A lot of engineers find it difficult to conceive of product and design (and marketing, and management…) as actual skilled work. It’s all con artistry orbiting engineering.
Skills frameworks are great. Your mentee can rate themselves at different levels across different competencies. You can have a discussion about where you see them differently on any areas. You can agree, based on your experience and their ambitions, on what growth areas they ought to focus on in the coming months /year etc. The structure really helps, as does putting it partly on them. People are often not bad at rating themselves if there are clear skill level descriptions.
It’s unpopular because it’s a bad argument. It’s not theft because you don’t take anything away. You just create a copy and don’t pay for it, but that’s not theft.
Is it even a theft if I watch publically available unlocked IPTV streams? I mean if they don't want people without paid access to watch them they should protect them with unique logins/passwords and this is valid for whatever IPTV provider (not specific to channels themselves).
It might not be theft but it's not nothing either. Manslaughter isn't murder but someone still died. Copying might not be theft but you're still taking something you didn't pay for.
But it's not piracy either. People just want to make the crime sound worse then "infringement" Might as well call it "software rape" as that crime is closer to what is being done than than theft or piracy.
It is an infringement on one's right to control the reproduction and distribution of their intellectual property.
This right is enforced by the authority that grants it. Viewing, listening, or otherwise 'consuming' this IP is not and cannot be an infringement on these rights. Those who provide are responsible.
If a country does not grant or enforce this right (or on behalf of others) then there is no infringment possible in that jurisdiction. cf. China or Russia.
Moral arguments beyond that are your own and should be clearly segregated from the law. Murder is, almost universally, both criminal and wrong. "Piracy" requires more attention to detail in order to have productive conversations.
A spy steals secrets. Credit can be stolen from you by your boss. Your competitor steals your ideas. In colloquial usage, theft is the act of stealing. The legal term is copyright infringement.
When you "steal" a secret, it's not longer a secret. When you "steal" credit, the original thinker no longer gets credit. In both cases, the thing itself was destroyed: in the former, the secret is no longer a secret at all and in the latter the boss will no longer be considered the mastermind behind the idea. When you "pirate" something the original copy remains and the creator retains it and the rights to sell copies of it and will still benefit from selling copies. It's not theft.
RSS is a useful interface, but: "Do most people just want direct alerts?" Yes, of course. RSS is beloved but niche. Depends who your target audience is. I personally would want an email, because that's how I get alerts about other things. RSS to me is for long form reading, not notifications I must notice. The answer to any product question like this totally depends on your audience and their normal routines.
That's quite an antagonistic way to request an explanation, particularly as it seems straightforward:
If you needed consent to film people in the street, security cameras (in public places) couldn't be used. They _are_ used. So it must not be the case that you need consent to film people in the street. Assuming there is not just widespread lawbreaking, I suppose.
The difference is if you are actively filming, or the camera is set up to film by itself. Security cameras are in the latter category and therefore can only be used on your own property (you can allow someone else to do it on your own property, such as a security firm).
Depends on a country, but yes, police generally has more privileges in that regard. The laws here are also different for casual public filming vs. permanent camera or otherwise targeted filming (without consent) in public space. It also matters what you do with the material.
I actually don't know if businesses are anything special compared to individuals in that regard. They can, of course, have security cameras filming their private properties (like individuals can) as long as they are open about it. And again, they can't use or spread the material however they want.
Pubs have been in decline for years, because people don't go / drink as much, and because of our starting position: this is a country where there are pubs everywhere. But Brewdog is a chain of pubs and a brewery – this is much larger than the standard story of "village supporting three pubs can now only support two".
As for the "torn" reporting, there's no contradiction – companies can go bust ethically or unethically. You don't have to screw your retail investors / fans. You just can. And they have.
reply