It is no surprise that proprietary software would like you to think of the use of software as a commodity. Their twisted viewpoint comes through clearly in this article, which also refers to publications as content. The narrow thinking associated with the idea that we consume content paves the way for laws such as the dmca that forbid users to break the digital Restrictions Management (DRM) facilities in digital devices. If users think what they do with these devices is consume, they may see such restrictions as natural. It also encourages the acceptance of streaming services, which use drm to perversely limit listening to music, or watching video, to squeeze those activities into the assumptions of the word consume. Why is this perverse usage spreading? Some may feel that the term sounds sophisticated, but rejecting it with cogent reasons can appear even more sophisticated.
What employers want to see on your
Applying it to published works (programs, recordings on a disk or resume in a file, books mela on paper or in a file whose nature is to last indefinitely and which can be run, played or read any number of times, is stretching the word so far. Playing a recording, or running a program, does not consume. Those who use consume in this context will say they don't mean it literally. What, then, does it mean? It means to regard copies of software and other works from a narrow economistic point of view. Consume is associated with the economics of material commodities, such as the fuel or electricity that a car uses. Gasoline is a commodity, and so is electricity. Commodities are fungible : there is nothing special about a drop of gasoline that your car burns today versus another drop that it burned last week. What does it mean to think of works of authorship as a commodity, with the assumption that there is nothing special about any one story, article, program, or song? That is the twisted viewpoint of the owner or the accountant of a publishing company.
Let's be careful not to use the word commercial in that way. Compensation to speak of compensation for authors in connection with copyright carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt to the author which we must then repay. The first assumption is simply false, and the second is outrageous. Compensating the rights-holders adds a further swindle: you're supposed to imagine that means paying the authors, and occasionally it does, but most of the time it means a subsidy for the same publishing companies that are pushing unjust laws. Consume consume refers to what we do with food: we ingest it, after which the food as such no longer exists. By analogy, we employ the same word for other products whose use uses them. Applying it to durable goods, such as clothing or appliances, is a stretch.
That confuses two entirely different issues. A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on word its manner of distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have—are independent. In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the gnu/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the fsf and universities. Later, in the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear. Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage. But people who think that commercial means nonfree will tend to think that the free commercial combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility.
Software as a service as defined by nist overlaps considerably with Service as a software substitute, which mistreats the user, but the two concepts are not equivalent. These different computing practices don't even belong in the same discussion. The best way to avoid the confusion the term cloud computing spreads is not to use the term cloud in connection with computing. Talk about the scenario you mean, and call it by a specific term. Curiously, larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer, also noted the vacuity of the term cloud computing. He decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are. Commercial Please don't use commercial as a synonym for nonfree.
5 Job skills Hospitality
What is a good, clear term for that scenario? Once the topic is clearly formulated, coherent thought about it becomes possible. One of the many meanings of cloud computing is storing your data in online services. In most scenarios, that is foolish because it exposes you to surveillance. Another meaning (which overlaps that but is not the same thing) is Service as a software substitute, which denies you control over your computing. You should never use saass. Another meaning is renting a remote physical server, or virtual server.
These practices are ok under certain circumstances. Another meaning is accessing your own server from your own mobile device. That raises no particular ethical issues. The nist definition of "cloud computing" mentions three scenarios that raise different ethical issues: Software as a service, platform as a service, and Infrastructure as a service. However, that definition does not match thesis the common use of cloud computing, since it does not include storing data in online services.
Assets to refer to published works as assets, or digital assets, is even worse than calling them content — it presumes they have no value to society except commercial value. Bsd-style The expression bsd-style license leads to confusion because it lumps together licenses that have important differences. For instance, the original bsd license with the advertising clause is incompatible with the gnu general Public License, but the revised bsd license is compatible with the gpl. To avoid confusion, it is best to name the specific license in question and avoid the vague term bsd-style. Closed Describing nonfree software as closed clearly refers to the term open source.
In the free software movement, we do not want to be confused with the open source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying things that would encourage people to lump us in with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as closed. We call it nonfree or proprietary. Cloud Computing The term cloud computing (or just cloud, in the context of computing) is a marketing buzzword with no coherent meaning. It is used for a range of different activities whose only common characteristic is that they use the Internet for something beyond transmitting files. Thus, the term spreads confusion. If you base your thinking on it, your thinking will be confused (or, could we say, cloudy?). When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. What scenario is the statement about?
The top three things that employers want to see in your social
This applies to the special case in which the user already has a copy of the program in non-source form. Instead of with free software, the public has access to the program, we say, with free software, the users have the essential freedoms and with free software, the users have control writing of what the program does for them. Alternative we don't describe free software as an alternative to proprietary, because that word presumes all the alternatives are legitimate and each additional one makes users better off. In effect, it assumes that free software ought to coexist with software that does not respect users' freedom. We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way to make software available for others to use. The other methods, nonfree software and Service as a software substitute subjugate their users. We do not think it is good to offer users those alternatives to free software.
For instance, freedom 2 says that that user is free to make another copy and give or sell it to you. But no user is obligated to do that for you; you do not have a right to demand a copy of that program from any user. In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy to anyone else, that program is free software albeit in a trivial way, because every user that has a copy has the four essential freedoms (since the only such user is you). In practice, when many users have copies of a program, someone is sure to post it on the internet, giving everyone access. We think people ought to do that, if the program is useful. But that isn't a requirement of free software. There is one specific point in which a question of having access is directly pertinent to free software: the gnu gpl permits gender giving a particular user access to download a program's source code as a substitute for physically giving that user a copy of the.
digital Locks digital Rights Management ecosystem floss for free foss freely available freeware give away software google hacker intellectual property lamp system linux system market monetize mp3 player open pc photoshop piracy powerPoint product protection rand saas sell software sharing (personal data) sharing. However, the gnu browser IceCat blocks advertisements that track the user as consequence of broader measures to prevent surveillance by web sites. This is not an ad-blocker, this is surveillance protection. Access It is a common misunderstanding to think free software means that the public has access to a program. That is not what free software means. The criterion for free software is not about who has access to the program; the four essential freedoms concern what a user that has a copy of the program is allowed to do with.
Top 10, words / Phrases to avoid in your Resume
Finding a job, job searching, do you know what employers really want? Learn all about which skills, abilities, and expertise employers in various fields are seeking, and learn how to include your most relevant skills and keywords in your resumes, cover letters, and interviews. Here summary is a look at the most Important Soft skills That Employers seek. Top 10 leadership skills Employers look for. Learn More About skills keywords. To bring you the best content on our sites and applications, meredith partners with third party advertisers to serve digital ads, including personalized digital ads. Those advertisers use tracking technologies to collect information about your activity on our sites and applications and across the Internet and your other apps and devices.