It can just as easily be the opposte: They are going for the familiar, but don't can't get the proper licensing of the logo and trademarks. (I'm not speaking of only new shows; but decades ago before the idea of product placement took hold).
So some random shmoe is a better able to comment on something than someone who is an expert because the fact that they are an expert mens they are untrustworthy.
I'd actually argue that a random shmoe isn't going to post something he knows very little about. In fact, I'd say this is the case with over 99.99% of all entries on Wikipedia.
It's one thing to know the subject matter well; what makes a published encyclopedia special isn't the source of the information, but in the polish made to the text -- rework of phrases in order to get an understandable meaning.
There are many contributors that are quite qualified to write about the subjects in Wikipedia, and in fact do so. Pythagoras' Theorem doesn't require a Ph.D. to explain; a bright seventh grade student is quite capable; it's an elementary concept. This doesn't mean that a seventh grader wrote the article; it means that there's no reason to disqualify a seventh grader's submission out of hand. Believe it or not, most entries in an encyclopedia do not require more than a pre-university level of understanding. It's pure hubris to claim otherwise. An encyclopedia isn't an in-depth compendium of knowledge; an encyclopedia covers a broad range of knowlege in a suprisingly shallow level of detail. (At least, this is the case in World Book, Grolier, Brittanica, Compton's... well... every encyclopedia I've ever opened.) This shouldn't come as a suprise: the publishers can sell more books if it can serve a wider audience. But in serving the wider audience, it sharply reduces the amount of expertise required to write a competant entry.
Do some more reading on the application of facts and history.
I would suggest you do the same. There's a substantial difference between history and fact. History is a collection of facts remembered and filtered through the selective consiousnesses of its authors, including additions and omissions. Much of what we call history is not so much a collection of fact as one person's interpretation of the facts at hand (which are incomplete to begin with); many of the assertations can't be proven, but they appear to fit the facts.
Facts are "concepts whose truth can be proven."
* Water freezes at 32 Farenheit, or 0 Celcius (at 1 atmosphere). * Rome is the capital city of Italy. * Mathematically, Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
Those are facts.
Analysing a fact does not produce a new fact; it produces an interpretation of the fact.
History is a collection of both fact and human interpretation -- I know of no historians worth their salt that don't know the difference between the two.
I just find it odd that you've got a potato chip bag, that has every last graphical detail of the "Lays" brand, except instead of saying "Lays" it says "Chips". Even the font used was the same...
Or the red cola can with a white stripe. Or the clear soda in a green can with a red spot -- but with no names.
So when you have a kitchen scene -- and few shows don't -- but you see product labels that are 99% identical to the real products; it's just a bit out of place...
Either use the real products, with the logos and names fully intact, or use something that is nowhere close to what you see in the supermarket...
You know as well as I do that it isn't about replacing one form of advertising with another. It's an additional source of ad revenue, not a replacement source of revenue. Now they show us commercials during the show too!
Think of it! Soon the only form of television will be the advertisement-- so many chances to provide consumers with purchase opprotunities!
I've just been following the thread... You have some rather big misconceptions...
Wavicle is, in fact, correct. The courts have already ruled on the matter with abortion doctor lists, any protestations at this point are nothing more than piss and wind.
Your argument is no better than saying "I was just part of the mob." -- if you can be proven to be responsible in any way, you're going to be held responsible. The police aren't above prosecuting 'chicken shit'; they enforce the law in all its variety... from murder to parking tickets, from securities fraud to a twelve-year old stealing a pack of gum.
The argument made by Wavicle is also sound: Participating, in any way (including the spread of information of any kind) in an act that results in the limiting of another's freedom is very illegal. The only entity that has the right to limit the freedom of any citizen is the government, and by extension, its officers of law (police).
For instance, a street is a public resource. But if you were to stand at the end of a driveway, and refuse to move should the resident desire to leave (or come home) by car, at the very least you'll be forced to move by the police. You do not have the right to keep that person from coming or going when and how they choose. Only the government can do that, and only then after due process of law.
(On the flipside, should the homeowner hit/run over the person blocking the driveway, the driver gets charged with "assault with a deadly weapon.")
"Freedom of Speech" isn't anywhere near as unrestricted as you seem to believe. The courts have ruled on this matter more than a few times, running back to the time when the men who drafted the US Constitution were still alive, and the 'original meaning' was known (because they personally weighed in on the matter).
"Freedom of Speech" is limited (but the limits are small)-- you do not have the right to commit slander, or libel, for instance. Pornography is not protected speech, nor is public nudity. "Freedom of the Press" doesn't mean a reporter can publish information obtained illegally; again, this dates back to the founding of the nation. (Try reading up on the Alien and Sedition Acts; yes, they were repealed, but they held the full force of law for a time as well.)
As for tresspass: Unless the person is tresspassing IN YOUR HOME, your only option is to get the Police. Nobody, in any juristiction, has the right to assault another on the grounds of tresspass, unless the tresspasser is inside the walls of your home.
In fact, there are more than a few people who are serving what amounts to life terms in prison because they (wrongly) believed they had the right to use deadly force to remove a tresspasser on their front lawn, or at the end of their driveway, or around the ouside of their house...
Part of the reason is because, believe it or not, there are things you can't do with your own land, and things which you have to allow. Almost every county (and every city) has statutes as to what you can and can't do with your land; depending on the zoning laws of the property, you may find that you can't put up a billboard advertisement, or a 500 ft antenna, or put a large wind turbine on your property. You may be restricted from digging in certain areas of your property (underground utility lines, etc.)
You also have to allow complete strangers access to your land, even up to the outside of your house; this is primarily for utilities, such as electricity, water, sewer, telephone, cable tv, etc. If you have power lines running through a pasture, you have to give the power company access for inspection and maintenance.
The notion of absolute ownership (and hence, authority) of any piece of land is quaint, but largely extinct. Were the case otherwise, there wouldn't be a public debate over companies whose land is laced with hazardous waste. It's clear that they are not able to do as they please with their property. (Stating that the law is different for a company is a poor argument; The company could just sign the title over to a private citizen (such as the CEO), and get on with their polluting, paying the CEO for his services.)
When will you Yanks learn that the truth is decided by experts, and that expertise is determined by well-known and respected members of a field?
Probably never; there are many cultural and historical reasons why. 'Experts' are all-too frequently found to be wrong (or shown to be lying). History is full of instances where the 'experts' were less interested in the facts than in protecting their own ego and/or prestige. (ie. the 'expert' cannnot allow (him/her)self to be wrong, even though the facts disagree).
Facts will speak for themselves; there is no need for an 'expert' to present a fact that stands on its own.
But arrogance and/or eliteism on the part of an established industry (and source of information) is far from an isolated phenomenon- many newspaper moguls still scorn broadcast reporting.
When an industry hasn't changed for decades, any distruptive technology is almost universally shunned and/or scorned.
WikiPedia apparently makes some people feel threatened; there are some places where it needs to be improved -- accountability for authorship, for example.
But TFA sounds somewhat like an individual who feels his prestige being threatened. Every creature must adapt to the environment it finds itself in; if it fails to do so, its existence ends. Complaining about the meteor wouldn't have saved the dinosaurs. Scorn from competing auto manufacturers didn't make Henry Ford's idea of building affordable cars and paying its workers well fail. Smug treatises on the 'evil' of Open-Source development hasn't stopped its adoption.
The authors attempts to discredit or defame Wikipedia does more of the opposite -- It will send the curious over to Wikipedia to see what the bluster is all about. And those people will discover that Wikipedia, while not always of the same quality of Encyclopedia Brittanica, is still of better quality than most of the information that can be found on the internet.
The author tries to say Wikipedia is filled with articles written by seventh grade testosterone addicts; yet this accusation rings hollow.
Wikipedia's quality is usually no worse than that of a Newspaper. This is more of a statement of how low Newspapers have sunk than a statement to vindicate Wikipedia.
They're also including a new technology that wipes all memory of ever having watched the Blu-Ray disc. (Indeed, it will also wipe all memory of the disc's existence; prompting a consumer to purchase multiple versions of the same disc)
Personally, I'm looking forward to fighting the USAF in cyberspace. A good MMOG in which the players get to fly against each other in jets and starfighters sounds like an entertaining thing.
I can see it now: the USAF version of "America's Army"
Sweet.
As a bonus, the USAF fighter pilots who 'train' using this MMOG would quite literally be able to say 'seen that before' to every crazy move that an enemy pilot would throw at them. (Including undertrained/unskilled opponents).
Apple has already tried the cheapie clone business.
It nearly killed them.
This fact should speak volumes to the hordes who delude themselves into believing that Apple would make more money by selling OS X licenses for people who have generic clones.
What corporate world have you been inhabiting? Apparently not the American corporate world, and definately not New York.
Engineers aren't particularly noted for diplomacy either; frequently what an engineer sees a 'bad idea', the idea is usually attacked immediately and viciously. Reasons are given, and no consideration for the feelings of the recipient is made; it's to be tacitly understood that the engineer is attacking the idea, not the person suggesting it.
This reminds me of the entry for "babelfish" in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy... the gist of which being that the last thing diplomacy needs is a perfect, unambiguous understanding of what is being said.
As has been said -- people who are not familiar with Diplomacy (eg. Engineers) wouldn't find this particularly harsh at all; in fact, most Americans, for example, would find it extremely difficult to hold any kind of meaningful discussion without such "harsh language."
Sadly, this actually explains much in the history of US international affairs.
Nice post, though -- it explains to the unwashed masses about some of the minutae of diplomacy.
Somehow I think that the extradition trial wouldn't go well for the French.
I can see it now, on CNN: "An American college student was arrested today for putting the source code for software on the Internet today. Source code can be thought of as a 'recipie' for software, which the student wrote himself, and provided to anyone interested without cost. While he commited no crime in the United States, nor has he ever visited Europe, the French government wants to prosecute him for copyright violations"
Americans are a fickle lot, and publically call for sanctions against a country that used public caning as a punishment for the crimes a young man committed in a foreign land.
The backlash against a country (espescially France) that tries to extradite an American who used his 'freedom of the press' would be extreme.
While the Lawyers of US corporations (such as Electronic Arts) write threatening letters to foreign persons for violating the DMCA, it's nothing but hot air -- the DMCA has no force outside the US; every judge know quite well that it's not legal to prosecute someone outside the US for doing something outside the US. (There are actually quite a few bittorrent search sites that post the threats from EA, their response, etc. -- Apparently, no actual prosecution has ever happened.) The original Napster was shut down because it was in the US; were it in Sweden, I doubt the outcome would have been the same.
The US can't extradite/prosecute a Dutch guy for "possession of Marajuana", when the only time he was "posessed" the drug was in Amsterdam.
Considering nVIDIA's engineers have publicly stated that they hadn't finished designing (let alone debugging/testing) the silicon when the PS3 videos were made public, I'd say it's a safe bet to say there's no way in hell the graphics weren't pre-rendered. If the graphics chip wasn't designed yet, then it's not possible to have one fabricated and rendering the movies for E3.
Nintendo has already said that while the Revolution will definitely be an improvement over the GameCube, it won't have the kind of quality you see in the 360 or the PS3.
I have no real love for any of the console makers; but I will say this: I've grown ever so tired of fanboys making up factoids to try to claim their favorite system is better than the rest (espescially when the numbers aren't in their favor, and neither is a side-by-side comparison).
I can honestly say I'm most sick of the Sony fanboys. But this is probably as much a function of the market share as it is of anything else. (And don't try for one second to convince me that the PS2 has better graphics than the GameCube or the X-Box; it's obvious the PS2 is lacking in that area, espescially to someone who has all three systems. Can't the Sony fanboys figure out that a year's development goes a long way in the graphics department?)
Off of this metric, I would say the PS3 will probably have better graphics than the 360 -- simply because the PS3 will have newer technology than the 360. A six-month old graphics card has a significant enough difference to a brand new one to substantiate the belief.
OTOH, the Revolution will probably come out last, and will have the worst graphics of the bunch -- but I'm also confident it will have the higest profit margins by far. There's something to be said about being 'good enough' and inexpensive.
IIRC, the phrase 'engineer' goes back at least to the time of the Roman Army; the engineers were the guys who were building and operating the seige engines. (Ballista's, catapaults, etc.)
(sorta like 'musketeer' is a guy who fires a musket)
For me, the key thing is it's free for noncommercial use. If it's being used commercially, though, it's an entirely different ball game. At least with GPL and BSD code, you have the freedom to use it in a corporate setting. I certainly know this is why I don't (and can't) use libgoto.
AMD's Core Math Libraries are at least free beer, even to corporate customers; and the performance difference (at least on Linpack) is virtually nil. And since both are closed source -- I'll take the free beer.
My employer donates a sizeable amount of R&D and bugfixes to GPL'd code (including the Linux kernel); we release the code and/or fixes as soon as it's been validated. GPL and BSD code gives us the freedom to use and improve the softare we use. That freedom counts for a lot more than the free beer aspect of free software, but the cost is certainly a factor.
Mr. Goto only recently (Sep-Oct, IIRC) changed the license so even the use of his library required either non-commercial use or a license to be purchased. Previously we could at least use his library to boost our linpack numbers, then delete libgoto and software compiled against it; now we simply ignore libgoto entirely, and turn to his competition instead.
The thing Mr. Goto seems to discount is that his competitors know how to read raw machine code just fine; this is in no small part because two of his biggest competitors (Intel's MKL and AMD's ACML) are from the same corporations which design the chips on which his code runs.
There's money to be made in it, and both AMD and Intel will reverse-engineer his (and each other's) techniques. libgoto is a single library, with rather well-defined, discrete, component functions. Reverse-engineering library that is so thoroughly defined as BLAS isn't trivial, but it is also quite possible. You already know the inputs and the outputs, you know what mathematically happens in the middle -- after that even machine code becomes fairly simple to read.
I don't think the laws reguarding the use of the title "Engineer" are at all stupid; they were first enacted because people had died because of a greedy businessman (with no training, etc) decided that he could design a million gallon storage tank just as well, as one of them college boys, and for less money too. He was wrong (on both counts), people died, and the government decided that the licensing engineers was necessary for the safety of the public.
On another hand, it can be argued quite well that lawmakers are also noted for wanting to control (and micro-manage) everything through regulating the hell out of it, which nobody but lawyers really want.
I know exactly what you mean when you say that you can't get a PE license: I'm in exactly the same boat (I'm a Computer Engineer as well, and have also had the same kind of education, ABET accredited.) I know perfectly well that to get a PE license, I'd have to work under other PE's -- something that is almost impossible for an EE, and even more difficult for a CompE. I also know that I'd have to take a number of classes just to cover materials that weren't in my curriculum.
But this is not really the case with guys who are civil or mechanical engineers, though -- at my university, you had to pass the FE exam to get your degree in Civil or Mechanical Engineering; only Electrical and Computer engineers could finish without passing the FE exam. (Indeed, ECE students were actively discouraged from even trying to take the FE, because as you point out, passing the FE is only the first step in getting a PE license... and it's nigh unto impossible for an EE or CompE to get the mentorship qualification.) I personally wanted to get a PE license, if only because my father is a PE. (although he's a Civil Engineer, not a Computer Engineer).
The current state of a PE license isn't practical for a Computer or Electrical engineer; however as liabilities for poorly designed electronic and computer equipment rises, I'm confident that some lawmaker will decide to try and make a name for himself by forcing Computer and Electrical Engineers to be licensed PE's as well. (and make the requisite changes to the PE requirements)
It's equally feasable that for certain kinds of software (such as flight control systems, medical equipment, and nuclear reactor software), software engineers will also have to be licensed PE's.
These are the same jokers who take public safety to such extremes that a soda bottle cap has to have a warning label on it 'contents under pressure; open with caution!' I wouldn't put such regulation past them.
Legal responsibility, that's why. The whole point of a Professional Engineer can be summed up as "the buck stops here, and I can vouch for every piece of the design, so if the design was followed, I agree (personally; not my company) to pay the penalties."
Most people don't know this, but 'Engineer' is not some phrase you can toss around or apply as desired. It's actually a legally defined term, such as 'Attorney,' 'Medical Doctor,' 'Registered Nurse,' or 'Senator'. As is the case with the title 'attorney' or 'M.D.', it's a criminal offense to call onself an Engineer if s/he don't have a Bachelors (or better) degree from an accredited university, as well as having been officially tested and licenced by the proper governmental authorities (and have the requisite number of years of experience in the field, and have your apprenticeship signed off by multiple Professional Engineers). You can't just tack the name 'Engineer' to a job and/or title; as is the case with Attorney, in which you have to be licensed by Bar, or a Medical Doctor, in which you have to be certified by the boards, an Engineer must also meet similar requirements.
The law was written to allow only competent, licenced individuals to make decisions that can have lethal consequences. Professional Engineers are quite aware of the consequences should they not perform their job with all dilligence.
While it's been fashionable lately for tech wannabies to tack the phrase 'Engineer' to their job description; ie. "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer", or "Certified Netware Engineer", 'network engineer', this practice is illegal and punishible as fraud in most localities. (Microsoft can call it whatever they want; but technically, you can only say you have an MCSE certificate, not that you're an Engineer.)
The practice has really only survived because Engineers, in general, don't get all pissy about people abusing their official/professional title. Hell, I only mention it for education's sake: I have an Engineering degree, I legally can't call myself an Engineer for precicely this reason -- I'm not professionally licensed by the state (nor can I become licenced until I have a few years more experience). Yet when people ask, I tell them I'm an Engineer...
Of course, in the case of people misusing the title of Attorneys or Medical Doctors... I can understand the Doctors worrying-- I wouldn't want to find out my 'doctor' simply put the initials 'M.D.' on his front door. But who in their right mind would want to piss off the same profession that includes the prosecuting attorney, the judge, and the guy defending you?
In every state in the USA (and pretty much every other democratic nation), a Professional Engineer has to sign his (or her) name to every design before it can be sold and/or built. If the design is found to be faulty, civil cases (for money) can be brought against the company. Criminal cases can be brought against the engineer for his/her negligence. Such cases against engineers aren't uncommon (IIRC, it happened to the engineers who signed off the design of the World Trade Center).
Mechanical engineers are the ones who are (legally) responsible for any thermal issues involved in a design.
Electrical Engineers don't generally have to be professionally licenced; case in point: at my university, two of the EE professors are licenced. All of the ME professors are. EE students don't have to pass the FE (fundamentals of engineering) exam to get their degree; ME students do. The number of cases where it's required to be a licenced EE are currently quite small; the largest one is to be an expert witness in a court of law. But an ME needs the licence for just about everything he does.
A good part of this is difference is maturity: The understanding of electrical devices is only a couple of centuries old; however mechanical devices are a couple millenia more mature. I'm sure a century from now, an E
Note: I'm not a MS apologist; I'm cynically pointing out how MS follows the hive in its 'release first, fix later' culture. MS doesn't lead the pack any more than any other worker bee. The queen is the almighty dollar; make no mistake.
There's a reason you can buy a T-Shirt that says "It Compiles! Ship it!"
Many of Microsoft's problems aren't exactly unique to Microsoft.
Debugging is not the problem, the rush to market is to blame here, plain and simple.
I recall the original X-Box having similar issues when it was launched. BFD; Microsoft isn't exactly alone in releasing first, fixing later. They're probably not even the worst at the game.
At least with PC games, it's become par for the course that the game will be quite unstable until the 2nd or 3rd patch.
Most people I know won't deploy a new verision of Windows until the 1st service pack.
Welcome to the world of rushed releases of incredibly complex systems.
Engineer says: "How does it work?" Manager says: "When will it work?"
Manager usually wins, engineer doesn't get his questions answered, and as a result there are bugs.
Leaving the customer to complain: "Why doesn't it work?"
Slashdot Mirror
Double-plus-plus-un-good crimethink, you make plus number words need. Thought Police take you to love ministry. Double-plus-plus-fun you make!
It can just as easily be the opposte: They are going for the familiar, but don't can't get the proper licensing of the logo and trademarks. (I'm not speaking of only new shows; but decades ago before the idea of product placement took hold).
So some random shmoe is a better able to comment on something than someone who is an expert because the fact that they are an expert mens they are untrustworthy.
I'd actually argue that a random shmoe isn't going to post something he knows very little about. In fact, I'd say this is the case with over 99.99% of all entries on Wikipedia.
It's one thing to know the subject matter well; what makes a published encyclopedia special isn't the source of the information, but in the polish made to the text -- rework of phrases in order to get an understandable meaning.
There are many contributors that are quite qualified to write about the subjects in Wikipedia, and in fact do so. Pythagoras' Theorem doesn't require a Ph.D. to explain; a bright seventh grade student is quite capable; it's an elementary concept. This doesn't mean that a seventh grader wrote the article; it means that there's no reason to disqualify a seventh grader's submission out of hand. Believe it or not, most entries in an encyclopedia do not require more than a pre-university level of understanding. It's pure hubris to claim otherwise. An encyclopedia isn't an in-depth compendium of knowledge; an encyclopedia covers a broad range of knowlege in a suprisingly shallow level of detail. (At least, this is the case in World Book, Grolier, Brittanica, Compton's... well... every encyclopedia I've ever opened.) This shouldn't come as a suprise: the publishers can sell more books if it can serve a wider audience. But in serving the wider audience, it sharply reduces the amount of expertise required to write a competant entry.
Do some more reading on the application of facts and history.
I would suggest you do the same. There's a substantial difference between history and fact. History is a collection of facts remembered and filtered through the selective consiousnesses of its authors, including additions and omissions. Much of what we call history is not so much a collection of fact as one person's interpretation of the facts at hand (which are incomplete to begin with); many of the assertations can't be proven, but they appear to fit the facts.
Facts are "concepts whose truth can be proven."
* Water freezes at 32 Farenheit, or 0 Celcius (at 1 atmosphere).
* Rome is the capital city of Italy.
* Mathematically, Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
Those are facts.
Analysing a fact does not produce a new fact; it produces an interpretation of the fact.
History is a collection of both fact and human interpretation -- I know of no historians worth their salt that don't know the difference between the two.
I just find it odd that you've got a potato chip bag, that has every last graphical detail of the "Lays" brand, except instead of saying "Lays" it says "Chips". Even the font used was the same...
Or the red cola can with a white stripe. Or the clear soda in a green can with a red spot -- but with no names.
So when you have a kitchen scene -- and few shows don't -- but you see product labels that are 99% identical to the real products; it's just a bit out of place...
Either use the real products, with the logos and names fully intact, or use something that is nowhere close to what you see in the supermarket...
Taco Bell isn't a restaurant; it's a punishment.
You know as well as I do that it isn't about replacing one form of advertising with another. It's an additional source of ad revenue, not a replacement source of revenue. Now they show us commercials during the show too!
Think of it! Soon the only form of television will be the advertisement-- so many chances to provide consumers with purchase opprotunities!
I've just been following the thread... You have some rather big misconceptions...
Wavicle is, in fact, correct. The courts have already ruled on the matter with abortion doctor lists, any protestations at this point are nothing more than piss and wind.
Your argument is no better than saying "I was just part of the mob." -- if you can be proven to be responsible in any way, you're going to be held responsible. The police aren't above prosecuting 'chicken shit'; they enforce the law in all its variety... from murder to parking tickets, from securities fraud to a twelve-year old stealing a pack of gum.
The argument made by Wavicle is also sound: Participating, in any way (including the spread of information of any kind) in an act that results in the limiting of another's freedom is very illegal. The only entity that has the right to limit the freedom of any citizen is the government, and by extension, its officers of law (police).
For instance, a street is a public resource. But if you were to stand at the end of a driveway, and refuse to move should the resident desire to leave (or come home) by car, at the very least you'll be forced to move by the police. You do not have the right to keep that person from coming or going when and how they choose. Only the government can do that, and only then after due process of law.
(On the flipside, should the homeowner hit/run over the person blocking the driveway, the driver gets charged with "assault with a deadly weapon.")
"Freedom of Speech" isn't anywhere near as unrestricted as you seem to believe. The courts have ruled on this matter more than a few times, running back to the time when the men who drafted the US Constitution were still alive, and the 'original meaning' was known (because they personally weighed in on the matter).
"Freedom of Speech" is limited (but the limits are small)-- you do not have the right to commit slander, or libel, for instance. Pornography is not protected speech, nor is public nudity. "Freedom of the Press" doesn't mean a reporter can publish information obtained illegally; again, this dates back to the founding of the nation. (Try reading up on the Alien and Sedition Acts; yes, they were repealed, but they held the full force of law for a time as well.)
As for tresspass: Unless the person is tresspassing IN YOUR HOME, your only option is to get the Police. Nobody, in any juristiction, has the right to assault another on the grounds of tresspass, unless the tresspasser is inside the walls of your home.
In fact, there are more than a few people who are serving what amounts to life terms in prison because they (wrongly) believed they had the right to use deadly force to remove a tresspasser on their front lawn, or at the end of their driveway, or around the ouside of their house...
Part of the reason is because, believe it or not, there are things you can't do with your own land, and things which you have to allow. Almost every county (and every city) has statutes as to what you can and can't do with your land; depending on the zoning laws of the property, you may find that you can't put up a billboard advertisement, or a 500 ft antenna, or put a large wind turbine on your property. You may be restricted from digging in certain areas of your property (underground utility lines, etc.)
You also have to allow complete strangers access to your land, even up to the outside of your house; this is primarily for utilities, such as electricity, water, sewer, telephone, cable tv, etc. If you have power lines running through a pasture, you have to give the power company access for inspection and maintenance.
The notion of absolute ownership (and hence, authority) of any piece of land is quaint, but largely extinct. Were the case otherwise, there wouldn't be a public debate over companies whose land is laced with hazardous waste. It's clear that they are not able to do as they please with their property. (Stating that the law is different for a company is a poor argument; The company could just sign the title over to a private citizen (such as the CEO), and get on with their polluting, paying the CEO for his services.)
When will you Yanks learn that the truth is decided by experts, and that expertise is determined by well-known and respected members of a field?
Probably never; there are many cultural and historical reasons why. 'Experts' are all-too frequently found to be wrong (or shown to be lying). History is full of instances where the 'experts' were less interested in the facts than in protecting their own ego and/or prestige. (ie. the 'expert' cannnot allow (him/her)self to be wrong, even though the facts disagree).
Facts will speak for themselves; there is no need for an 'expert' to present a fact that stands on its own.
But arrogance and/or eliteism on the part of an established industry (and source of information) is far from an isolated phenomenon- many newspaper moguls still scorn broadcast reporting.
When an industry hasn't changed for decades, any distruptive technology is almost universally shunned and/or scorned.
WikiPedia apparently makes some people feel threatened; there are some places where it needs to be improved -- accountability for authorship, for example.
But TFA sounds somewhat like an individual who feels his prestige being threatened. Every creature must adapt to the environment it finds itself in; if it fails to do so, its existence ends. Complaining about the meteor wouldn't have saved the dinosaurs. Scorn from competing auto manufacturers didn't make Henry Ford's idea of building affordable cars and paying its workers well fail. Smug treatises on the 'evil' of Open-Source development hasn't stopped its adoption.
The authors attempts to discredit or defame Wikipedia does more of the opposite -- It will send the curious over to Wikipedia to see what the bluster is all about. And those people will discover that Wikipedia, while not always of the same quality of Encyclopedia Brittanica, is still of better quality than most of the information that can be found on the internet.
The author tries to say Wikipedia is filled with articles written by seventh grade testosterone addicts; yet this accusation rings hollow.
Wikipedia's quality is usually no worse than that of a Newspaper. This is more of a statement of how low Newspapers have sunk than a statement to vindicate Wikipedia.
And the entire house explodes in an orgy of blue bits...
That's just the tip of the iceberg...
They're also including a new technology that wipes all memory of ever having watched the Blu-Ray disc. (Indeed, it will also wipe all memory of the disc's existence; prompting a consumer to purchase multiple versions of the same disc)
Personally, I'm looking forward to fighting the USAF in cyberspace. A good MMOG in which the players get to fly against each other in jets and starfighters sounds like an entertaining thing.
I can see it now: the USAF version of "America's Army"
Sweet.
As a bonus, the USAF fighter pilots who 'train' using this MMOG would quite literally be able to say 'seen that before' to every crazy move that an enemy pilot would throw at them. (Including undertrained/unskilled opponents).
Apple has already tried the cheapie clone business.
It nearly killed them.
This fact should speak volumes to the hordes who delude themselves into believing that Apple would make more money by selling OS X licenses for people who have generic clones.
My point is that people (ie. individuals) generally don't get patents at all; so the prior art argument is moot.
What corporate world have you been inhabiting? Apparently not the American corporate world, and definately not New York.
Engineers aren't particularly noted for diplomacy either; frequently what an engineer sees a 'bad idea', the idea is usually attacked immediately and viciously. Reasons are given, and no consideration for the feelings of the recipient is made; it's to be tacitly understood that the engineer is attacking the idea, not the person suggesting it.
This reminds me of the entry for "babelfish" in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy... the gist of which being that the last thing diplomacy needs is a perfect, unambiguous understanding of what is being said.
As has been said -- people who are not familiar with Diplomacy (eg. Engineers) wouldn't find this particularly harsh at all; in fact, most Americans, for example, would find it extremely difficult to hold any kind of meaningful discussion without such "harsh language."
Sadly, this actually explains much in the history of US international affairs.
Nice post, though -- it explains to the unwashed masses about some of the minutae of diplomacy.
Somehow I think that the extradition trial wouldn't go well for the French.
I can see it now, on CNN: "An American college student was arrested today for putting the source code for software on the Internet today. Source code can be thought of as a 'recipie' for software, which the student wrote himself, and provided to anyone interested without cost. While he commited no crime in the United States, nor has he ever visited Europe, the French government wants to prosecute him for copyright violations"
Americans are a fickle lot, and publically call for sanctions against a country that used public caning as a punishment for the crimes a young man committed in a foreign land.
The backlash against a country (espescially France) that tries to extradite an American who used his 'freedom of the press' would be extreme.
While the Lawyers of US corporations (such as Electronic Arts) write threatening letters to foreign persons for violating the DMCA, it's nothing but hot air -- the DMCA has no force outside the US; every judge know quite well that it's not legal to prosecute someone outside the US for doing something outside the US. (There are actually quite a few bittorrent search sites that post the threats from EA, their response, etc. -- Apparently, no actual prosecution has ever happened.) The original Napster was shut down because it was in the US; were it in Sweden, I doubt the outcome would have been the same.
The US can't extradite/prosecute a Dutch guy for "possession of Marajuana", when the only time he was "posessed" the drug was in Amsterdam.
I don't understand, "tried" to patent it? You couldn't scrape up enough for the filing fee or something?
Not many Americans can afford the $40-50k USD or so it costs to file a patent.
And why should a business try to patent it? It's so much more cost effective to pay off a congressman...
Considering nVIDIA's engineers have publicly stated that they hadn't finished designing (let alone debugging/testing) the silicon when the PS3 videos were made public, I'd say it's a safe bet to say there's no way in hell the graphics weren't pre-rendered. If the graphics chip wasn't designed yet, then it's not possible to have one fabricated and rendering the movies for E3.
Nintendo has already said that while the Revolution will definitely be an improvement over the GameCube, it won't have the kind of quality you see in the 360 or the PS3.
I have no real love for any of the console makers; but I will say this: I've grown ever so tired of fanboys making up factoids to try to claim their favorite system is better than the rest (espescially when the numbers aren't in their favor, and neither is a side-by-side comparison).
I can honestly say I'm most sick of the Sony fanboys. But this is probably as much a function of the market share as it is of anything else. (And don't try for one second to convince me that the PS2 has better graphics than the GameCube or the X-Box; it's obvious the PS2 is lacking in that area, espescially to someone who has all three systems. Can't the Sony fanboys figure out that a year's development goes a long way in the graphics department?)
Off of this metric, I would say the PS3 will probably have better graphics than the 360 -- simply because the PS3 will have newer technology than the 360. A six-month old graphics card has a significant enough difference to a brand new one to substantiate the belief.
OTOH, the Revolution will probably come out last, and will have the worst graphics of the bunch -- but I'm also confident it will have the higest profit margins by far. There's something to be said about being 'good enough' and inexpensive.
IIRC, the phrase 'engineer' goes back at least to the time of the Roman Army; the engineers were the guys who were building and operating the seige engines. (Ballista's, catapaults, etc.)
(sorta like 'musketeer' is a guy who fires a musket)
For me, the key thing is it's free for noncommercial use. If it's being used commercially, though, it's an entirely different ball game. At least with GPL and BSD code, you have the freedom to use it in a corporate setting. I certainly know this is why I don't (and can't) use libgoto.
AMD's Core Math Libraries are at least free beer, even to corporate customers; and the performance difference (at least on Linpack) is virtually nil. And since both are closed source -- I'll take the free beer.
My employer donates a sizeable amount of R&D and bugfixes to GPL'd code (including the Linux kernel); we release the code and/or fixes as soon as it's been validated. GPL and BSD code gives us the freedom to use and improve the softare we use. That freedom counts for a lot more than the free beer aspect of free software, but the cost is certainly a factor.
Mr. Goto only recently (Sep-Oct, IIRC) changed the license so even the use of his library required either non-commercial use or a license to be purchased. Previously we could at least use his library to boost our linpack numbers, then delete libgoto and software compiled against it; now we simply ignore libgoto entirely, and turn to his competition instead.
The thing Mr. Goto seems to discount is that his competitors know how to read raw machine code just fine; this is in no small part because two of his biggest competitors (Intel's MKL and AMD's ACML) are from the same corporations which design the chips on which his code runs.
There's money to be made in it, and both AMD and Intel will reverse-engineer his (and each other's) techniques. libgoto is a single library, with rather well-defined, discrete, component functions. Reverse-engineering library that is so thoroughly defined as BLAS isn't trivial, but it is also quite possible. You already know the inputs and the outputs, you know what mathematically happens in the middle -- after that even machine code becomes fairly simple to read.
I don't think the laws reguarding the use of the title "Engineer" are at all stupid; they were first enacted because people had died because of a greedy businessman (with no training, etc) decided that he could design a million gallon storage tank just as well, as one of them college boys, and for less money too. He was wrong (on both counts), people died, and the government decided that the licensing engineers was necessary for the safety of the public.
On another hand, it can be argued quite well that lawmakers are also noted for wanting to control (and micro-manage) everything through regulating the hell out of it, which nobody but lawyers really want.
I know exactly what you mean when you say that you can't get a PE license: I'm in exactly the same boat (I'm a Computer Engineer as well, and have also had the same kind of education, ABET accredited.) I know perfectly well that to get a PE license, I'd have to work under other PE's -- something that is almost impossible for an EE, and even more difficult for a CompE. I also know that I'd have to take a number of classes just to cover materials that weren't in my curriculum.
But this is not really the case with guys who are civil or mechanical engineers, though -- at my university, you had to pass the FE exam to get your degree in Civil or Mechanical Engineering; only Electrical and Computer engineers could finish without passing the FE exam. (Indeed, ECE students were actively discouraged from even trying to take the FE, because as you point out, passing the FE is only the first step in getting a PE license... and it's nigh unto impossible for an EE or CompE to get the mentorship qualification.) I personally wanted to get a PE license, if only because my father is a PE. (although he's a Civil Engineer, not a Computer Engineer).
The current state of a PE license isn't practical for a Computer or Electrical engineer; however as liabilities for poorly designed electronic and computer equipment rises, I'm confident that some lawmaker will decide to try and make a name for himself by forcing Computer and Electrical Engineers to be licensed PE's as well. (and make the requisite changes to the PE requirements)
It's equally feasable that for certain kinds of software (such as flight control systems, medical equipment, and nuclear reactor software), software engineers will also have to be licensed PE's.
These are the same jokers who take public safety to such extremes that a soda bottle cap has to have a warning label on it 'contents under pressure; open with caution!' I wouldn't put such regulation past them.
Why should it fall on the engineers?
Legal responsibility, that's why. The whole point of a Professional Engineer can be summed up as "the buck stops here, and I can vouch for every piece of the design, so if the design was followed, I agree (personally; not my company) to pay the penalties."
Most people don't know this, but 'Engineer' is not some phrase you can toss around or apply as desired. It's actually a legally defined term, such as 'Attorney,' 'Medical Doctor,' 'Registered Nurse,' or 'Senator'. As is the case with the title 'attorney' or 'M.D.', it's a criminal offense to call onself an Engineer if s/he don't have a Bachelors (or better) degree from an accredited university, as well as having been officially tested and licenced by the proper governmental authorities (and have the requisite number of years of experience in the field, and have your apprenticeship signed off by multiple Professional Engineers). You can't just tack the name 'Engineer' to a job and/or title; as is the case with Attorney, in which you have to be licensed by Bar, or a Medical Doctor, in which you have to be certified by the boards, an Engineer must also meet similar requirements.
The law was written to allow only competent, licenced individuals to make decisions that can have lethal consequences. Professional Engineers are quite aware of the consequences should they not perform their job with all dilligence.
While it's been fashionable lately for tech wannabies to tack the phrase 'Engineer' to their job description; ie. "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer", or "Certified Netware Engineer", 'network engineer', this practice is illegal and punishible as fraud in most localities. (Microsoft can call it whatever they want; but technically, you can only say you have an MCSE certificate, not that you're an Engineer.)
The practice has really only survived because Engineers, in general, don't get all pissy about people abusing their official/professional title. Hell, I only mention it for education's sake: I have an Engineering degree, I legally can't call myself an Engineer for precicely this reason -- I'm not professionally licensed by the state (nor can I become licenced until I have a few years more experience). Yet when people ask, I tell them I'm an Engineer...
Of course, in the case of people misusing the title of Attorneys or Medical Doctors... I can understand the Doctors worrying-- I wouldn't want to find out my 'doctor' simply put the initials 'M.D.' on his front door. But who in their right mind would want to piss off the same profession that includes the prosecuting attorney, the judge, and the guy defending you?
In every state in the USA (and pretty much every other democratic nation), a Professional Engineer has to sign his (or her) name to every design before it can be sold and/or built. If the design is found to be faulty, civil cases (for money) can be brought against the company. Criminal cases can be brought against the engineer for his/her negligence. Such cases against engineers aren't uncommon (IIRC, it happened to the engineers who signed off the design of the World Trade Center).
Mechanical engineers are the ones who are (legally) responsible for any thermal issues involved in a design.
Electrical Engineers don't generally have to be professionally licenced; case in point: at my university, two of the EE professors are licenced. All of the ME professors are. EE students don't have to pass the FE (fundamentals of engineering) exam to get their degree; ME students do. The number of cases where it's required to be a licenced EE are currently quite small; the largest one is to be an expert witness in a court of law. But an ME needs the licence for just about everything he does.
A good part of this is difference is maturity: The understanding of electrical devices is only a couple of centuries old; however mechanical devices are a couple millenia more mature. I'm sure a century from now, an E
Note: I'm not a MS apologist; I'm cynically pointing out how MS follows the hive in its 'release first, fix later' culture. MS doesn't lead the pack any more than any other worker bee. The queen is the almighty dollar; make no mistake.
There's a reason you can buy a T-Shirt that says "It Compiles! Ship it!"
Many of Microsoft's problems aren't exactly unique to Microsoft.
Debugging is not the problem, the rush to market is to blame here, plain and simple.
I recall the original X-Box having similar issues when it was launched. BFD; Microsoft isn't exactly alone in releasing first, fixing later. They're probably not even the worst at the game.
At least with PC games, it's become par for the course that the game will be quite unstable until the 2nd or 3rd patch.
Most people I know won't deploy a new verision of Windows until the 1st service pack.
Welcome to the world of rushed releases of incredibly complex systems.
Engineer says: "How does it work?"
Manager says: "When will it work?"
Manager usually wins, engineer doesn't get his questions answered, and as a result there are bugs.
Leaving the customer to complain: "Why doesn't it work?"
Everybody knows that Jesus 'rode into town' on a Harley Davidson. Stop trying to spread your revisionist theories on history.