I agree that I don't like space to be militarized. However, if it is, that would be good overall for manned space flight. Nobody can get funding like the armed forces can, and they tend to push the envelope on things that normally wouldn't get looked at twice. Big waste of money? Yes. Possibly the best thing to promote manned space flight that could happen? Absolutely.
I was thinking more along the lines of hopping across the border to Vegas. Most people I know would love to spend a weekend there anyway, might as well pick up a TV while they're at it.
Then they shouldn't use the savings as justification, they should use the power grid as justification. Everyone who's going to buy a TV remembers the energy problems that California had a few years back, so they'd be very willing to accept it as the reason. Instead, they're given bull crap savings estimates that don't even come close to covering the increased cost.
Why exactly should the US move to Linux? Can any single Linux company offer the support that the US government can get from Microsoft? Is Linux as easy to use as Windows for those who aren't technologically savvy? Can everyone use Thunderbird as well as they can use Outlook, and is the calendaring as good with Thunderbird as it is with Outlook?
The point of the matter is that one size does not fit all, and when it comes to desktop productivity Linux doesn't do as well as Windows. When it comes to servers, my father in law (who helps set up systems for the Air Force) tends to use a mix of Windows and Solaris, so there's no monopoly either way there. Why on earth should the government use open source when the closed source solutions make more sense for them?
They may bitch about it, but in the end they become more proficient and more likely to use it in the future. I work with a dude who loves perl and java with a fervor that would match a die-hard mac fan. In the end, he programs most of his personal stuff in php because that's what he uses here at work.
Hahahaha! You think Verizon is going to sell the service for less just because they got some money from the government? Hahahaha! They will more likely keep the cost the same and the rest is profit (they'll make even more money faster).
That's why I said it *could* be sold for less, not that it should. Besides, what are they going to do with the extra money that they earn? If they want to continue growing their profits, they'll turn around and use it to build infrastructure in places that don't have it yet.
And I agree with you that the physical infrastructure should be taken care of before the digital infrastructure. But I also believe that the digital infrastructure is generally in much worse shape than the physical infrastructure and that it's hurting the country in a lot of ways.
You're assuming that the money will be alone and that it won't be used for something sustainable. Let's say, for instance, that the government were to give money to a car company to build a factory. It's not likely that the government will give more than 60% of the money necessary to build the factory in the first place. Then, once that factory's built, it will be able to support itself by building cars that wouldn't have been built otherwise and is self sustaining.
In the same way, the government can give Verizon (or similar) 60% of the cost to wire California with fiber to the house. It's enough to convince Verizon to undertake the project in the first place and to gather funding from other sources so that they can complete it. Once complete, they're providing a service that wasn't there beforehand, and is well worth buying. The project after that would be sustained by the subscribers, and it could be sold for less money per month since Verizon doesn't have as much money to recoup. Not all of the jobs which were created for that project will stick around, but more jobs will be created due to the higher available bandwidth in the area.
They might be doing it on the merits, for fashion to follow the trends or whatever other reason but I seriously doubt it's due to a crush on a guy in a black turtleneck. Most people couldn't pick him out of a lineup.
You might be right, but the people who are setting the trend and extolling Apple's merits are those who do know who Jobs is. Apple can likely keep the position it has right now without Jobs, but if they can't replace his expertise, then they'll have a hard time expanding their product line like they've done in the past few years. Steve Jobs has an amazing ability to relate to the crowd, he's good at producing soundbites so he can relate to people on the internet, and he's already cultivated an image of excellence that's largely linked to the man himself.
Whether the average consumer knows it or not, the people that make the decisions and recommendations know who Steve Jobs is, and it's undoubtedly helped with their success.
Reality check: patenting an idea takes a lot of exhaustive research, time, and money. You may just be better off letting the university take your patent so that you can use it as a bullet point on your resume.
If he documents that he had the idea before the university did, then there's no reason he can't use the university as a testing bed for the product beforehand. If someone at the university develops it, he can sue that information to make his idea better. Since he's been thinking about these things for a while, the poster's probably got a good lead on anyone else who can develop it. He's thought of aspects that nobody else has and has a vision that nobody else does.
Guess what: everyone but you thinks your idea is stupid. Really. No one wants to steal it from you.
Either that or else it's obvious and everyone's going to do it. I had an idea for an MMO strikingly similar to Eve Online, but I'm absolutely certain they didn't steal the idea from me.
The value of a great idea is in its execution.
And that encapsulates the entire conversation. It's rare for the first software product to market to dominate for a long time. Windows wasn't the first OS or even graphical OS to market. WoW wasn't the first MMO, and it wasn't even the first that incorporated all of its ideas. Doing it right is more important than doing it first.
People who hack for "good" reasons are white hat. People who do it for malicious or immoral reasons are black hat.
Re:So much for free!
on
Ubuntu Kung Fu
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I've always had great success with the forums. If I google search for what I'm trying to use with the word "Ubuntu" it usually comes back with a quick tutorial which is usually in the form of "open a shell and run the following commands:", which I'm okay with. I've never encountered a site that maliciously led me astray with the instructions and 9/10 are correct. If I were a novice, it would give me exactly what I was looking for. Since I'm somewhat intermediate, it gives me a good place to start from, the package names that I need to download, and a quick primer on the configuration options. In other words, I'm a big fan.
Looks like it's time for me to jump into an argument I shouldn't be jumping into...
bool goto_cleanup = false;
if(condition){
goto_cleanup = true;
} else {
do_something_that_is_only_valid_if_not_condition;
}
if(condition2){
goto_cleanup = true;
} else {
do_something_that_requires_not_condition2;...
}
if(goto_cleanup) {
do_cleanup
}
My guess is that you're a relatively smart dude who's worked on code with people who've been taught that it's better to murder puppies than use goto's, so goto's really are the proper solution in the cases you use them in. However, they're also capable of extremely unreadable code, so the vilification is probably justified.
And I can find three places that would hire me today for $15 / hr programming php as well within 30 miles of where I work right now for significantly more than that. Certainly not $75 / hr, but it's also full time as opposed to contract work.
If you can't tell the difference between someone who writes code for $15 / hr and someone who writes it for $75 / hr, you have absolutely no business hiring developers or managing them at all.
Part time work doesn't pay the bills unless you're getting more than about $35 an hour
Freelance PHP coders (of which I know several) can easily make $75 / hr, $125 with some experience and a decent customer base. I'd be surprised if java coders couldn't beat that quite easily. The trick is building a customer base, which starts to take care of itself after a while if you do a good job.
Adding the OSX comment and that a bug in their code is impossible is even lamer.
The drives were overwritten sector by sector on a machine that didn't have any of their code running on it. Their application couldn't have done it because it couldn't execute arbitrary code on that server. The "impossible" comment makes sense to me.
As for it being lame/unprofessional to name the possibilities, I disagree. He states the OS it was running on and said that it was either an OS problem or sabotage. There might be a few possibilities, but that about sums them up right there. He was being thorough and open; what's the problem with that?
I disagree in that I like the precision of my mouse. I've used pointing sticks before, and I prefer a trackpad if I'm going mouse-less. However, if I've got the room for it I'll take a mouse every time.
The biggest problem with articles like this is that there's a very wide range of tastes when it comes to input devices. I prefer a simple, wide and long mouse for my uses. If given the choice between the linked mouse and a wireless, decked out, beautiful logitech laser mouse that costs hundreds of dollars, I'd take the simple one every time.
Sins definitely deserved more of a mention. Stardock is releasing some of the best games out there right now without any DRM. It's a moral company releasing a quality product. Why isn't this more newsworthy?
They're used in Iranian torture facilities. Have you ever seen a grown man be fed through a printer feet first? I don't know if it's the most painful way to die, but it sure as hell ranks up there.
I'm wondering how this affects people using the Interstate System and private roads, and if the outputs can or will be used by law enforcement to check alibis.
Let me get this straight. In a move straight from Orwell, they want to track every vehicle in the state for the purposes of getting more taxes out of people, and you're concerned about whether it can be used for alibis and whether there's a hole in the technical details?
I've got a few problems with this. My first reaction to the statement about more efficient cars is that they shouldn't be punishing people for buying those cars. More efficient cars are also the ones which do the least damage to the environment and the surfaces they drive on since they tend to weigh much less than the alternatives. Punishing those people for being efficient doesn't make sense. A better measure would be to raise the taxes on gasoline. One year ago the price was over double what it is now. Even adding $.50 or $1 to the tax wouldn't bring the prices to what they were.
My next objection would be the costs of the system. The infrastructure would cost a lot of money, it would raise the cost of cars sold in Oregon and also cost the state money in terms of fighting the inevitable legal battles which may render the system entirely worthless. It seems like a gross misuse of funds.
Finally, the philosophical objections. Inevitably, many people will have access to this information, and the abuses are many. They range from the government using it to track people to as simple as a stalker knowing where his victim is at all times. At the very least it would raise concerns with police abuses.
Overall, there is no way that this proposal is a good idea.
I wonder if that's because computer parts are marked up more, or because the PS3 components aren't t as powerful (what a very relative, subjective, and non-descript word... sorry) as my computer components.
A combination most likely. If the GPUs and/or their boards are being custom made, then they might be able to leave things out that are required for computers. Also, they deal directly with the manufacturer whereas we deal with two layers in between. Finally, they purchase so many units that they surely get a bulk rate, especially since they can play the companies off of each other.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that I don't like space to be militarized. However, if it is, that would be good overall for manned space flight. Nobody can get funding like the armed forces can, and they tend to push the envelope on things that normally wouldn't get looked at twice. Big waste of money? Yes. Possibly the best thing to promote manned space flight that could happen? Absolutely.
The Constitution? Is that thing still around?
Just move to Springfield, they burn tires there every day!
I was thinking more along the lines of hopping across the border to Vegas. Most people I know would love to spend a weekend there anyway, might as well pick up a TV while they're at it.
Then they shouldn't use the savings as justification, they should use the power grid as justification. Everyone who's going to buy a TV remembers the energy problems that California had a few years back, so they'd be very willing to accept it as the reason. Instead, they're given bull crap savings estimates that don't even come close to covering the increased cost.
Why exactly should the US move to Linux? Can any single Linux company offer the support that the US government can get from Microsoft? Is Linux as easy to use as Windows for those who aren't technologically savvy? Can everyone use Thunderbird as well as they can use Outlook, and is the calendaring as good with Thunderbird as it is with Outlook?
The point of the matter is that one size does not fit all, and when it comes to desktop productivity Linux doesn't do as well as Windows. When it comes to servers, my father in law (who helps set up systems for the Air Force) tends to use a mix of Windows and Solaris, so there's no monopoly either way there. Why on earth should the government use open source when the closed source solutions make more sense for them?
They may bitch about it, but in the end they become more proficient and more likely to use it in the future. I work with a dude who loves perl and java with a fervor that would match a die-hard mac fan. In the end, he programs most of his personal stuff in php because that's what he uses here at work.
Hahahaha! You think Verizon is going to sell the service for less just because they got some money from the government? Hahahaha! They will more likely keep the cost the same and the rest is profit (they'll make even more money faster).
That's why I said it *could* be sold for less, not that it should. Besides, what are they going to do with the extra money that they earn? If they want to continue growing their profits, they'll turn around and use it to build infrastructure in places that don't have it yet.
And I agree with you that the physical infrastructure should be taken care of before the digital infrastructure. But I also believe that the digital infrastructure is generally in much worse shape than the physical infrastructure and that it's hurting the country in a lot of ways.
You're assuming that the money will be alone and that it won't be used for something sustainable. Let's say, for instance, that the government were to give money to a car company to build a factory. It's not likely that the government will give more than 60% of the money necessary to build the factory in the first place. Then, once that factory's built, it will be able to support itself by building cars that wouldn't have been built otherwise and is self sustaining.
In the same way, the government can give Verizon (or similar) 60% of the cost to wire California with fiber to the house. It's enough to convince Verizon to undertake the project in the first place and to gather funding from other sources so that they can complete it. Once complete, they're providing a service that wasn't there beforehand, and is well worth buying. The project after that would be sustained by the subscribers, and it could be sold for less money per month since Verizon doesn't have as much money to recoup. Not all of the jobs which were created for that project will stick around, but more jobs will be created due to the higher available bandwidth in the area.
They might be doing it on the merits, for fashion to follow the trends or whatever other reason but I seriously doubt it's due to a crush on a guy in a black turtleneck. Most people couldn't pick him out of a lineup.
You might be right, but the people who are setting the trend and extolling Apple's merits are those who do know who Jobs is. Apple can likely keep the position it has right now without Jobs, but if they can't replace his expertise, then they'll have a hard time expanding their product line like they've done in the past few years. Steve Jobs has an amazing ability to relate to the crowd, he's good at producing soundbites so he can relate to people on the internet, and he's already cultivated an image of excellence that's largely linked to the man himself.
Whether the average consumer knows it or not, the people that make the decisions and recommendations know who Steve Jobs is, and it's undoubtedly helped with their success.
Reality check: patenting an idea takes a lot of exhaustive research, time, and money. You may just be better off letting the university take your patent so that you can use it as a bullet point on your resume.
If he documents that he had the idea before the university did, then there's no reason he can't use the university as a testing bed for the product beforehand. If someone at the university develops it, he can sue that information to make his idea better. Since he's been thinking about these things for a while, the poster's probably got a good lead on anyone else who can develop it. He's thought of aspects that nobody else has and has a vision that nobody else does.
Guess what: everyone but you thinks your idea is stupid. Really. No one wants to steal it from you.
Either that or else it's obvious and everyone's going to do it. I had an idea for an MMO strikingly similar to Eve Online, but I'm absolutely certain they didn't steal the idea from me.
The value of a great idea is in its execution.
And that encapsulates the entire conversation. It's rare for the first software product to market to dominate for a long time. Windows wasn't the first OS or even graphical OS to market. WoW wasn't the first MMO, and it wasn't even the first that incorporated all of its ideas. Doing it right is more important than doing it first.
People who hack for "good" reasons are white hat. People who do it for malicious or immoral reasons are black hat.
I've always had great success with the forums. If I google search for what I'm trying to use with the word "Ubuntu" it usually comes back with a quick tutorial which is usually in the form of "open a shell and run the following commands:", which I'm okay with. I've never encountered a site that maliciously led me astray with the instructions and 9/10 are correct. If I were a novice, it would give me exactly what I was looking for. Since I'm somewhat intermediate, it gives me a good place to start from, the package names that I need to download, and a quick primer on the configuration options. In other words, I'm a big fan.
Looks like it's time for me to jump into an argument I shouldn't be jumping into... bool goto_cleanup = false; if(condition){ goto_cleanup = true; } else { do_something_that_is_only_valid_if_not_condition; } if(condition2){ goto_cleanup = true; } else { do_something_that_requires_not_condition2; ...
}
if(goto_cleanup) {
do_cleanup
}
My guess is that you're a relatively smart dude who's worked on code with people who've been taught that it's better to murder puppies than use goto's, so goto's really are the proper solution in the cases you use them in. However, they're also capable of extremely unreadable code, so the vilification is probably justified.
And I can find three places that would hire me today for $15 / hr programming php as well within 30 miles of where I work right now for significantly more than that. Certainly not $75 / hr, but it's also full time as opposed to contract work.
If you can't tell the difference between someone who writes code for $15 / hr and someone who writes it for $75 / hr, you have absolutely no business hiring developers or managing them at all.
Part time work doesn't pay the bills unless you're getting more than about $35 an hour
Freelance PHP coders (of which I know several) can easily make $75 / hr, $125 with some experience and a decent customer base. I'd be surprised if java coders couldn't beat that quite easily. The trick is building a customer base, which starts to take care of itself after a while if you do a good job.
Adding the OSX comment and that a bug in their code is impossible is even lamer.
The drives were overwritten sector by sector on a machine that didn't have any of their code running on it. Their application couldn't have done it because it couldn't execute arbitrary code on that server. The "impossible" comment makes sense to me.
As for it being lame/unprofessional to name the possibilities, I disagree. He states the OS it was running on and said that it was either an OS problem or sabotage. There might be a few possibilities, but that about sums them up right there. He was being thorough and open; what's the problem with that?
Total cost rather than just the cost of the software. This may include training, support, etc.
I disagree in that I like the precision of my mouse. I've used pointing sticks before, and I prefer a trackpad if I'm going mouse-less. However, if I've got the room for it I'll take a mouse every time.
The biggest problem with articles like this is that there's a very wide range of tastes when it comes to input devices. I prefer a simple, wide and long mouse for my uses. If given the choice between the linked mouse and a wireless, decked out, beautiful logitech laser mouse that costs hundreds of dollars, I'd take the simple one every time.
Sins definitely deserved more of a mention. Stardock is releasing some of the best games out there right now without any DRM. It's a moral company releasing a quality product. Why isn't this more newsworthy?
They're used in Iranian torture facilities. Have you ever seen a grown man be fed through a printer feet first? I don't know if it's the most painful way to die, but it sure as hell ranks up there.
I can't imagine that the Iran market is big enough to justify the risk of getting caught. But that's just me.
I'm wondering how this affects people using the Interstate System and private roads, and if the outputs can or will be used by law enforcement to check alibis.
Let me get this straight. In a move straight from Orwell, they want to track every vehicle in the state for the purposes of getting more taxes out of people, and you're concerned about whether it can be used for alibis and whether there's a hole in the technical details?
I've got a few problems with this. My first reaction to the statement about more efficient cars is that they shouldn't be punishing people for buying those cars. More efficient cars are also the ones which do the least damage to the environment and the surfaces they drive on since they tend to weigh much less than the alternatives. Punishing those people for being efficient doesn't make sense. A better measure would be to raise the taxes on gasoline. One year ago the price was over double what it is now. Even adding $.50 or $1 to the tax wouldn't bring the prices to what they were.
My next objection would be the costs of the system. The infrastructure would cost a lot of money, it would raise the cost of cars sold in Oregon and also cost the state money in terms of fighting the inevitable legal battles which may render the system entirely worthless. It seems like a gross misuse of funds.
Finally, the philosophical objections. Inevitably, many people will have access to this information, and the abuses are many. They range from the government using it to track people to as simple as a stalker knowing where his victim is at all times. At the very least it would raise concerns with police abuses.
Overall, there is no way that this proposal is a good idea.
I wonder if that's because computer parts are marked up more, or because the PS3 components aren't t as powerful (what a very relative, subjective, and non-descript word... sorry) as my computer components.
A combination most likely. If the GPUs and/or their boards are being custom made, then they might be able to leave things out that are required for computers. Also, they deal directly with the manufacturer whereas we deal with two layers in between. Finally, they purchase so many units that they surely get a bulk rate, especially since they can play the companies off of each other.