I don't see why we need laws to offer you this protection. You can very well enter a contract with anyone who you allow to use your database stating that they are not allowed to resell it, give the info away, etc. You retain complete control. What's wrong with treating "databases" like trade secrets?
If you were clever, you presumably could set the elevators up like funiculars to minimize the energy necessary. Use the energy from a car in the top part to help pull up the car in the bottom part (with the bonus part of keeping the top car at a controlled speed).
Well, they can't "renew" a contract for you. A contract is a binding agreement between two parties. If you had a contract for 2 years, then it's for 2 years. They can't assign you a new contract without your approval. I bet you could have gotten out of that "contract".
How many do you need??? That's 3 areas (only if you count office as 1 area (not "work processing", "spreadsheets", "presentation software", etc) in which you freely admit that they have a monopoly.
Not sure that it's the same thing at all as Prada. After all, usually when I walk into an Apple store, I'm not carrying any Apple merchandise with me. So they have no idea who I am. Would they be able to use RFID for anything but the "standard" inventory control and theft prevention?
It was aimed at the person you replied to. I was just pointing out one reason why his analysis wasn't even aimed in the right direction (even if it were done properly).
What he also missed is that the calculation that he attempted to make is how likely it would be to reproduce exactly what we are, not some form of intelligent advanced life (which as far as I'm concerned certainly doesn't need to be limited to humans as we are now). Nowhere does he attempt to correct for the fact that not every one of his mutations that is required for us to be like us. Not explaining myself well, but he's not accounting the fact that there are numerous very improbable events that could have led to intelligent life, so we shouldn't just focus on the single improbable event that appears to have happened and exclaim how improbable that single event is.
rather than simply submitting his work to academia and using their vetting procedure, he's opening up his work for criticism from a much, much wider body of critics
Yeah, because releasing scientific knowledge to the public/press without allowing for proper peer review first always works best. Just ask Pons and Fleischmann.
Why is this modded as "Insightful"?? Having open debate with all views represented is a great way to get an education (read: you learn to think for yourself). If students only get one side of the story (or the party line), then they don't learn to think for themselves and are nothing more than parrots. How do I know that Darl's wrong if I don't actually hear what he has to say? If I don't hear him, than I'm really only parrotting other peoples' opinions, because I don't have enough evidence to properly form my own.
This clearly asn't about anybody making a dollar, this was about Harvard's Law journal bringing in a speaker for educational purposes. It got people thinking. It allowed people to better understand Darl's position. Sounds like it was a good educational experience. It doesn't sound to me (from the descriptions here and elsewhere) like there was much of anybody who bought into what Darl says, but it's great that they were allowed to form their own opinions.
LinuxPPC does exist (or did last time I checked). Before OSX, I dual-booted LinuxPPC and MacOS. But there's not much point anymore, because OSX gives me just about everything that LinuxPPC did....
7. During the interview, take control and give presentation; talk about how I will solve the manager's problems today
Then you won't get a job with me. I want to know that the person that I'm interviewing is willing to listen to others, and is able to work well with others. Working well with others includes letting other people control the situation when the other people have a deeper understanding of the situation (which is most certainly the case when I'm interviewing a candidate for a job).
When I interview a person, I have a general idea of what sorts of things I want to know about a person. If the interviewee takes control of the interview, then I probably don't get a chance to steer the conversation to those areas. It's not just about finding out whether the person can solve the problem at hand. If it were, then you would be right on the mark. It's about finding out whether they can solve the problem in a manner that allows them to interact with their coworkers (including learning from the coworkers where necessary) so that everybody improves.
When an interviewee acts like your step 7, what I see is a person who doesn't want to learn what I've learned in my n years in this job so that he/she is going to have to make exactly the same mistakes all over again.
Somewhat offtopic, but a lot of people who believe that they have Raynaud's have something else (like acrocyanosis). Anyway, the result is the same: cold, blue hands. Worst part about having acrocyanosis is that it makes it really difficult to put the moves on the wife during the winter - she doesn't want my hands anywhere near her!
No, you're getting into trouble now. What if the user class has a static method named init? Then when you do user.init(), it's entirely unclear (for both the coder and more importantly the VM) whether you're trying to init() the user class or the user object. Obviously, the person can figure it out but it's easier not to. And it would be a rather significant performance hit for the VM to support that.
I thought that the best part was having the "full-contact 100-meter dash", where in the running races it was fair game to push the guy next to you off of the pad.
Well, you might try not to read things into my statements. I disupted that statement that bush always does what he says. You've defined "unite" as "garners support in public opinion polls", which is a bit of a funny definition. When he made his uniter/divider statements, what was meant is that he would work together with people to try to get multilateral backing for ideas and actions. That's something that he has made very little attempt to do. Yes, he tried to get the world to back attacking Iraq. But when he failed, he didn't continue to "unite" the world, he did as he damn well pleased. Not a "uniter" in my definition. Given world opinion right now, I would say he hasn't united.
Now your last paragraph is pretty ridiculous. Nowhere did I say that bush is always wrong or hated by everyone. Not sure where you got that, I'm talking about one particular aspect of his character that you're claiming is a strength and I'm claiming is a weakness. If you think that hate is clouding my judgement, then you might look at yourself and try to figure out what is clouding yours, because you're trying to read a lot of things in my statements that just aren't there.
I take exception to your statement that "he does what he says, and succeeds in doing it". During the last election, we heard over and over (and over and over...) "I'm a uniter, not a divider". I'm not sure that even the most hard core right winger would try to argue that he's made any attempt to unite. Whate he's said and done: "you're with us or you're against us". It's shoving legislation through by the bare majority that Republicans have in Congress with no attempt to appease Democrats. It's going to war with Iraq against the wishes of 90% of the world. Need I go on?
I'm under the impression that most "bugs" in software (certainly most bugs in my code) aren't bugs like these in the article (null dereferences, uninitialized variables, etc), but they're algorithm bugs. As in, there's a subtle interplay between different parts of complicated algorithms that can be easy for programmers to miss. Those types of bugs are going to be much harder to find, and certainly not going to be found in analysis such as this one.
The flip side of this coin (at least here in Massachusetts) is that if you catch them, they have to give you 1 of the item for free, and correct the price on all of the rest. My wife an I check prices carefully, and we've been known to get $15 worth of chicken for free, because it rang up for 5 cents too much.
My main experience with this sort of thing was with MCI long distance. I will never willingly do business with MCI, Worldcom or any related company again. Everything they did was entirely intentional and designed to prey on their customers.
I started out with a plan that was 5 cents a minute, no monthly fee. I never looked at my bills very carefully. About a year later, I noticed that there was a $2.95 / month fee, and daytime calls were 10 cents per minute. I thought about it, and decided that I may have actually started out like that it it might have been my imagination that I started out a 5 cents, no fee.
Another several months go by. In this time, I start online billing (no paper statement, charge to credit card (I think)). Eventually, I noticed that I was now paying $5.95 per month, 25 cents per minute during the day and 10 cents evening and weekends. So emailed customer service, and their response was something like: "We notified you of the change on the back of your statement. By not complaining, you agreed to the new rates.". I searched, and there was no notification on my online statement. There was a notification in small print about 5 clicks away on something called "paper statement" which was apparently different from the online statement, but that I had no reason to suspect had any information not contained on my statement.
That was enough. I called them to tell them to go to hell, at which point they offered to switch me to a 5 cents / minute plan with no fee. Gee, why on Earth would I believe for a second that they'd leave me on that plan? I said no thanks, and signed up for bigredwire, which charges me 4 cents a minute, no fee, and has continued to do so for about a year now.
Such shady business practices. Hoping that I wouldn't look at my bill closely enough to see how they were screwing me, and then lying about it when I called them on it. If that's how they treat their customers....
half of his problems seem to be with Windows APPS, rather than Windows
I noticed this, too, but I thought that he was making a point. One of the reasons that people say they stay on Windows is "because my apps don't run on Linux". I think his point is that it's a two-way street - Windows has better apps than Linux in some areas, and vice versa.
Slashdot Mirror
Except he won't kill it. He just won't fund it.
Why select a slower ... platform [Mac]...?
You're going to have to substantiate that claim, sorry. No free pass on the "Apples are slower because that number before the MHz thing is smaller".
I don't see why we need laws to offer you this protection. You can very well enter a contract with anyone who you allow to use your database stating that they are not allowed to resell it, give the info away, etc. You retain complete control. What's wrong with treating "databases" like trade secrets?
If you were clever, you presumably could set the elevators up like funiculars to minimize the energy necessary. Use the energy from a car in the top part to help pull up the car in the bottom part (with the bonus part of keeping the top car at a controlled speed).
You can take them to small claims court. And, of course, what you're doing (letting everybody know what they do) is also appropriate retribution.
Well, they can't "renew" a contract for you. A contract is a binding agreement between two parties. If you had a contract for 2 years, then it's for 2 years. They can't assign you a new contract without your approval. I bet you could have gotten out of that "contract".
How many do you need??? That's 3 areas (only if you count office as 1 area (not "work processing", "spreadsheets", "presentation software", etc) in which you freely admit that they have a monopoly.
Not sure that it's the same thing at all as Prada. After all, usually when I walk into an Apple store, I'm not carrying any Apple merchandise with me. So they have no idea who I am. Would they be able to use RFID for anything but the "standard" inventory control and theft prevention?
You mean Verizon (which was Bell Atlantic (which was NYNEX)).
It was aimed at the person you replied to. I was just pointing out one reason why his analysis wasn't even aimed in the right direction (even if it were done properly).
What he also missed is that the calculation that he attempted to make is how likely it would be to reproduce exactly what we are, not some form of intelligent advanced life (which as far as I'm concerned certainly doesn't need to be limited to humans as we are now). Nowhere does he attempt to correct for the fact that not every one of his mutations that is required for us to be like us. Not explaining myself well, but he's not accounting the fact that there are numerous very improbable events that could have led to intelligent life, so we shouldn't just focus on the single improbable event that appears to have happened and exclaim how improbable that single event is.
rather than simply submitting his work to academia and using their vetting procedure, he's opening up his work for criticism from a much, much wider body of critics
Yeah, because releasing scientific knowledge to the public/press without allowing for proper peer review first always works best. Just ask Pons and Fleischmann.
Why is this modded as "Insightful"?? Having open debate with all views represented is a great way to get an education (read: you learn to think for yourself). If students only get one side of the story (or the party line), then they don't learn to think for themselves and are nothing more than parrots. How do I know that Darl's wrong if I don't actually hear what he has to say? If I don't hear him, than I'm really only parrotting other peoples' opinions, because I don't have enough evidence to properly form my own.
This clearly asn't about anybody making a dollar, this was about Harvard's Law journal bringing in a speaker for educational purposes. It got people thinking. It allowed people to better understand Darl's position. Sounds like it was a good educational experience. It doesn't sound to me (from the descriptions here and elsewhere) like there was much of anybody who bought into what Darl says, but it's great that they were allowed to form their own opinions.
Unspoken?? We generally say it loud and clear!
LinuxPPC does exist (or did last time I checked). Before OSX, I dual-booted LinuxPPC and MacOS. But there's not much point anymore, because OSX gives me just about everything that LinuxPPC did....
7. During the interview, take control and give presentation; talk about how I will solve the manager's problems today
Then you won't get a job with me. I want to know that the person that I'm interviewing is willing to listen to others, and is able to work well with others. Working well with others includes letting other people control the situation when the other people have a deeper understanding of the situation (which is most certainly the case when I'm interviewing a candidate for a job).
When I interview a person, I have a general idea of what sorts of things I want to know about a person. If the interviewee takes control of the interview, then I probably don't get a chance to steer the conversation to those areas. It's not just about finding out whether the person can solve the problem at hand. If it were, then you would be right on the mark. It's about finding out whether they can solve the problem in a manner that allows them to interact with their coworkers (including learning from the coworkers where necessary) so that everybody improves.
When an interviewee acts like your step 7, what I see is a person who doesn't want to learn what I've learned in my n years in this job so that he/she is going to have to make exactly the same mistakes all over again.
Somewhat offtopic, but a lot of people who believe that they have Raynaud's have something else (like acrocyanosis). Anyway, the result is the same: cold, blue hands. Worst part about having acrocyanosis is that it makes it really difficult to put the moves on the wife during the winter - she doesn't want my hands anywhere near her!
No, you're getting into trouble now. What if the user class has a static method named init? Then when you do user.init(), it's entirely unclear (for both the coder and more importantly the VM) whether you're trying to init() the user class or the user object. Obviously, the person can figure it out but it's easier not to. And it would be a rather significant performance hit for the VM to support that.
I thought that the best part was having the "full-contact 100-meter dash", where in the running races it was fair game to push the guy next to you off of the pad.
Well, you might try not to read things into my statements. I disupted that statement that bush always does what he says. You've defined "unite" as "garners support in public opinion polls", which is a bit of a funny definition. When he made his uniter/divider statements, what was meant is that he would work together with people to try to get multilateral backing for ideas and actions. That's something that he has made very little attempt to do. Yes, he tried to get the world to back attacking Iraq. But when he failed, he didn't continue to "unite" the world, he did as he damn well pleased. Not a "uniter" in my definition. Given world opinion right now, I would say he hasn't united.
Now your last paragraph is pretty ridiculous. Nowhere did I say that bush is always wrong or hated by everyone. Not sure where you got that, I'm talking about one particular aspect of his character that you're claiming is a strength and I'm claiming is a weakness. If you think that hate is clouding my judgement, then you might look at yourself and try to figure out what is clouding yours, because you're trying to read a lot of things in my statements that just aren't there.
I take exception to your statement that "he does what he says, and succeeds in doing it". During the last election, we heard over and over (and over and over...) "I'm a uniter, not a divider". I'm not sure that even the most hard core right winger would try to argue that he's made any attempt to unite. Whate he's said and done: "you're with us or you're against us". It's shoving legislation through by the bare majority that Republicans have in Congress with no attempt to appease Democrats. It's going to war with Iraq against the wishes of 90% of the world. Need I go on?
I'm under the impression that most "bugs" in software (certainly most bugs in my code) aren't bugs like these in the article (null dereferences, uninitialized variables, etc), but they're algorithm bugs. As in, there's a subtle interplay between different parts of complicated algorithms that can be easy for programmers to miss. Those types of bugs are going to be much harder to find, and certainly not going to be found in analysis such as this one.
The flip side of this coin (at least here in Massachusetts) is that if you catch them, they have to give you 1 of the item for free, and correct the price on all of the rest. My wife an I check prices carefully, and we've been known to get $15 worth of chicken for free, because it rang up for 5 cents too much.
My main experience with this sort of thing was with MCI long distance. I will never willingly do business with MCI, Worldcom or any related company again. Everything they did was entirely intentional and designed to prey on their customers.
I started out with a plan that was 5 cents a minute, no monthly fee. I never looked at my bills very carefully. About a year later, I noticed that there was a $2.95 / month fee, and daytime calls were 10 cents per minute. I thought about it, and decided that I may have actually started out like that it it might have been my imagination that I started out a 5 cents, no fee.
Another several months go by. In this time, I start online billing (no paper statement, charge to credit card (I think)). Eventually, I noticed that I was now paying $5.95 per month, 25 cents per minute during the day and 10 cents evening and weekends. So emailed customer service, and their response was something like: "We notified you of the change on the back of your statement. By not complaining, you agreed to the new rates.". I searched, and there was no notification on my online statement. There was a notification in small print about 5 clicks away on something called "paper statement" which was apparently different from the online statement, but that I had no reason to suspect had any information not contained on my statement.
That was enough. I called them to tell them to go to hell, at which point they offered to switch me to a 5 cents / minute plan with no fee. Gee, why on Earth would I believe for a second that they'd leave me on that plan? I said no thanks, and signed up for bigredwire, which charges me 4 cents a minute, no fee, and has continued to do so for about a year now.
Such shady business practices. Hoping that I wouldn't look at my bill closely enough to see how they were screwing me, and then lying about it when I called them on it. If that's how they treat their customers....
half of his problems seem to be with Windows APPS, rather than Windows
I noticed this, too, but I thought that he was making a point. One of the reasons that people say they stay on Windows is "because my apps don't run on Linux". I think his point is that it's a two-way street - Windows has better apps than Linux in some areas, and vice versa.