It's about time. I was a nerd in the 60s and suffered some of the predictable ignominies. Now I feel sorry for my peers who have been passed by technology. Unable fully to comprehend what has happened, they are frightened about the future and their place in it.
... by peer review. Conclusion is remarkably reminiscent of "scientific" bases for racist conclusions so prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th century social sciences.
In the case of computer software related technology, a patent application that receives an allowance in the first office action is not worth the paper on which it is printed. Even if this issues, it will probably be invalidated by the patent office itself even before litigation.
IAAPL.
Evernote (http://www.evernote.com) has stand-alone apps for PC, Mac and the most popular mobile devices, as well as a web clipper plug-in for Safari. Super-simple to use.
"if you would shoot at the king, you had better kill the king." I expect that the ABA and Thomson Reuters will eviscerate this poor fool. He will be begging the court to dismiss them as defendants but they will stick it out the better to beat him with a stick.
The variables that Greenspun uses in this analysis (compensation, status, job security) are orthogonal to the value to the scientist and to society of science as a pursuit. With exceptions, science has always fared rather poorly along these lines. If these are the variables that matter, science is always a stupid career choice. But, of course, these aren't the variables that matter. Other than historical figures, who remembers those who had successful careers in seventeenth century English finance? Who remembers Newton?
(Note: my answer would be very different if your boss was asking you to do more work for the same money, but as you didn't say anything about that I assume that isn't the case.)
Actually, he did say that all are salaried. Since he stated that, presumably he meant all are on monthly/yearly salaries and that his boss is, in fact, asking him to do more work for the same money.
It's still hacking. Incredibly easy hacking, but any attempt to gain access to a system where you're not authorized is hacking. You can try to delude yourself that it isn't, but a reasonable person will conclude that it is hacking. It's like that bit from Jumanji: "You tried to cheat?" "No, I tried to drop the dice so they'd land on twelve." Oh, okay, honey. Well, that would be cheating."
As for the "having a look round" bit: I don't know what the law is like where you live, but if someone does that here, they're gonna end up in the local jail waiting to go before a judge to explain just why they're wandering around. (And I don't suspect the judge will be happy with "Oh, I was just looking around.")
18.2-92. Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor.
If any person break and enter a dwelling house while said dwelling is occupied, either in the day or nighttime, with the intent to commit any misdemeanor except assault and battery or trespass, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, if the person was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of such entry, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony.
(Code 1950, 18.1-88.1; 1968, c. 530; 1970, c. 381; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 486.)
Quoting statutes on breaking and entering is not on point.
It's not a breaking if the door is open. If there is not password protection for admin login, the door is open.
If the defendant had already filed an answer, they could refuse to consent to the dismissal and force the RIAA to trial regardless of the RIAA's motion to dismiss. FRCP 41a
Slashdot Mirror
It's about time. I was a nerd in the 60s and suffered some of the predictable ignominies. Now I feel sorry for my peers who have been passed by technology. Unable fully to comprehend what has happened, they are frightened about the future and their place in it.
Actually, it brought the second law to mind for me.
... by peer review. Conclusion is remarkably reminiscent of "scientific" bases for racist conclusions so prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th century social sciences.
In the case of computer software related technology, a patent application that receives an allowance in the first office action is not worth the paper on which it is printed. Even if this issues, it will probably be invalidated by the patent office itself even before litigation. IAAPL.
I would not like to be suspended by my tailbone, even if I were really drunk.
Poor rats
Evernote (http://www.evernote.com) has stand-alone apps for PC, Mac and the most popular mobile devices, as well as a web clipper plug-in for Safari. Super-simple to use.
"if you would shoot at the king, you had better kill the king." I expect that the ABA and Thomson Reuters will eviscerate this poor fool. He will be begging the court to dismiss them as defendants but they will stick it out the better to beat him with a stick.
And that's why even back then science was the hobby of the aristrocrats.
Aristocrat or commoner, working as a scientist has never been a great way to make a living. But what matters?
The variables that Greenspun uses in this analysis (compensation, status, job security) are orthogonal to the value to the scientist and to society of science as a pursuit. With exceptions, science has always fared rather poorly along these lines. If these are the variables that matter, science is always a stupid career choice. But, of course, these aren't the variables that matter. Other than historical figures, who remembers those who had successful careers in seventeenth century English finance? Who remembers Newton?
Can't salaried people get pay rises in the US?
Of course. It doesn't seem, however, that a raise was offered here.
(Note: my answer would be very different if your boss was asking you to do more work for the same money, but as you didn't say anything about that I assume that isn't the case.)
Actually, he did say that all are salaried. Since he stated that, presumably he meant all are on monthly/yearly salaries and that his boss is, in fact, asking him to do more work for the same money.
Ick.
All integers are interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox). Real numbers bore the hell out of me, though.
It's still hacking. Incredibly easy hacking, but any attempt to gain access to a system where you're not authorized is hacking. You can try to delude yourself that it isn't, but a reasonable person will conclude that it is hacking. It's like that bit from Jumanji: "You tried to cheat?" "No, I tried to drop the dice so they'd land on twelve." Oh, okay, honey. Well, that would be cheating."
As for the "having a look round" bit: I don't know what the law is like where you live, but if someone does that here, they're gonna end up in the local jail waiting to go before a judge to explain just why they're wandering around. (And I don't suspect the judge will be happy with "Oh, I was just looking around.")
Quoting statutes on breaking and entering is not on point. It's not a breaking if the door is open. If there is not password protection for admin login, the door is open.
If the defendant had already filed an answer, they could refuse to consent to the dismissal and force the RIAA to trial regardless of the RIAA's motion to dismiss. FRCP 41a