You develop on a low rent laptop? Ok, but how do you ensure your software runs properly on higher end spec machines?
I have three test machines, one five years old, one shop purchased average spec Vista box ~£500, and one monster fun box with all bells and whistles (running XP, but I'm looking into a Vista duel boot to increase my Vista testing capability). I believe these represent a decent cross section of the kind of machines in use. (No laptop yet though, I'm torn between a 'superAmazing' one or a dirt cheap 'doesntMatterIfIDropIt' one.)
I wouldn't want to develop or test on any one of those machines alone, because of the risk of bad/unpredictable performance on one of the others.
On the principle topic of the article, I'm looking forward to windows 7 myself. By the time it arrives XP will be showing its age compared to other OS's, so I won't mind properly upgrading.
Is this the exception? I've never once encountered a CD I couldn't rip to my computer. If I did, I would return it to the store and get a refund.
Unfortunately some anti DRM people are like creationists, they stick to their opinion that most music is DRM protected when it isn't, and that piracy is the cure, not the cause (which again isn't true, we didn't have drm until we had internet music piracy, piracy caused all this shit).
I do buy the odd music CD nowadays, and never encounter one with DRM on it. Where I do buy stuff with DRM, as in from Apple and Audible, the DRM is removable by their own software, although I prefer to strip the DRM myself directly. I don't really have to, its just that I like to.
DRM probably is bad in the long term, but I'm not seeing the plague of DRM'd titles that the zealots claim are everywhere.
Not since you'd get some numpty buying it and complaining that it won't play on their iPod when they get it home. Not everyone knows how to rip music you know.
It would be more accurate to say 'this specific format won't play out of the box in an iPod', but just saying it won't is also accurate, so far as many people are concerned.
Not, it has to be said, many people who read slashdot (I'd hope), but even then I'm not so sure.
Well I thought Space Siege wasn't going to suck, because I really liked Dungeon Siege 2, and Space Siege was supposed to be its equal, but I was very wrong, very, very wrong.
Different company I know, but Diablo 3 now represents the only possibility of a decent game in this genre for some time to come. If they mess it up, what then? We wait for EA to make one? I has a doubt that would go well.
There are more important things to worry about, but I like my game time, I like to know I've got some quality entertainment coming when I click that icon.
We've all been bitten by hype for what has turned out to be pale shadow of the promised game in the past.
This is where knol beats Wikipedia, your articles can't be deleted. They can be ignored if they're rubbish, but that's all.
I won't put my content on Wikipedia precisely because I don't want to have some bored kid editing it and messing things up, or having some mod who doesn't agree with what I say deciding to dispose of the information.
I'd take a stab at 'Outrageously priced broadband' myself. It sounds ok for business people who may need access to the tubes at various times whilst on the move. Until this the only way to get mobile broadband via a dongle was to get either a monthly subscription or a pay as you go in which you bought blocks of Gb then had 30 days to use it or lose it. Neither appeals to me.
I may get this and keep it in my laptop bag to use if I find myself in need of internets access but unable to find any, but never for routine use.
Most fatalities are in the age range of 18-24, ad primarily involve males. That says to me that its younger people who haven't learned to drive responsibly who are the root problem to be addressed.
I publish a paper on new research, I get priority, no amount of pissing about by other people removes that priority, regardless of what may be attempted.
However, when you are trying to get a grant, or tenure, or a promotion, the boards examining your work will want to know if it has had any impact. Citations to it indicate impact.
Anyone publishing a paper/article/thesis who does not cite correctly is at risk of having their paper rejected anyway, so its a self correcting system.
As for code? Well I've used the GPL for all my research related code, and I've had no problems
Why GPL? I would expect that when one is publishing academic research, one would want to license any accompanying code under a license that is as compatible as possible with whatever code other researchers are using. That would be something like BSD.
Personal preference. My thinking is they can use everything I wrote as it is, in which case they must abide by the GPL, or use it to learn and re-implement it under whatever license they wish. I'm happy for people to originate their own code after learning from mine, I've always worked that way.
By using GPL I also get to use it in my primary open source project if I wish without incurring license clash
I publish a paper on new research, I get priority, no amount of pissing about by other people removes that priority, regardless of what may be attempted.
I am, and remain, the originator of that work, it cannot be patented by anyone else, or copyrighted, because my own work precedes that of any other. My permission must be sought, and even if given, cannot ever remove my priority.
Further developments based on it may be copyrightable by others, but this again does not remove my priority on the original research.
That's been the case for hundreds of years.
If you're wanting to ensure others cannot use your work for anything without express permission, that's a different issue, and why would you want to do that for academic research?
If its being done for business, and being financed by a company, the issue is moot, they own it. If not, quit whining, you are either a scientist who wants to share their work openly (for which priority is fine), or a scientifically minded businessman who wants to turn a buck. Either is fine, but if your a business type, don't screw around, admit you want to make money and copyright/patent your work.
In the UK all you have to do is write your name on a work, and its copyrighted anyway, not sure about the US.
As for code? Well I've used the GPL for all my research related code, and I've had no problems.
That is true of almost any language. The point is that there's nothing those languages can do that can't be done, often more easily, with the current crop of popular languages. Elegance cannot beat convenience in the workplace, or in most at any rate.
All that aside, how many Haskell programing jobs have you seen advertised lately? Like it or not, that's what decides which languages people use.
That's why I have to deal with languages I'd prefer to never use, because that's what pays the rent. In my own time I use C.
I spent a whole term at uni learning Miranda, which is similar to Haskell, I really liked it. I have *never* seen it being used since. To my mind they both belong in the category 'interesting, but pointless'.
Its not just because they're old. If age was what killed languages, C and Lisp would be long dead. There just isn't anything I could do with either that I wouldn't be able to do more easily with another more 'mainstream' language.
I wouldn't normally respond to grammar correctors online, but I will this time.
My spelling is crap, I realise this, I'm dyspraxic. I also hold a Ph.D in Computer Science, do you?
My examiners didn't give a rats arse about my inability to spell when they examined my Thesis. I got a list of words to re-type, and they left it at that.
I find that its quite common for spelling to be really low on the list of priorities in academia. The simple fact is that a lot of highly intelligent people are also dyslexic. No-one is going to reject original and useful research because you can't get round this whole vowel usage thing.
Of course if you're not sufficiently educated or scientifically minded, decent spelling ability won't help either, perfect grammar will not save an otherwise poor paper, just as bad spelling won't kill a good one.
You wouldn't get anywhere in academia if you went round criticizing spelling all the time, unless you're an English professor that is.
Its barely gotton started, I don't see any fork succeeding for long.
Besides, Google have mainly done it to generate more content for their searches. Not that I think its a bad thing. I like knol, a lot. I find it much easier to use then Wikipedia, and the fact that I can be sure some prat won't re-write my article with dubious info, or vandalise it, is a big reassurance.
Sure, some articles are shit, but so what? Don't read them. Some are extremely interesting, and there's none of that 'not notable' crap.
How can law makers think that it is OK to buy and deploy unproven, closed-source devices to measure elections?
To save money
There is no other segment of our society that would allow such a mission critical piece of technology to be deployed without independent or redundant systems.
What about the people responsible for the New Orleans Levy system? Wasn't that built under spec to save cash?
My electric tea kettle has been more rigorously tested by third parties than these voting machines.
And those laws are in place now because when such devices first appeared they weren't checked as well and people died.
The only reasons I can come up with are these: 1. The senators are deaf, dumb and can't hear our collective screams or 2. Appreciate the uncertainty that electronic voting machines provide.
or (3), they like the money it saved them because these crap machines cost less then rigorously tested and robust machines.
I love tech as much as the next geek. It's my life, and my living. But sometimes, the better solutions are the simpler ones.
Its not that computer based voting is a bad idea, its just that it was tackled as a means to make money, not to provide a better voting service. Corners were cut in the name of profits, and the result is the shit systems currently giving the concept a bad name.
We can't expect the U.S. to do it alone, given all the poor and homeless people in the U.S.
Actually its more like we can't expect the US to do it because they have a nasty habit of only allowing major space missions to go ahead when it is politically expedient, and cutting their budgets when it isn't. That's no way to run a space exploration effort.
Whats needed is a driving force other than political one upmanship (ooh look, China's going to the Moon, so we better say we're off to Mars.) How long have we had the technology to go to Mars? Several decades, but it takes China moving into space to kick off the US effort again.
I feel sorry for the people at NASA and JPL, I really do. It would be nice if they could just be given the funding to do it and left alone to get the job done.
Market forces would also be a much better driving force. As it is the way things are going the race to Mars will result not in exploration bases, but military ones, official 'stake claimers' with a mandate to keep it for whichever country gets there first with a large enough force..
Slashdot Mirror
I think that was the whole point. Microsoft poisoned the well so they can sell bottled water.
Well I won't want tha.. Ooh! Fizzy! I'll take three.
It was Picard that said that (to Q) in Encounter at Farpoint.
I recognize this "court" system as the one that agreed with that line from Shakespeare, "kill all the lawyers".
Doh!
You win the geek cookie :)
No, I believe it was Q.
You develop on a low rent laptop? Ok, but how do you ensure your software runs properly on higher end spec machines?
I have three test machines, one five years old, one shop purchased average spec Vista box ~£500, and one monster fun box with all bells and whistles (running XP, but I'm looking into a Vista duel boot to increase my Vista testing capability). I believe these represent a decent cross section of the kind of machines in use.
(No laptop yet though, I'm torn between a 'superAmazing' one or a dirt cheap 'doesntMatterIfIDropIt' one.)
I wouldn't want to develop or test on any one of those machines alone, because of the risk of bad/unpredictable performance on one of the others.
On the principle topic of the article, I'm looking forward to windows 7 myself. By the time it arrives XP will be showing its age compared to other OS's, so I won't mind properly upgrading.
Is this the exception? I've never once encountered a CD I couldn't rip to my computer. If I did, I would return it to the store and get a refund.
Unfortunately some anti DRM people are like creationists, they stick to their opinion that most music is DRM protected when it isn't, and that piracy is the cure, not the cause (which again isn't true, we didn't have drm until we had internet music piracy, piracy caused all this shit).
I do buy the odd music CD nowadays, and never encounter one with DRM on it. Where I do buy stuff with DRM, as in from Apple and Audible, the DRM is removable by their own software, although I prefer to strip the DRM myself directly. I don't really have to, its just that I like to.
DRM probably is bad in the long term, but I'm not seeing the plague of DRM'd titles that the zealots claim are everywhere.
Not since you'd get some numpty buying it and complaining that it won't play on their iPod when they get it home. Not everyone knows how to rip music you know.
It would be more accurate to say 'this specific format won't play out of the box in an iPod', but just saying it won't is also accurate, so far as many people are concerned.
Not, it has to be said, many people who read slashdot (I'd hope), but even then I'm not so sure.
> either the game sucks, or it doesn't.
Since it's Blizzard, it doesn't.
Well I thought Space Siege wasn't going to suck, because I really liked Dungeon Siege 2, and Space Siege was supposed to be its equal, but I was very wrong, very, very wrong.
Different company I know, but Diablo 3 now represents the only possibility of a decent game in this genre for some time to come. If they mess it up, what then? We wait for EA to make one? I has a doubt that would go well.
There are more important things to worry about, but I like my game time, I like to know I've got some quality entertainment coming when I click that icon.
We've all been bitten by hype for what has turned out to be pale shadow of the promised game in the past.
This is where knol beats Wikipedia, your articles can't be deleted. They can be ignored if they're rubbish, but that's all.
I won't put my content on Wikipedia precisely because I don't want to have some bored kid editing it and messing things up, or having some mod who doesn't agree with what I say deciding to dispose of the information.
Just release the damn game so I can play it!
Artsy discussions about screenshots aren't something I care about.
There are, as I see it, two possibilities, either the game sucks, or it doesn't.
Any college using this sort of highly dubious character assessment technique would not be a place I would want to study or work.
Its stupid anyway, hell, If I'd been judged by the things I got up to outside the classroom I'd never have made it past my first year at uni.
What definition of broadband is being used here?
I'd take a stab at 'Outrageously priced broadband' myself. It sounds ok for business people who may need access to the tubes at various times whilst on the move. Until this the only way to get mobile broadband via a dongle was to get either a monthly subscription or a pay as you go in which you bought blocks of Gb then had 30 days to use it or lose it. Neither appeals to me.
I may get this and keep it in my laptop bag to use if I find myself in need of internets access but unable to find any, but never for routine use.
Most fatalities are in the age range of 18-24, ad primarily involve males. That says to me that its younger people who haven't learned to drive responsibly who are the root problem to be addressed.
I publish a paper on new research, I get priority, no amount of pissing about by other people removes that priority, regardless of what may be attempted.
However, when you are trying to get a grant, or tenure, or a promotion, the boards examining your work will want to know if it has had any impact. Citations to it indicate impact.
Anyone publishing a paper/article/thesis who does not cite correctly is at risk of having their paper rejected anyway, so its a self correcting system.
Why GPL? I would expect that when one is publishing academic research, one would want to license any accompanying code under a license that is as compatible as possible with whatever code other researchers are using. That would be something like BSD.
Personal preference. My thinking is they can use everything I wrote as it is, in which case they must abide by the GPL, or use it to learn and re-implement it under whatever license they wish. I'm happy for people to originate their own code after learning from mine, I've always worked that way.
By using GPL I also get to use it in my primary open source project if I wish without incurring license clash
I publish a paper on new research, I get priority, no amount of pissing about by other people removes that priority, regardless of what may be attempted.
I am, and remain, the originator of that work, it cannot be patented by anyone else, or copyrighted, because my own work precedes that of any other. My permission must be sought, and even if given, cannot ever remove my priority.
Further developments based on it may be copyrightable by others, but this again does not remove my priority on the original research.
That's been the case for hundreds of years.
If you're wanting to ensure others cannot use your work for anything without express permission, that's a different issue, and why would you want to do that for academic research?
If its being done for business, and being financed by a company, the issue is moot, they own it.
If not, quit whining, you are either a scientist who wants to share their work openly (for which priority is fine), or a scientifically minded businessman who wants to turn a buck. Either is fine, but if your a business type, don't screw around, admit you want to make money and copyright/patent your work.
In the UK all you have to do is write your name on a work, and its copyrighted anyway, not sure about the US.
As for code? Well I've used the GPL for all my research related code, and I've had no problems.
That underlying C code is what needs to be written carefully, because you use Haskell itself to write its own compiler.
There's a Haskell compiler written in Haskell already. Where does C fit in to that?
After the 'l' and before the 'o'.
It's only difficult to read if you don't know it.
That is true of almost any language. The point is that there's nothing those languages can do that can't be done, often more easily, with the current crop of popular languages. Elegance cannot beat convenience in the workplace, or in most at any rate.
All that aside, how many Haskell programing jobs have you seen advertised lately? Like it or not, that's what decides which languages people use.
That's why I have to deal with languages I'd prefer to never use, because that's what pays the rent. In my own time I use C.
Or:
4) They liked the money the Diebold lobbyists contributed to their reelection war chests.
You win :)
I spent a whole term at uni learning Miranda, which is similar to Haskell, I really liked it. I have *never* seen it being used since. To my mind they both belong in the category 'interesting, but pointless'.
Its not just because they're old. If age was what killed languages, C and Lisp would be long dead. There just isn't anything I could do with either that I wouldn't be able to do more easily with another more 'mainstream' language.
I wouldn't normally respond to grammar correctors online, but I will this time.
My spelling is crap, I realise this, I'm dyspraxic. I also hold a Ph.D in Computer Science, do you?
My examiners didn't give a rats arse about my inability to spell when they examined my Thesis. I got a list of words to re-type, and they left it at that.
I find that its quite common for spelling to be really low on the list of priorities in academia. The simple fact is that a lot of highly intelligent people are also dyslexic. No-one is going to reject original and useful research because you can't get round this whole vowel usage thing.
Of course if you're not sufficiently educated or scientifically minded, decent spelling ability won't help either, perfect grammar will not save an otherwise poor paper, just as bad spelling won't kill a good one.
You wouldn't get anywhere in academia if you went round criticizing spelling all the time, unless you're an English professor that is.
Its barely gotton started, I don't see any fork succeeding for long.
Besides, Google have mainly done it to generate more content for their searches. Not that I think its a bad thing. I like knol, a lot. I find it much easier to use then Wikipedia, and the fact that I can be sure some prat won't re-write my article with dubious info, or vandalise it, is a big reassurance.
Sure, some articles are shit, but so what? Don't read them. Some are extremely interesting, and there's none of that 'not notable' crap.
How can law makers think that it is OK to buy and deploy unproven, closed-source devices to measure elections?
To save money
There is no other segment of our society that would allow such a mission critical piece of technology to be deployed without independent or redundant systems.
What about the people responsible for the New Orleans Levy system? Wasn't that built under spec to save cash?
My electric tea kettle has been more rigorously tested by third parties than these voting machines.
And those laws are in place now because when such devices first appeared they weren't checked as well and people died.
The only reasons I can come up with are these: 1. The senators are deaf, dumb and can't hear our collective screams or 2. Appreciate the uncertainty that electronic voting machines provide.
or (3), they like the money it saved them because these crap machines cost less then rigorously tested and robust machines.
Paper. Pencil. Manual count. Done.
I love tech as much as the next geek. It's my life, and my living. But sometimes, the better solutions are the simpler ones.
Its not that computer based voting is a bad idea, its just that it was tackled as a means to make money, not to provide a better voting service. Corners were cut in the name of profits, and the result is the shit systems currently giving the concept a bad name.
We can't expect the U.S. to do it alone, given all the poor and homeless people in the U.S.
Actually its more like we can't expect the US to do it because they have a nasty habit of only allowing major space missions to go ahead when it is politically expedient, and cutting their budgets when it isn't. That's no way to run a space exploration effort.
Whats needed is a driving force other than political one upmanship (ooh look, China's going to the Moon, so we better say we're off to Mars.) How long have we had the technology to go to Mars? Several decades, but it takes China moving into space to kick off the US effort again.
I feel sorry for the people at NASA and JPL, I really do. It would be nice if they could just be given the funding to do it and left alone to get the job done.
Market forces would also be a much better driving force. As it is the way things are going the race to Mars will result not in exploration bases, but military ones, official 'stake claimers' with a mandate to keep it for whichever country gets there first with a large enough force..
And each of those includes another 11 payloads?
Very clever, young man. But it's payloads all the way down.
been reading Dawking have we?