, being in wanton possession of whatever.
Should they want to turn your name over to another entity with whom you've performed allegedly bad behaviour, they can do that. Or not, should it suit them.
None of those involve a company with a legally legit tort that is being profited from, so while those might seem like comparable things, they're not.
If the University was "fining" students for parking on private property not owned by the University, and that is actually a pay parking lot, and they have no agreement with the lot owner to collect rents for parking there, and the "fine" isn't a fine established by law but actually a contract provision between the University and the student... then that lot owner can probably sue the University and recover that money. In the US, it would be that way. If it is in NSW, I have no idea. But your examples apples and oranges.
The university also disconnects guilty students from its network for as long as a semester.
Just for the record, that supports what I was saying. Perhaps you missed my point and assumed I was in [some box]. Just assume I meant what I said and I said what I meant, and you'll have better luck understanding my point.
They got the extra contracted revenue, reconnected the person, and probably bear some responsibility that they would not bear had they not been profiting. That extra profit makes it dubious that they are just a neutral carrier. They are involved in the content, they are profiting from it, and as long as you comply with their profit step, they will enable you to do it again.
You make a lot of partisan, right-wing assumptions about the market being efficient and rational.
Even Greenspan admitted he was mistaken in assuming executives would act in the best interests of the company, and that acting in the best interests of the company would be the basis of executive hiring.
If hiring executives personally value men more than women, they will offer them better jobs. There is no magical efficient market gnome that crawls out of the wall and waves a wand and causes him to get fired for being inefficient, or causes him to become efficient. Actually if anybody even manages to measure the disparity, the first response from the community will be to call them names and accuse them of being an "SJW" or whatever.
You thought women get a different number of sick days, or take more sick days? Wow, what train did you fall off, and have you considered getting a job and finding out for yourself what a workplace is like?
How about we start with the fact that your senior MALE engineer doesn't disappear for several months (with pay) in the middle of a big crunch so he can be a daddy.
I guess you don't know about our culture out here on the West Coast, but yes they do! Family Leave is not just for women. We don't write special rules for women here, we write rules for everybody, and men indeed have kids and take their family leave time. And then they come back, and are even more loyal workers because now they have to think about their kids and their job is more important to them.
There is no such thing as an "SJW." It doesn't even exist. It is not any real group of people, or even a real basket of positions. It is pure pejorative, with no rational basis, and no membership at all.
You have a right to choose your own opinions, positions, and associations. You do not have a right to choose my opinions, positions, or associations.
You have a right to call people names however long Dice lets you do it here. But you only speak for yourself. You don't speak for anybody else. And there is no team or positions called "SJW." It is an umbrella that is used for anybody who defends equal rights, and even anybody who defends victims of illegal harassment and threats.
You seem to be so distracted by the description of a name as being "foreign-sounding" that you couldn't even read his point.
If you're going to devolve to childish name-calling, I'd hope on slashdot you could at least target the insults to insult his actual claimed position. It seems like a really, really low bar to me.
And no, all your white knighting is not going to get you laid.
You seem a bit defensive and over-zealous in your position. It is pretty weak when you equate simply observing an actual gender pay disparity with "white knighting." Did you know that words have meaning? No? lolz
So you thought that equal pay for the same job... was a scheme to get "laid?" derrrrrrrr okay Beavis
I don't think it is nearly so clear as that. If the University is fining them instead of blocking their access and is failing to prevent the copyright violations that it is benefiting financially from then they might indeed have significant liability; even moreso if the fines are not based directly on law, but on a contract. In that case they're "fines" in name only, and actually just contract revenue based on known copyright violations.
I'd say those media companies are going to get some sort of settlement from the University.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that is that it leaves him hiring somebody to run his business, somebody to develop the product, somebody to manage the financials, everything. Having a Masters degree means you're qualified to be a jr-level teacher, or an entry-level employee. The fact is that if he's going to be "running" a software shop, he's going to be doing a whole bunch of things he isn't qualified for or experienced with.
The real answer is, don't try to do that. It puts the cart in front of the horse.
The first thing you need to do if you want to go that route is to become a Software Consultant. Gain some experience running a 1 person software shop where you're writing code that others need. Once you have a few years of experience at that, you'll be in a position to start asking about how to set up a software shop and make your own products.
Try to understand that the degree is only useful if you want to be a teacher. Any other value from your education is what you learned; and it is a lot less, to be honest, than you'll be expected to be learning in the field from year to year on your own.
Write software as if you are the one who maintains it.
... and lacking experience and having only some letters next to your name... you will be the one who maintains it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"It has the investigating ability of a thousand detectives. The firepower of a hundred tanks. It can't be out-smarted. It can't be out-run. It's Crime Buster!"
What could go wrong?
And version 2.0 hides an extra (undocumented) backup battery that actives a cellular phone-home after a few weeks.
If it is sending video home, it doesn't matter what you did to loop it, the can drive an FCC triangulation van over and be in front of your door in a few minutes.
And, city kids don't have a place to set off land mines.
If you want to keep these sorts of things from phoning home, you have to not only unplug everything obvious, you also have to soak them in salt water for a few weeks, months, or years.
Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down.
I'm not at all surprised. Remember, the first thing Greenwald released from the Snowden stuff was the powerpoint slides that misrepresented the programs (because it was prepared by a contractor who wasn't actually using the stuff they were training!) He leaked out something like 8 months of lies and misrepresentations before the real programs got leaked, and by then most people had stopped paying attention to the details.
I always assume he's the NSA damage-control guy.
Interesting, but in the summary they don't say anything about forgeries, they talk about people with amazon seller accounts creating sales in order to have them matched. That is nothing at all like your example. In fact, your example looks to me like an intentional fraud; it claimed to have a relevant point, and even had the form of a point, but didn't match the accusation at all.
They may or may not be crooks, but that question likely comes down to pedantic details about what buttons they pushed and if their amazon listing was a legit "limited time offer" or "sale." The bar to prove fraud might be pretty high here, unless they bragged about it loosely on twitter. Which I guess most of them probably did...
In most countries anybody can add a "fine" to contract terms. Legally it is just regular revenue, using the word "fine" doesn't create any special requirements or restrictions, or require any legal authority. The authority comes from agreeing to the contract.
In the US for most students it would just increase the debt load because of the way the credit limits are calculated based on expenses, and the fact that the "fine" isn't a real legal "fine" but just an extra charge.
Just because they're aware of the problem and reacted strongly is no guarantee that they successfully avoided liability. The stronger their response, the more possibility there is for expensive human error.
Preserving protections as a neutral, unknowing middle-man is generally premised on seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and speaking no evil. Getting heavily involved to where they have admitted in all these specific cases to have seen the evil and received revenue for having seen it is just not the usual formula. It is somewhat dubious. If they have "no power to collect for the benefit of the rights holders," what right do they have to collect for their own benefit, based on content they don't have right to sell?
This won't go to the High Court because the University really "stepped in it" by accepting the money. They won't have liability beyond what they collected, but they have no rights to what they did collect if it was indeed contractual revenue based on sharing copyrighted works.
Unlikely.
The university can fine you for parking violations, smoking where you're not supposed to, being in wanton possession of whatever.
Should they want to turn your name over to another entity with whom you've performed allegedly bad behaviour, they can do that. Or not, should it suit them.
None of those involve a company with a legally legit tort that is being profited from, so while those might seem like comparable things, they're not.
If the University was "fining" students for parking on private property not owned by the University, and that is actually a pay parking lot, and they have no agreement with the lot owner to collect rents for parking there, and the "fine" isn't a fine established by law but actually a contract provision between the University and the student... then that lot owner can probably sue the University and recover that money. In the US, it would be that way. If it is in NSW, I have no idea. But your examples apples and oranges.
FTA:
Just for the record, that supports what I was saying. Perhaps you missed my point and assumed I was in [some box]. Just assume I meant what I said and I said what I meant, and you'll have better luck understanding my point.
They got the extra contracted revenue, reconnected the person, and probably bear some responsibility that they would not bear had they not been profiting. That extra profit makes it dubious that they are just a neutral carrier. They are involved in the content, they are profiting from it, and as long as you comply with their profit step, they will enable you to do it again.
And here we have representative example of SJW style of "discussion".
And here we have a representative example of using personal attacks and pejorative in place of "discussion."
You make a lot of partisan, right-wing assumptions about the market being efficient and rational.
Even Greenspan admitted he was mistaken in assuming executives would act in the best interests of the company, and that acting in the best interests of the company would be the basis of executive hiring.
If hiring executives personally value men more than women, they will offer them better jobs. There is no magical efficient market gnome that crawls out of the wall and waves a wand and causes him to get fired for being inefficient, or causes him to become efficient. Actually if anybody even manages to measure the disparity, the first response from the community will be to call them names and accuse them of being an "SJW" or whatever.
You thought women get a different number of sick days, or take more sick days? Wow, what train did you fall off, and have you considered getting a job and finding out for yourself what a workplace is like?
Nobody gets maturity leave. If it turns out you're too mature, you just get fired "for performance reasons," or for "not being a team player."
How about we start with the fact that your senior MALE engineer doesn't disappear for several months (with pay) in the middle of a big crunch so he can be a daddy.
I guess you don't know about our culture out here on the West Coast, but yes they do! Family Leave is not just for women. We don't write special rules for women here, we write rules for everybody, and men indeed have kids and take their family leave time. And then they come back, and are even more loyal workers because now they have to think about their kids and their job is more important to them.
It is just a total load of sexist partisan crap.
There is no such thing as an "SJW." It doesn't even exist. It is not any real group of people, or even a real basket of positions. It is pure pejorative, with no rational basis, and no membership at all.
You have a right to choose your own opinions, positions, and associations. You do not have a right to choose my opinions, positions, or associations.
You have a right to call people names however long Dice lets you do it here. But you only speak for yourself. You don't speak for anybody else. And there is no team or positions called "SJW." It is an umbrella that is used for anybody who defends equal rights, and even anybody who defends victims of illegal harassment and threats.
You seem to be so distracted by the description of a name as being "foreign-sounding" that you couldn't even read his point.
If you're going to devolve to childish name-calling, I'd hope on slashdot you could at least target the insults to insult his actual claimed position. It seems like a really, really low bar to me.
And no, all your white knighting is not going to get you laid.
You seem a bit defensive and over-zealous in your position. It is pretty weak when you equate simply observing an actual gender pay disparity with "white knighting." Did you know that words have meaning? No? lolz
So you thought that equal pay for the same job... was a scheme to get "laid?" derrrrrrrr okay Beavis
I don't think it is nearly so clear as that. If the University is fining them instead of blocking their access and is failing to prevent the copyright violations that it is benefiting financially from then they might indeed have significant liability; even moreso if the fines are not based directly on law, but on a contract. In that case they're "fines" in name only, and actually just contract revenue based on known copyright violations.
I'd say those media companies are going to get some sort of settlement from the University.
Small samples have no statistical value for real reasons.
Awesome idea! We can call it Perl, and then throw it away when somebody thinks of Ruby and Python.
No, even with 2 people it would take 3 comments to make a discussion.