how would one go about contributing to such a project?
The exact details depend on the project, but in general:
(1) Visit the project's website. (2) Download the source code. There should be links on the site for this. (3) Study the code, start tinkering with it, learn how it works. (4) Possibly subscribe to the developer's mailing list. Find out what the hot topics are for the project. (5) Also, study the issue tracker to find out what bugs need fixing. (6) When you feel comfortable with the workings of the code, start thinking about how you can improve it. Think small to start with. See if you can fix a few bugs. (7) Submit your fixes using the instructions on the site. This will usually be via a code repository system like SVN. (8) Hopefully your fixes will be accepted by the project leadership. If not, don't panic -- maybe you missed something? Maybe you didn't stick to their coding style? Whatever, talk it through with them, find out the problem, and try again. (and if you do get accepted first time, don't let it go to your head!) (9) Congratulations you have now contributed to an OSS project.
You've hit the nail on the head with the question about relevant experience -- it's the first thing people look for when hiring; it's way more important than qualifications.
I see two ways to get in:
(a) Contribute to some OSS projects that are relevant to the sort of coding you want to get into. Bear in mind that it will take you some time to build up enough experience doing this for it to really count for anything.
(b) Look for coding jobs in the industry you were previously in -- ie a cross-over job. For example, if you were previously a sales person for widgets, and you know loads about the various types of widgets and how they work, etc, you might find that a widget manufacturer or sales company might be willing to hire you as a coder based on your expertise in widgets rather than in coding. You'll still need to know how to write code of course, but I'm guessing you know enough already to be able to get through an interview once you've managed to get one.
You say that, but it took five years of market stagnation after MS cornered the market for anyone else to rise to challenge them.
So yes, the competition is good, and it does seem to have stung MS back into life developing new code, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement of the free market.
It's one thing to block your callerID from being presented to the end user - in that case, the intermediary telcos will still be able to see the callerID; they pass it between themselves, but just don't pass it to the final end user. That's how this system works -- because they're a telco, they get to see the callerID, but unlike other telcos, they've decided to pass the information on regardless.
But what about spoofed callerIDs? They're the ones that I feel would be genuinely useful to unmask. But sadly, this system won't work in these cases. If the callerID is tampered with at source, that tampered value is what gets passed between the telcos, so there's nothing useful that can be unmasked.
The biggest issue I see with this tech on the moon is that not many substances exist as a liquid in a vacuum, and while I appreciate that the lunar surface isn't a true vacuum, it's good enough that your telescope would either evaporate or freeze almost immediately.
That said, if you could get a liquid mirror up there and spin it into shape, you could then expose it to the outside temperature to freeze it, and you'd remove the need to keep spinning it forever.
Dude, you're missing the point -- the intention has everything to do with it.
Legally, intention makes all the difference as to what you can be convicted of.
In the UK we have charges of Murder and Manslaughter. One of the key differences is whether you intended to do it or not.
Most other charges have similar levels of distinction: some that merely require proof that you did it; others that require proof of intent to secure a conviction.
So whether he intended to do it is very relevant -- not necessarily to whether to convict him, but certainly what to convict him of.
And my understanding is that the lesser charge, (ie the one without the requirement of intent, to which he freely admits) is not sufficient grounds for extradition, whereas the higher charge is. That's why it matters whether he meant to cause harm or not.
Yikes. It sounds like you almost went out of your way to think of negatives for every point there.
And yet for all your negatives, you completely missed the point of the post you're arguing against.
He's not trying to sell you on specifics like getting a wind turbine of your own; he's trying to tell you that there are alternatives to your current fuels which will be beneficial for you to use, even if you ignore the environmental aspects. Heck, you don't even have to do anything; just buy energy from people who are doing something instead of those who aren't.
I've come to really appreciate the power of Freecycle.
You give stuff away, so it's kinda like taking it to the charity shop, except that (a) the person who gets it is usually someone who really wants it, and (b) they come and pick it up, so you don't even have to take it anywhere.
And if you post it on freecycle and no-one is interested, then you can do what you were planning anyway and take it to the charities.
So consider freecycle for this. And if you're doing a mass clear-out as you said in your post, I'd suggest considering it for all the other stuff you're getting rid of.
Couldn't you get a used laptop that beats those specs for $130? Granted, you would almost certainly need to buy a new battery for said used laptop, but nonetheless I don't see the advantage of this system.
If you're going to go down that path, you could likely get one for free if you're prepared to trawl through Freecycle, wait for someone to offer what you're looking for, and then hope that you're the first one to reply.
So yes, you can get a used laptop for less than the cost of a similarly specced new one. Nothing new there. And yet for some reason, new laptops continue to sell... hmmm, there must be some other reason people buy new?;-)
Start cherishing those static ads while they last.... the moment we work out how to put animations on paper cheaply, you'll be seeing animated adverts in magazines (and even worse, animated cereal packets).
Eeek.
Almost makes me wish that display technology wasn't progressing as fast as it is.
Since Drake's equation needs to know the proportions of stars with planets, it would require us to have known negative results as well as known positives in order for it to give any meaningful results.
At the moment, we can say there are a few hundred planets, out of maybe a few thousand stars that we've scanned, but for the stars where we haven't found anything, we don't know for sure whether that's because there isn't anything there, or because we just aren't looking hard enough.
Maybe not, but the UK is much more similar, and I've stood in a Dixons store here and listened to the salesman talking to a novice about the EeePC on display, explaining its OS as "Linux is low powered and suitable for a beginner."
Granted, Dixons aren't the only people selling EeePCs, but they are definitely targetting EeePC at the less technically savvy.
One thing I wouldn't suggest is to leave now -- you can always quit after the shakeup if it doesn't work out for you, but even if there are layoffs and your job looks shaky, stick around until after they've happened; they may keep you on after all, and even if they don't, there ought to be a payout for making you redundant.
You should definitely make sure you CV/resume is up to date, though -- if the worst happens, you'll need to get it out there quickly.
A friend of mine was made redundant in a shakeup like this. It was the best thing that ever happened to him. (well, best work-related thing, anyway...;-))
He had been there a number of years, so he got a really decent payout when they made him redundant (tax-free in this country too! don't know whether that's the case everywhere), and he went straight from there to a better paid job.
Along the same lines, the industrial revolution gave birth to a weaving loom that was "programmed" using punch cards to set the weaving pattern. See The Jacquard loom.
Again, whether this counts as code and whether it counts as running are for the reader to decide. But they still exist and can still be used (albeit generally only for historical curiosity).
You can say anything with statistics, particularly when you're trying to show how much something costs.
I can take that exact same stat, and say that it's given businesses a $60 billion saving. Just think how much more competitive our businesses are now that they're saving all that money!
So you see, it's a double-edged sword: a cost to one person is a saving to another.
The fact is that when you start talking about that sort of money, it's never actually as clear-cut as a single statistic can make it sound. Anyone who does try to boil it down to a simplistic headline like that is almost certainly trying to put their own spin on it. (and yes, that includes me)
Notwithstanding the fact that IBM is ultimately responsible for these pay-cuts, the net effect of this is that one group of employees (those currently doing loads of overtime and not getting paid for it) have won an argument with their employer, but gained nothing from it (they'll end up earning about the same as they were), but at the same time have adversely affected another bunch of employees (those who weren't doing any overtime, and will thus be earning substantially less than before).
I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain extent here, but the fact remains that if you sue your employer, you shouldn't expect to come out with a good relationship with them. Even if you win the argument, you're likely to lose in the long run (or in this case, almost immediately).
The entity[ies] running the simulation created it to find out whether their creations could work out that they're in a simulation. As soon as we come up with a definite proof, they will have achieved the goals of the simulation, and will shut it down.
Possibly.
Or they might just replace it with something even more baffling.
I'm fairly sure Spaceship 1 was only able to get to sub-orbital altitudes. Assuming Spaceship 2 will have the same capabilities, surely that's a bit of a problem for their plans to launch satelites?
They're letting you make the decision? Woah. Most places I can think of would have mandated a set of standard applications. Granted you didn't get the applications you should have got, but you still have the previous standard ones, so I'd be surprised if you weren't required to use them.
However, if you really do have the choice, I would definitely at least *show* the alternate apps to your students. Preferably, teach them how to use both sets of apps, and emphasise how they do things differently -- It's a very powerful learning tool to see how two different apps achieve the same goals; it makes your students think about what the goals are and thus getting a deeper understanding of what the software is actually doing, rather than just learning a single app parrot fashion, where they may learn how to do specific tasks, but never get the ability to imagine what else is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
how would one go about contributing to such a project?
The exact details depend on the project, but in general:
(1) Visit the project's website.
(2) Download the source code. There should be links on the site for this.
(3) Study the code, start tinkering with it, learn how it works.
(4) Possibly subscribe to the developer's mailing list. Find out what the hot topics are for the project.
(5) Also, study the issue tracker to find out what bugs need fixing.
(6) When you feel comfortable with the workings of the code, start thinking about how you can improve it. Think small to start with. See if you can fix a few bugs.
(7) Submit your fixes using the instructions on the site. This will usually be via a code repository system like SVN.
(8) Hopefully your fixes will be accepted by the project leadership. If not, don't panic -- maybe you missed something? Maybe you didn't stick to their coding style? Whatever, talk it through with them, find out the problem, and try again. (and if you do get accepted first time, don't let it go to your head!)
(9) Congratulations you have now contributed to an OSS project.
You've hit the nail on the head with the question about relevant experience -- it's the first thing people look for when hiring; it's way more important than qualifications.
I see two ways to get in:
(a) Contribute to some OSS projects that are relevant to the sort of coding you want to get into. Bear in mind that it will take you some time to build up enough experience doing this for it to really count for anything.
(b) Look for coding jobs in the industry you were previously in -- ie a cross-over job. For example, if you were previously a sales person for widgets, and you know loads about the various types of widgets and how they work, etc, you might find that a widget manufacturer or sales company might be willing to hire you as a coder based on your expertise in widgets rather than in coding. You'll still need to know how to write code of course, but I'm guessing you know enough already to be able to get through an interview once you've managed to get one.
This whole market thingy seems to work.
You say that, but it took five years of market stagnation after MS cornered the market for anyone else to rise to challenge them.
So yes, the competition is good, and it does seem to have stung MS back into life developing new code, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement of the free market.
It's one thing to block your callerID from being presented to the end user - in that case, the intermediary telcos will still be able to see the callerID; they pass it between themselves, but just don't pass it to the final end user. That's how this system works -- because they're a telco, they get to see the callerID, but unlike other telcos, they've decided to pass the information on regardless.
But what about spoofed callerIDs? They're the ones that I feel would be genuinely useful to unmask. But sadly, this system won't work in these cases. If the callerID is tampered with at source, that tampered value is what gets passed between the telcos, so there's nothing useful that can be unmasked.
The biggest issue I see with this tech on the moon is that not many substances exist as a liquid in a vacuum, and while I appreciate that the lunar surface isn't a true vacuum, it's good enough that your telescope would either evaporate or freeze almost immediately.
That said, if you could get a liquid mirror up there and spin it into shape, you could then expose it to the outside temperature to freeze it, and you'd remove the need to keep spinning it forever.
This was a good day for me to wear my "Beware the quantum duck -- Quark quark" T-shirt.
Dude, you're missing the point -- the intention has everything to do with it.
Legally, intention makes all the difference as to what you can be convicted of.
In the UK we have charges of Murder and Manslaughter. One of the key differences is whether you intended to do it or not.
Most other charges have similar levels of distinction: some that merely require proof that you did it; others that require proof of intent to secure a conviction.
So whether he intended to do it is very relevant -- not necessarily to whether to convict him, but certainly what to convict him of.
And my understanding is that the lesser charge, (ie the one without the requirement of intent, to which he freely admits) is not sufficient grounds for extradition, whereas the higher charge is. That's why it matters whether he meant to cause harm or not.
Yikes. It sounds like you almost went out of your way to think of negatives for every point there.
And yet for all your negatives, you completely missed the point of the post you're arguing against.
He's not trying to sell you on specifics like getting a wind turbine of your own; he's trying to tell you that there are alternatives to your current fuels which will be beneficial for you to use, even if you ignore the environmental aspects. Heck, you don't even have to do anything; just buy energy from people who are doing something instead of those who aren't.
Freecycle it.
I've come to really appreciate the power of Freecycle.
You give stuff away, so it's kinda like taking it to the charity shop, except that (a) the person who gets it is usually someone who really wants it, and (b) they come and pick it up, so you don't even have to take it anywhere.
And if you post it on freecycle and no-one is interested, then you can do what you were planning anyway and take it to the charities.
So consider freecycle for this. And if you're doing a mass clear-out as you said in your post, I'd suggest considering it for all the other stuff you're getting rid of.
Why are they making this out to be so hard to work out?
It's not like it's rocket science.... ....oh, wait...
Couldn't you get a used laptop that beats those specs for $130? Granted, you would almost certainly need to buy a new battery for said used laptop, but nonetheless I don't see the advantage of this system.
If you're going to go down that path, you could likely get one for free if you're prepared to trawl through Freecycle, wait for someone to offer what you're looking for, and then hope that you're the first one to reply.
So yes, you can get a used laptop for less than the cost of a similarly specced new one. Nothing new there. And yet for some reason, new laptops continue to sell ... hmmm, there must be some other reason people buy new? ;-)
Start cherishing those static ads while they last .... the moment we work out how to put animations on paper cheaply, you'll be seeing animated adverts in magazines (and even worse, animated cereal packets).
Eeek.
Almost makes me wish that display technology wasn't progressing as fast as it is.
Since Drake's equation needs to know the proportions of stars with planets, it would require us to have known negative results as well as known positives in order for it to give any meaningful results.
At the moment, we can say there are a few hundred planets, out of maybe a few thousand stars that we've scanned, but for the stars where we haven't found anything, we don't know for sure whether that's because there isn't anything there, or because we just aren't looking hard enough.
Taiwan culture is not US culture, of course.
Maybe not, but the UK is much more similar, and I've stood in a Dixons store here and listened to the salesman talking to a novice about the EeePC on display, explaining its OS as "Linux is low powered and suitable for a beginner."
Granted, Dixons aren't the only people selling EeePCs, but they are definitely targetting EeePC at the less technically savvy.
One thing I wouldn't suggest is to leave now -- you can always quit after the shakeup if it doesn't work out for you, but even if there are layoffs and your job looks shaky, stick around until after they've happened; they may keep you on after all, and even if they don't, there ought to be a payout for making you redundant.
You should definitely make sure you CV/resume is up to date, though -- if the worst happens, you'll need to get it out there quickly.
A friend of mine was made redundant in a shakeup like this. It was the best thing that ever happened to him. (well, best work-related thing, anyway... ;-))
He had been there a number of years, so he got a really decent payout when they made him redundant (tax-free in this country too! don't know whether that's the case everywhere), and he went straight from there to a better paid job.
I'll second that. I enjoyed some of his books.
As an aside, he came and visited our school once, and did a talk in our class.
When I was a pre-teen, I got hooked on John Wyndham.
His best known book is Day Of The Triffids, but he wrote quite a few more, including some very very good stuff.
I also enjoyed the Tripod series by John Christopher (sorry, I forget the names of the actual books in the series).
Along the same lines, the industrial revolution gave birth to a weaving loom that was "programmed" using punch cards to set the weaving pattern. See The Jacquard loom.
Again, whether this counts as code and whether it counts as running are for the reader to decide. But they still exist and can still be used (albeit generally only for historical curiosity).
You can say anything with statistics, particularly when you're trying to show how much something costs.
I can take that exact same stat, and say that it's given businesses a $60 billion saving. Just think how much more competitive our businesses are now that they're saving all that money!
So you see, it's a double-edged sword: a cost to one person is a saving to another.
The fact is that when you start talking about that sort of money, it's never actually as clear-cut as a single statistic can make it sound. Anyone who does try to boil it down to a simplistic headline like that is almost certainly trying to put their own spin on it. (and yes, that includes me)
Notwithstanding the fact that IBM is ultimately responsible for these pay-cuts, the net effect of this is that one group of employees (those currently doing loads of overtime and not getting paid for it) have won an argument with their employer, but gained nothing from it (they'll end up earning about the same as they were), but at the same time have adversely affected another bunch of employees (those who weren't doing any overtime, and will thus be earning substantially less than before). I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain extent here, but the fact remains that if you sue your employer, you shouldn't expect to come out with a good relationship with them. Even if you win the argument, you're likely to lose in the long run (or in this case, almost immediately).
To extend the hypothesis:
The entity[ies] running the simulation created it to find out whether their creations could work out that they're in a simulation. As soon as we come up with a definite proof, they will have achieved the goals of the simulation, and will shut it down.
Possibly.
Or they might just replace it with something even more baffling.
Okay, so certain institutions are editing Wikipedia.
Uh.... yes.... and your problem with that is....?
What part of "anyone can edit it" don't you understand?
Of course, this'll really screw them up when they try to apply it to their deliveries in the UK....
I'm fairly sure Spaceship 1 was only able to get to sub-orbital altitudes. Assuming Spaceship 2 will have the same capabilities, surely that's a bit of a problem for their plans to launch satelites?
They're letting you make the decision? Woah. Most places I can think of would have mandated a set of standard applications. Granted you didn't get the applications you should have got, but you still have the previous standard ones, so I'd be surprised if you weren't required to use them.
However, if you really do have the choice, I would definitely at least *show* the alternate apps to your students. Preferably, teach them how to use both sets of apps, and emphasise how they do things differently -- It's a very powerful learning tool to see how two different apps achieve the same goals; it makes your students think about what the goals are and thus getting a deeper understanding of what the software is actually doing, rather than just learning a single app parrot fashion, where they may learn how to do specific tasks, but never get the ability to imagine what else is possible.