I joined IEEE when I was at Google and despite cancelling my subscription long ago, the amount of physical spam mail I get from them is truly infuriating — life insurance offers, 2+ copies of various publications, and a lot more. It’s truly madness and it has put such a negative taste in my mouth with respect to IEEE.
IEEE President's Note: Why Students Should Stay with IEEE
51–56 of 56 posts
Re: IEEE President's Note: Why Students Should Stay with IEEE
#52In summary, "Give us your money. I promise we provide some benefit". As engineers, they should at least provide some data with this claim. A chart would be nice.
"some benefit" meaning, you can hang out with other people who also paid to be there.
It is a special clubhouse for engineers with a positive bias towards academicians. But hey people networking is the true human currency, and if you want international exposition and collaboration it's probably hands down the best clubhouse for engineers at the moment.
Re: IEEE President's Note: Why Students Should Stay with IEEE
#53You have to work hard and come up with new ideas better than anyone else in the world, and demonstrate that. Then IEEE asks A review the work of B and B review the work of A for free. If the work is good, IEEE will ask you to transfer your rights to your intellectual property to IEEE, and sometimes pay on top of that too. Of course, you have to pay exorbitant fees to present it. Lastly, you can’t download your own pa…
> Then IEEE asks A review the work of B and B review the work of A for free. If the work is good, IEEE will ask you to transfer your rights to your intellectual property to IEEE, and sometimes pay on top of that too.
The article is talking about maintaining an IEEE membership. Is all this what's required to be a member of IEEE? From what I can tell, all that's required is paying the $229 annual membership fee. The IEEE president wants you to pay that fee - that's all it's about.
The ACM is the same way - I was a member as a student, but when I saw the fee to remain a member and what you got for it, I couldn't believe anyone would pay. These organizations must make their money from people whose employees pay the dues because having an acm.org email and maybe getting to go to some networking events just isn't worth it.
Re: IEEE President's Note: Why Students Should Stay with IEEE
#54[flagged]
Re: IEEE President's Note: Why Students Should Stay with IEEE
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to be a small minority in software. 2% of Github repos are Unlicense licensed, 16% are something else I don't know and for everything else, the authors have chosen to use copyright to restrict how others can use it in some way, even if it's just keeping their name on it. [1] https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on...
One can be against something and still make use of it. Don’t be ”Mister Gotcha”: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ >
Usually that only makes sense if other people's use of it makes it harder for you not to. For example, you can want a 4-day working week but still work 5 days because you'll lose your job to a 5-dayer if you don't. But if it was forced on everyone, you'd be happy.
Violating other people's copyrights while still exploiting your own probably means you just want to pirate stuff for your own selfish reasons. If you were against copyright protections in general, you wouldn't be choosing MIT or GPL for your open source code.
Re: IEEE President's Note: Why Students Should Stay with IEEE
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can be against something and still make use of it. Don’t be ”Mister Gotcha”: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ >
Usually that only makes sense if other people's use of it makes it harder for you not to. For example, you can want a 4-day working week but still work 5 days because you'll lose your job to a 5-dayer if you don't. But if it was forced on everyone, you'd be happy. Violating other people's copyrights while still exploiting your own probably means you just want to pirate stuff for your own selfish reasons. If you were…
> If you were against copyright protections in general, you wouldn't be choosing MIT or GPL for your open source code.
This is demonstrably false. IIRC, the creators of the GPL explicitly argue that the GPL is a tool to survive in a world with copyright.