One mathematics professor lamented that money buys anything -- including undeserved honors. He commented that Stanford University might as well name the building after "Donald Trump" since he is a billionaire.
Your mathematics professor should take a refresher course in logic. Bill Gates paid for most of the building. Donald Trump didn't. See the difference?
In any case, as long as you have a shiny nice new building on Bill's dime, who gives a crap what it is called? I never gave a second thought to the names on the buildings at my university even though many were named after robberbarons significantly more sinister than Bill Gates has ever been in their day and within their own respective markets.
As far as I am concerned, he is an unethical shmuck who bears principal responsibility for the suicide of Gary Kildall
That's funny, I always thought Gary Kildall bore principal responsibility for his own suicide. Isn't that what suicide is?
The thing that makes this really funny is that unlike the Matt Dillon jokes that pop up every time the BSD Matt Dillon is mentioned, this really is "that" Adam Curry. The one from MTV. Same guy...
Young man, we obey the laws of thermodynamics in this household! Each time we convert the energy we lose a little (or alot depending on the method employed.) Therefore, these types of storage systems are suboptimal. Say you lost 2% on each side of the transfer, you end up with a net loss of 4%, and this is not including loss across the transmission lines and after a while these seemingly small losses add up and you're sitting at an overall efficiency somewhere in the 70-80% range.
So yes, you can store it, but you will lose alot of it in the process.
Uh...Who cares if we lose some energy in the process of storing it (which will happen with any solution, due to the laws of thermodynamics that you brought up yourself) when the source is nearly infinitately rewewable? If you come upon a magical tree that grows gold in the forest do you not bother taking any of the gold because you can't transport all of it?
Binary-only software is a very new thing, historically. It was really quite uncommon prior to the rise of microcomputers...
Are you living in the 80s? Because binary-only software became pretty prevalent in the mid-1970s, which is some 30 years ago. That might be recent in terms of, say, the history of humans, but is not particularly recent in terms of the history of programmable computers. It happened at about the halfway mark, in today's terms, which isn't exactly recent.
The Internet doesn't make us spell any worse, just like having a TV show like COPS doesn't make criminals a bunch of dumb, inbred hick wife-beaters. In both cases, the medium just shows us the way things already were. People were already horrible spellers. You just didn't know it because you weren't communicating with them in a textual environment.
Black & White was a disappointment, yeah, but as a key player in the creation of many great games like Populous, Syndicate, Theme Park, Magic Carpet and Dungeon Keeper, I think I can overlook one overhyped flop.
And from what I've seen Fable looks really good. I'll surely give it at least a rent.
He doesn't say he doesn't use IE because it is insecure. What he said is he recently had to a patch a Firefox installation because it (also) suffered from an exploit.
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Lucas pass out NDAs at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
When general purpose robots are a reality, you know one of the first things they'll be used for is as super-soldiers. I have a feeling the people making robots like that are going to be pretty loose with the ethical robot law programming.
Pixar has made a pretty good amount of money off the sale of Renderman. Why give up that revenue stream?
Then we get into the issue of patents. A lot of code these companies produce includes patented algorithms which would disqualify the code from even being released under a lot of Open Source licenses to begin with, not to mention the fact that the companies don't want anyone else using these algorithms anyway...
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for big OSS projects to come out of any of these studios...
If you have a glaring security hole, you better tell everybody to patch it because you risk losing your rep.
Reference: Microsoft's previous security plan.
Using Microsoft as an example doesn't really help your argument. Microsoft (during their "previous security plan" days) made billions upon billions and is now the dominate software company in the world.
Eric Sink wrote a reply to the original Graham article that mentioned Python and Java that is worth reading....the gist being that for many companies, the best and brightest hackers might not be the best actual employees.
From my own work experience, I think he is right (in some situations). There certainly are many great hackers I've worked with whose technical skills I respect but I would never want to work with again. Of course, I've also worked with a lot of great hackers who were also great employees, so it can go either way. But any hiring manager (or any employee for that matter) would be wise to remember that the person's technical skills are only part of a bigger picture.
Sounds pretty objective to me. The author's point is simply that the price seems out of whack with reality, and objectively that is absolutely correct. SCO needs to make a strong case as to what you're getting for the extra money when compared to Windows, Solaris, Linux (Enterprise Linux, with paid support), or any other OS you might choose. Nothing I've heard from SCO or seen for myself leads me to believe the price is justified compared to the competition. The support isn't significantly better. The reliability isn't significantly better. The number of available applications is much worse. Etc. And then you have the whole "will this company be around in a couple years" problem with SCO. Even ignoring the lawsuit fiascos, they've had a number of other business-related problems as of late (with Baystar, etc) that would pretty much ensure I'd never choose an SCO solution for a new project, even if it were cheaper instead of more
You see... its FPS and ping time that make the man, baby. The game the FPS and ping are calculated in changes from time to time. Currently it is Q3 Demo Test.
Of course, this is even more ridiculous than bragging about chip mhz speeds, especially when you're talking about the difference between 95 and 100 fps.
As other readers have pointed out, this is hardly the fastest network in the world. The point of the article as I read it was that they demonstrated (arguably) useful single application usages for all that bandwidth in the realm of peer-to-peer workstations. This is subtly different than using backbone bandwidth to deliver mp3s to thousands of dialup users.
Going to risk the karma to say its actually impressive that Windows 2K could handle this. My somewhat educated but unfounded guess would be current stable Linux kernels couldn't do it, but the *BSDs have a pretty good chance.
With all the talk of job security (I realize most people are saying it with tongue-in-cheek), you'd think we were auto-assembly-line workers. If job security really is an issue for you, you must be a damn poor programmer to start with. Now, having said that, the link in question was undoubtable funny, and I'm sure none among us can cast the first stone when it comes to the listed offenses, though I doubt most really do it for job security. Usually, its the insane deadline pressure or the dreaded feature creep.
Forking may seem like come off as bad thing when it happens, but in the long term, as long as everyone adheres to to a set of respectable practices (follows licenses, doesn't resort to FUD or other Microsofty tactics, etc.) it is good for the long term. It is like genetic variation in evolution -- it creates a split whereby the most fit fork will eventually survive. Sucky in the short term (especially if you aren't the most fit), but works out in the end.
They are going to do that (albeit the downloads will be slightly delayed to try and keep the numbers honest -- which is a benefit for Linux/Mac, not a setback). Did you read the plan or not?
As I mentioned in another post, id isn't trying to convince other developers to develop for Linux/Mac..Well, maybe they are to some degree, but that is secondary. They are trying to convince the distributor/retailers to stock Linux/Mac games. These distributor/retailers dont care about downloads. In fact, downloadable versions of games are in direct competition with them. You can argue that traditional distribution should just die, and I would even agree with you, but for now they are a necessary evil.
This is in response to many people who ask why not a hybrid cd, or quick downloads... Read the plan..carefully. Carmack would like to do a hybrid CD version. He chose not to. This is clearly not because he wants to screw the Linux/Mac crowd. A big part of this whole set-up id is using is to convince the DISTRIBUTORS and RETAILERS (CompUSA, etc) that Linux/Mac versions will sell. Id is going to support these platforms in the future no matter what. If they offered Linux/Mac versions on the same CD or as downloadable binaries, all the distributors/retailers would see is "Ok, 900,000 sales of the game that contain the Windows version". They (the distributors/retailers) don't care how many people download the Linux/Mac executable, no matter how many logs id presents them with, because it has nothing to do with them. They deal only in the physical goods of the box. While you may be slightly inconvienced due to the Windows version coming out before the Linux version, in the long term this release, if Linux/Mac users have the patience to wait for the right version, will be the first step towards changing the attitudes of these distributors/retailers. Dont blame id, they are going to release the game near simultanously for all markets, they just realize that currently the distributors will give preference to the Windows version. Why is half of Slashdot so negative? Lashing out at id is exactly the wrong response. This has the potential to be a GREAT thing. Uh that's all.
If you read the plan, you see that id is going to release them at the same time (well, within a couple days of each other, at worst). However, they have no control over when each version gets on the shelf. This is up to the distributors. The whole point of this type of release is to convince said distributors that they should pay more attention to non-Windows markets. So if you use Linux/Mac, and buy only the Windows version you will be shooting yourself, as well as every non-Windows user, in the foot.
Slashdot Mirror
Your iPod is loose? Better run and catch it!
One mathematics professor lamented that money buys anything -- including undeserved honors. He commented that Stanford University might as well name the building after "Donald Trump" since he is a billionaire.
Your mathematics professor should take a refresher course in logic. Bill Gates paid for most of the building. Donald Trump didn't. See the difference?
In any case, as long as you have a shiny nice new building on Bill's dime, who gives a crap what it is called? I never gave a second thought to the names on the buildings at my university even though many were named after robberbarons significantly more sinister than Bill Gates has ever been in their day and within their own respective markets.
As far as I am concerned, he is an unethical shmuck who bears principal responsibility for the suicide of Gary Kildall
That's funny, I always thought Gary Kildall bore principal responsibility for his own suicide. Isn't that what suicide is?
The thing that makes this really funny is that unlike the Matt Dillon jokes that pop up every time the BSD Matt Dillon is mentioned, this really is "that" Adam Curry. The one from MTV. Same guy...
Problem is you must have had your sense of humor surgically removed.
Young man, we obey the laws of thermodynamics in this household! Each time we convert the energy we lose a little (or alot depending on the method employed.) Therefore, these types of storage systems are suboptimal. Say you lost 2% on each side of the transfer, you end up with a net loss of 4%, and this is not including loss across the transmission lines and after a while these seemingly small losses add up and you're sitting at an overall efficiency somewhere in the 70-80% range.
So yes, you can store it, but you will lose alot of it in the process.
Uh...Who cares if we lose some energy in the process of storing it (which will happen with any solution, due to the laws of thermodynamics that you brought up yourself) when the source is nearly infinitately rewewable? If you come upon a magical tree that grows gold in the forest do you not bother taking any of the gold because you can't transport all of it?
If a small company releases a product and people get harmed the lawyers decend like a pack of wolves to sue them.
Why doesn't someone sue Microsoft? After all people sue companies all the time even if the product in question has warning labels.
Uh.. Because losing some data, while sucky, is hardly the same thing as, say, losing an eye? Or your life? Try to put things in some perspective.
Binary-only software is a very new thing, historically. It was really quite uncommon prior to the rise of microcomputers...
Are you living in the 80s? Because binary-only software became pretty prevalent in the mid-1970s, which is some 30 years ago. That might be recent in terms of, say, the history of humans, but is not particularly recent in terms of the history of programmable computers. It happened at about the halfway mark, in today's terms, which isn't exactly recent.
The Internet doesn't make us spell any worse, just like having a TV show like COPS doesn't make criminals a bunch of dumb, inbred hick wife-beaters. In both cases, the medium just shows us the way things already were. People were already horrible spellers. You just didn't know it because you weren't communicating with them in a textual environment.
In 2004 there's no excuse for GUI software without unlimited undo.
Black & White was a disappointment, yeah, but as a key player in the creation of many great games like Populous, Syndicate, Theme Park, Magic Carpet and Dungeon Keeper, I think I can overlook one overhyped flop.
And from what I've seen Fable looks really good. I'll surely give it at least a rent.
He doesn't say he doesn't use IE because it is insecure. What he said is he recently had to a patch a Firefox installation because it (also) suffered from an exploit.
Somebody didn't read the article...
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Lucas pass out NDAs at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
When general purpose robots are a reality, you know one of the first things they'll be used for is as super-soldiers. I have a feeling the people making robots like that are going to be pretty loose with the ethical robot law programming.
Pixar has made a pretty good amount of money off the sale of Renderman. Why give up that revenue stream?
Then we get into the issue of patents. A lot of code these companies produce includes patented algorithms which would disqualify the code from even being released under a lot of Open Source licenses to begin with, not to mention the fact that the companies don't want anyone else using these algorithms anyway...
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for big OSS projects to come out of any of these studios...
If you have a glaring security hole, you better tell everybody to patch it because you risk losing your rep.
Reference:
Microsoft's previous security plan.
Using Microsoft as an example doesn't really help your argument. Microsoft (during their "previous security plan" days) made billions upon billions and is now the dominate software company in the world.
From my own work experience, I think he is right (in some situations). There certainly are many great hackers I've worked with whose technical skills I respect but I would never want to work with again. Of course, I've also worked with a lot of great hackers who were also great employees, so it can go either way. But any hiring manager (or any employee for that matter) would be wise to remember that the person's technical skills are only part of a bigger picture.
Sounds pretty objective to me. The author's point is simply that the price seems out of whack with reality, and objectively that is absolutely correct. SCO needs to make a strong case as to what you're getting for the extra money when compared to Windows, Solaris, Linux (Enterprise Linux, with paid support), or any other OS you might choose. Nothing I've heard from SCO or seen for myself leads me to believe the price is justified compared to the competition. The support isn't significantly better. The reliability isn't significantly better. The number of available applications is much worse. Etc. And then you have the whole "will this company be around in a couple years" problem with SCO. Even ignoring the lawsuit fiascos, they've had a number of other business-related problems as of late (with Baystar, etc) that would pretty much ensure I'd never choose an SCO solution for a new project, even if it were cheaper instead of more
You see... its FPS and ping time that make the man, baby. The game the FPS and ping are calculated in changes from time to time. Currently it is Q3 Demo Test.
Of course, this is even more ridiculous than bragging about chip mhz speeds, especially when you're talking about the difference between 95 and 100 fps.
Going to risk the karma to say its actually impressive that Windows 2K could handle this. My somewhat educated but unfounded guess would be current stable Linux kernels couldn't do it, but the *BSDs have a pretty good chance.
With all the talk of job security (I realize most people are saying it with tongue-in-cheek), you'd think we were auto-assembly-line workers. If job security really is an issue for you, you must be a damn poor programmer to start with.
Now, having said that, the link in question was undoubtable funny, and I'm sure none among us can cast the first stone when it comes to the listed offenses, though I doubt most really do it for job security. Usually, its the insane deadline pressure or the dreaded feature creep.
Forking may seem like come off as bad thing when it happens, but in the long term, as long as everyone adheres to to a set of respectable practices (follows licenses, doesn't resort to FUD or other Microsofty tactics, etc.) it is good for the long term. It is like genetic variation in evolution -- it creates a split whereby the most fit fork will eventually survive. Sucky in the short term (especially if you aren't the most fit), but works out in the end.
They are going to do that (albeit the downloads will be slightly delayed to try and keep the numbers honest -- which is a benefit for Linux/Mac, not a setback).
Did you read the plan or not?
As I mentioned in another post, id isn't trying to convince other developers to develop for Linux/Mac..Well, maybe they are to some degree, but that is secondary.
They are trying to convince the distributor/retailers to stock Linux/Mac games. These distributor/retailers dont care about downloads. In fact, downloadable versions of games are in direct competition with them. You can argue that traditional distribution should just die, and I would even agree with you, but for now they are a necessary evil.
This is in response to many people who ask why not a hybrid cd, or quick downloads... Read the plan..carefully. Carmack would like to do a hybrid CD version. He chose not to. This is clearly not because he wants to screw the Linux/Mac crowd. A big part of this whole set-up id is using is to convince the DISTRIBUTORS and RETAILERS (CompUSA, etc) that Linux/Mac versions will sell. Id is going to support these platforms in the future no matter what. If they offered Linux/Mac versions on the same CD or as downloadable binaries, all the distributors/retailers would see is "Ok, 900,000 sales of the game that contain the Windows version". They (the distributors/retailers) don't care how many people download the Linux/Mac executable, no matter how many logs id presents them with, because it has nothing to do with them. They deal only in the physical goods of the box. While you may be slightly inconvienced due to the Windows version coming out before the Linux version, in the long term this release, if Linux/Mac users have the patience to wait for the right version, will be the first step towards changing the attitudes of these distributors/retailers. Dont blame id, they are going to release the game near simultanously for all markets, they just realize that currently the distributors will give preference to the Windows version. Why is half of Slashdot so negative? Lashing out at id is exactly the wrong response. This has the potential to be a GREAT thing. Uh that's all.
If you read the plan, you see that id is going to release them at the same time (well, within a couple days of each other, at worst). However, they have no control over when each version gets on the shelf. This is up to the distributors. The whole point of this type of release is to convince said distributors that they should pay more attention to non-Windows markets. So if you use Linux/Mac, and buy only the Windows version you will be shooting yourself, as well as every non-Windows user, in the foot.