With a regular job you're often also expected to be on call 24-7, as well as expected to stay in the office at times for very long hours.
I agree regarding the family down sides, and I experience them, but I'd much rather have my wife take advantage of me being there than have her permanently dissatisfied because I'm never there to help with the kids.
As others have said, it depends on the company you're working for and people you work with, and it also depends on you. I communicate a lot with my boss over Skype, and I think our work relationship is very good. I also think that for every distraction you have at home you can be equally distracted at work. At home you might have a wife and kids, at work you might take extended coffee breaks with your co-workers.
From Ars Technica's discussion on the subject from last year it looks like Apple is actually considering open source in its license. The GPL is a special case, and IMO the solution should be similar to YouTube and copyrighted videos. That is, there should be a channel for the FSF or others to complain about GPL apps and for Apple to remove them as a result.
Both cases being true make Open Source (or rather, Free Software) unwelcome on both Microsoft and Apple's mobile platforms
If by "Free Software" you mean copyleft, then yes, but that's simply because copyleft licenses (and in particular GPL) are limited in the usage they allow. The app store situation is unlikely to change and is likely to become even more common as the main computing platform moves further away from being PC-centric. IMO if GPL wants to remain relevant it needs to adapt. It should be possible to create a copyleft license which takes into consideration app stores and closed devices. Other source code licenses are compatible with these app stores, and might gain more traction if GPL remains incompatible.
I agree that angel'o'sphere overstated the complexity in some respects. However, you're also oversimplifying it. First of all, shouldn't every file in the source include the GPL license or a reference to it? That's a bit of work. Besides that, for many projects there's need to detail dependencies, get source codes from various directories into that archive, and so on.
IMO the most work is in making your source presentable. I guess that's why some open source comes uncommented, as it's easier to strip the comments out than to make sure they're relevant and readable.
There are also potential complications. For example if you become aware of stepping over a patent after you've first distributed your code, it looks like you could be in trouble.
On second thought, I take it back. GPL could probably be summed up by "make all your code available under GPL". While the distance between this and GPL is larger than between the other simplifications and their corresponding licenses, I imagine that no one will hold you to the finer details if you comply with this part. The complexity arises when the distinction between content and code isn't clear, as in the case of the web.
Still, more effort is required to comply than with other licenses, especially if you care about how your code looks to other people.
It's just my experience. Commercial libraries and code, even if they do have legalese underneath, are typically offered with simple explanations and detailed FAQ's which simplify the understanding substantially. I guess that's because commercial offerings sell the licensing terms and it helps the buyer decide which of several different licensing terms to get. I also think that these licenses, even in legalese, are simpler than the GPL. Some open source licenses may be simplified to "include this license text with your app" or "mention the original source of all the code", and commercial license may be "may be used by a single named developer" or "for one project" or "paying such and such royalties". GPL may be summed as "make available all your source code, distribute it all under GPL, mark and date any changes, and include the license." This is simplified to the point where it doesn't represent the GPL all that well, and still it's much more complex than other licenses. It also requires more work than other licenses to comply with.
That's why in my opinion using GPL code is a bad choice for many projects, including personal ones. The only reason I see to use GPL is if you are a proponent of this specific license due to the ideology behind it.
When I looked at using a CMS for a personal website, I discounted any which used GPL3, because I couldn't be sure that if I changed a template I would need to make it available, not to mention doing a small code change. It's not that I mind sharing, it's just that it's a hassle and it just worries me that if I use a GPL3 CMS I'm opening up a pandora's box. I don't know if that's really the case, but because these licenses are complex to decipher and GPL has a reputation, it's not something I want to risk. So even though it's not for profit, and I don't have a real problem sharing the changes I did, I'd rather stay away and not be liable for anything.
The problem with many of the open source licenses is that they are complex. A commercial license to source code or libraries typically gives you simple terms: certain people can use the code for certain purposes for a certain number of projects for a certain amount of money. Some open source licenses, GPL in particular, contain tons of legalese and conditions which IMO makes such licenses best avoided by most developers, regardless of whether they're used for commercial purposes or not.
Minimising is obviously an important feature to you, but I rarely use it, so I'd appreciate it if you could tell me its benefit over just bringing the window you're interested in working on to the front.
Thanks for the clarification, but I still don't understand why you make the distinction between free and for-fee software. Is that because you assume that software that doesn't cost money is typically inferior, so you look to commercial offerings to lead the way with new algorithms, or is it because you feel that you can't rightly ask authors of free software to make their software efficient because you're not paying for it?
Most people hate the Tolkien estate. Copyright was made to encourage creativity. The Tolkien estate is the best example of how copyright law is used to stifle it instead.
Most software has already been like this for quite a few years. Windows system requirements have had a bump with Vista but dropped down with 7. Browsers have become a lot faster on the same hardware. People have stuck with low end systems and that has made all software (apart perhaps from AAA games) take a step back. Software developers aren't stupid; they don't aim at what the market can't sustain. (And by the way, why target commercial software only? Open source is just as susceptible to bloat. Take OpenOffice and its derivative for example, which tend to be quite sluggish, more so than many commercial suites.)
Well said. The problem is that programmes aimed at intelligent people have a smaller audience which is also harder to target with ads (or skips them). Sci Fi is even more problematic because it typically uses special effects, which makes it more costly than normal dramas, which are again more costly than reality shows.
I will also predict that it'll be shown that Closed Source isn't much better in that regard...
Agreed. The research could very well show that any non-Microsoft product is more costly than a Microsoft one. This would be easy to show at least for desktop operating systems and office suites, where Microsoft products are used by most people and therefore using any other product requires some adjustment.
Of course nobody will publish such a research because it's much easier to take pot shots at open source than at large corporations.
Tablets have many practical uses, such as web browsing, social media, media playback, gaming and others. There are other devices which can do these, but tablets offer them in a way that may be more convenient for some.
As you say, part of what affects your perception of their uselessness is price. Another is your personal needs and biases.
BTW, the OP might want a toy. He wants the tablet for hacking, i.e., for fun. A lot of advanced PC users also use their PC's as toys. That doesn't mean that PC's are just toys, or that tablets are.
It's the kind of post that says "I have some experience with the iPad and I love it; don't have a clue about Android." Your definition of hackability probably also differs from the OP, but you still have a point.
Just a pseudo-random date, but I hope it will give you the incentive to go out and buy something soon.
If I were to buy an Android tablet now, mainly for hackability, I'd go for an inexpensive one just to test the waters. I find the Nook Color an attractive option, but you can also get a generic tablet like this one: http://www.nowsupplier.com/android-22-os-tablet-inch-with-freescale-imx515-cortex-a8-chip-support-flash-player-10512m-ram-p-1413.html. I believe that the first experience with a new type of device should be with a low end (but not completely crappy) version, so that you get an idea what you want to do with it and what's important to you, and buy a second one that fits your real requirements later.
The other option is just to go ahead and buy an Android phone. That's what I decided to do after some consideration (haven't bought it yet). That's because a phone is something that gets more use and you carry with you more often, and it has pretty much the same specs except a smaller screen.
You comment shows that you should change the font on your browser to something less readable, since you completely missed the part about the research done on highschool children with actual real world material.
One of the things I remember from Freakonomics is how giving an option to pay for something takes away any moral issues doing it. Being able to pay for speeding tells people that speeding is okay, it's just an issue of money. Actually, if he really does feel that the speed limit should be much higher, then it's a decent way to make some money.
I agree that recording her perspective and memories is more important than recording her as she is now.
What you will be missing is here stories about this and that, like the special things she remembers about the girls (that you might not remember, or don't think are important, or have a different recollection of), about her family and about her time with you. I know that I appreciate hearing stories about me and my sisters from my mother, or even anecdotes about my 2-year-old from my wife, that I don't really remember (I have a pretty bad memory).
These memories might be good for bringing you together now, and to keep her presence alive in the future.
I think you nailed it: all it'd mean a few generations from now is the ability to go to a museum or see a TV documentary on it, and for that all you need is a clip of gameplay. I'm sure some historians would love to get their hands on a game in its original form, but most people will not care. How many are interested in (or even capable of) reading a three thousand years bible scroll? And that's the highest profile book of all times. So sure, most people are happy when something like that is found, but that's because we know how very little information we have of the past. And still very few would be interested in seeing that.
So while I think that it'd be nice to be able to save video games, I do agree with JeffSh that for most people this will mean very little. Most people want to see new things all the time, or occasionally high quality things of the past, and video games' perceived quality degrades a lot faster than any other form of art.
The works of Beethoven or Picasso aren't being preserved. They are alive, people are still interested in listening to them or viewing them. So a good question will be: is it worth saving works of art which are of no current interest? That's a good question, but let's assume for the moment we're interested in works which people want.
If you look just at games which people may still be interested in playing, then emulators work for that. The claim that emulators won't last forever doesn't matter, because if they don't last it means people have lost interest in the platform. Also, I see games more like a play than a book, that is, recreating them is fine, and there's no need to save the exact experience behind the original. It's the game design and writing which makes a game. I don't think there's need to save Serious Sam when there's Serious Sam HD, for example.
I do think that some games need to be saved, but the main obstacle to this is copyright (and possibly other IP). Games which have been released as open source get an extended life. See Quake for example (which is also a case where there are different implementations yet I still consider them the same game). One solution would be for game developers to have to deposit a copy of the source code and art assets into a central library.
I'd like to see you paid for about 7 years after you wrote the work.
That's a fine sentiment, but those who copy content illegally usually do it to content which was just released, or even before it's released.
The big problem at the moment is... that artists (well, publishers really) are demanding payment for works for literally hundreds of years after they were first produced.
Anyone can demand money for a public domain work, just like anyone can legally sell you GPL software. But can you give one example of a hundreds year old work which cannot be freely copied? That's considerably more than the copyright term has ever been.
Slashdot Mirror
Some IT workers are already trolls, and it's best for their co-workers that they telecommute.
With a regular job you're often also expected to be on call 24-7, as well as expected to stay in the office at times for very long hours.
I agree regarding the family down sides, and I experience them, but I'd much rather have my wife take advantage of me being there than have her permanently dissatisfied because I'm never there to help with the kids.
As others have said, it depends on the company you're working for and people you work with, and it also depends on you. I communicate a lot with my boss over Skype, and I think our work relationship is very good. I also think that for every distraction you have at home you can be equally distracted at work. At home you might have a wife and kids, at work you might take extended coffee breaks with your co-workers.
From Ars Technica's discussion on the subject from last year it looks like Apple is actually considering open source in its license. The GPL is a special case, and IMO the solution should be similar to YouTube and copyrighted videos. That is, there should be a channel for the FSF or others to complain about GPL apps and for Apple to remove them as a result.
Both cases being true make Open Source (or rather, Free Software) unwelcome on both Microsoft and Apple's mobile platforms
If by "Free Software" you mean copyleft, then yes, but that's simply because copyleft licenses (and in particular GPL) are limited in the usage they allow. The app store situation is unlikely to change and is likely to become even more common as the main computing platform moves further away from being PC-centric. IMO if GPL wants to remain relevant it needs to adapt. It should be possible to create a copyleft license which takes into consideration app stores and closed devices. Other source code licenses are compatible with these app stores, and might gain more traction if GPL remains incompatible.
I agree that angel'o'sphere overstated the complexity in some respects. However, you're also oversimplifying it. First of all, shouldn't every file in the source include the GPL license or a reference to it? That's a bit of work. Besides that, for many projects there's need to detail dependencies, get source codes from various directories into that archive, and so on.
IMO the most work is in making your source presentable. I guess that's why some open source comes uncommented, as it's easier to strip the comments out than to make sure they're relevant and readable.
There are also potential complications. For example if you become aware of stepping over a patent after you've first distributed your code, it looks like you could be in trouble.
On second thought, I take it back. GPL could probably be summed up by "make all your code available under GPL". While the distance between this and GPL is larger than between the other simplifications and their corresponding licenses, I imagine that no one will hold you to the finer details if you comply with this part. The complexity arises when the distinction between content and code isn't clear, as in the case of the web.
Still, more effort is required to comply than with other licenses, especially if you care about how your code looks to other people.
It's just my experience. Commercial libraries and code, even if they do have legalese underneath, are typically offered with simple explanations and detailed FAQ's which simplify the understanding substantially. I guess that's because commercial offerings sell the licensing terms and it helps the buyer decide which of several different licensing terms to get. I also think that these licenses, even in legalese, are simpler than the GPL. Some open source licenses may be simplified to "include this license text with your app" or "mention the original source of all the code", and commercial license may be "may be used by a single named developer" or "for one project" or "paying such and such royalties". GPL may be summed as "make available all your source code, distribute it all under GPL, mark and date any changes, and include the license." This is simplified to the point where it doesn't represent the GPL all that well, and still it's much more complex than other licenses. It also requires more work than other licenses to comply with.
That's why in my opinion using GPL code is a bad choice for many projects, including personal ones. The only reason I see to use GPL is if you are a proponent of this specific license due to the ideology behind it.
What do that have to do with it? If I use the code without upholding the license, then I can get sued, right?
When I looked at using a CMS for a personal website, I discounted any which used GPL3, because I couldn't be sure that if I changed a template I would need to make it available, not to mention doing a small code change. It's not that I mind sharing, it's just that it's a hassle and it just worries me that if I use a GPL3 CMS I'm opening up a pandora's box. I don't know if that's really the case, but because these licenses are complex to decipher and GPL has a reputation, it's not something I want to risk. So even though it's not for profit, and I don't have a real problem sharing the changes I did, I'd rather stay away and not be liable for anything.
The problem with many of the open source licenses is that they are complex. A commercial license to source code or libraries typically gives you simple terms: certain people can use the code for certain purposes for a certain number of projects for a certain amount of money. Some open source licenses, GPL in particular, contain tons of legalese and conditions which IMO makes such licenses best avoided by most developers, regardless of whether they're used for commercial purposes or not.
Minimising is obviously an important feature to you, but I rarely use it, so I'd appreciate it if you could tell me its benefit over just bringing the window you're interested in working on to the front.
Thanks for the clarification, but I still don't understand why you make the distinction between free and for-fee software. Is that because you assume that software that doesn't cost money is typically inferior, so you look to commercial offerings to lead the way with new algorithms, or is it because you feel that you can't rightly ask authors of free software to make their software efficient because you're not paying for it?
Most people hate the Tolkien estate. Copyright was made to encourage creativity. The Tolkien estate is the best example of how copyright law is used to stifle it instead.
Most software has already been like this for quite a few years. Windows system requirements have had a bump with Vista but dropped down with 7. Browsers have become a lot faster on the same hardware. People have stuck with low end systems and that has made all software (apart perhaps from AAA games) take a step back. Software developers aren't stupid; they don't aim at what the market can't sustain. (And by the way, why target commercial software only? Open source is just as susceptible to bloat. Take OpenOffice and its derivative for example, which tend to be quite sluggish, more so than many commercial suites.)
Well said. The problem is that programmes aimed at intelligent people have a smaller audience which is also harder to target with ads (or skips them). Sci Fi is even more problematic because it typically uses special effects, which makes it more costly than normal dramas, which are again more costly than reality shows.
Thanks for the references. It was clear to me that was the case, but it's nice that you took the time to provide the links.
I will also predict that it'll be shown that Closed Source isn't much better in that regard...
Agreed. The research could very well show that any non-Microsoft product is more costly than a Microsoft one. This would be easy to show at least for desktop operating systems and office suites, where Microsoft products are used by most people and therefore using any other product requires some adjustment.
Of course nobody will publish such a research because it's much easier to take pot shots at open source than at large corporations.
Tablets have many practical uses, such as web browsing, social media, media playback, gaming and others. There are other devices which can do these, but tablets offer them in a way that may be more convenient for some.
As you say, part of what affects your perception of their uselessness is price. Another is your personal needs and biases.
BTW, the OP might want a toy. He wants the tablet for hacking, i.e., for fun. A lot of advanced PC users also use their PC's as toys. That doesn't mean that PC's are just toys, or that tablets are.
It's the kind of post that says "I have some experience with the iPad and I love it; don't have a clue about Android." Your definition of hackability probably also differs from the OP, but you still have a point.
Just a pseudo-random date, but I hope it will give you the incentive to go out and buy something soon.
If I were to buy an Android tablet now, mainly for hackability, I'd go for an inexpensive one just to test the waters. I find the Nook Color an attractive option, but you can also get a generic tablet like this one: http://www.nowsupplier.com/android-22-os-tablet-inch-with-freescale-imx515-cortex-a8-chip-support-flash-player-10512m-ram-p-1413.html. I believe that the first experience with a new type of device should be with a low end (but not completely crappy) version, so that you get an idea what you want to do with it and what's important to you, and buy a second one that fits your real requirements later.
The other option is just to go ahead and buy an Android phone. That's what I decided to do after some consideration (haven't bought it yet). That's because a phone is something that gets more use and you carry with you more often, and it has pretty much the same specs except a smaller screen.
You comment shows that you should change the font on your browser to something less readable, since you completely missed the part about the research done on highschool children with actual real world material.
One of the things I remember from Freakonomics is how giving an option to pay for something takes away any moral issues doing it. Being able to pay for speeding tells people that speeding is okay, it's just an issue of money. Actually, if he really does feel that the speed limit should be much higher, then it's a decent way to make some money.
I agree that recording her perspective and memories is more important than recording her as she is now.
What you will be missing is here stories about this and that, like the special things she remembers about the girls (that you might not remember, or don't think are important, or have a different recollection of), about her family and about her time with you. I know that I appreciate hearing stories about me and my sisters from my mother, or even anecdotes about my 2-year-old from my wife, that I don't really remember (I have a pretty bad memory).
These memories might be good for bringing you together now, and to keep her presence alive in the future.
I think you nailed it: all it'd mean a few generations from now is the ability to go to a museum or see a TV documentary on it, and for that all you need is a clip of gameplay. I'm sure some historians would love to get their hands on a game in its original form, but most people will not care. How many are interested in (or even capable of) reading a three thousand years bible scroll? And that's the highest profile book of all times. So sure, most people are happy when something like that is found, but that's because we know how very little information we have of the past. And still very few would be interested in seeing that.
So while I think that it'd be nice to be able to save video games, I do agree with JeffSh that for most people this will mean very little. Most people want to see new things all the time, or occasionally high quality things of the past, and video games' perceived quality degrades a lot faster than any other form of art.
The works of Beethoven or Picasso aren't being preserved. They are alive, people are still interested in listening to them or viewing them. So a good question will be: is it worth saving works of art which are of no current interest? That's a good question, but let's assume for the moment we're interested in works which people want.
If you look just at games which people may still be interested in playing, then emulators work for that. The claim that emulators won't last forever doesn't matter, because if they don't last it means people have lost interest in the platform. Also, I see games more like a play than a book, that is, recreating them is fine, and there's no need to save the exact experience behind the original. It's the game design and writing which makes a game. I don't think there's need to save Serious Sam when there's Serious Sam HD, for example.
I do think that some games need to be saved, but the main obstacle to this is copyright (and possibly other IP). Games which have been released as open source get an extended life. See Quake for example (which is also a case where there are different implementations yet I still consider them the same game). One solution would be for game developers to have to deposit a copy of the source code and art assets into a central library.
I'd like to see you paid for about 7 years after you wrote the work.
That's a fine sentiment, but those who copy content illegally usually do it to content which was just released, or even before it's released.
The big problem at the moment is ... that artists (well, publishers really) are demanding payment for works for literally hundreds of years after they were first produced.
Anyone can demand money for a public domain work, just like anyone can legally sell you GPL software. But can you give one example of a hundreds year old work which cannot be freely copied? That's considerably more than the copyright term has ever been.