A beautiful thing I heard from the horse's mouth last time I was in Canberra:
The Intellectual Property departments are sharing source code with the Taxation Departments instead of spending tax dollars to rewrite the same functionality (online identification verification using PKI in Java).
Very good to hear already. This makes sense as well.
Forget your brand of "MS is doing it to get us on the sly".
How about:
MS took a calculated risk in allowing the Chinese government access to the code in order to secure more sales, and are now paying for it, because someone Freed Billy!
IAAA(ustralian), and it's more like "Beginning of a tightening end".
None of this has been discussed on the radio today. It's all about sugar being left out of the agreement. I work at an IP firm (IANAL,IAACP), but I think the homogenization of national laws also leads to the globalization of protest for legal change, which could be of benefit to countries with weaker lobby groups.
My point was about the marketability of a name, which is what makes a name valuable. In terms of domain names, whatever laws are applicable will be used to defend the fair use of one's own name, especially when other people are seeking to profit off it (by directing people to websites with advertising on them in most cases)
When other people make money from your own good name one day, you may change your mind about the value of legally being able to protect it for your own profit, perhaps by making the people who want to make the money pay you some kind of a licence fee.
Saddam produced 12000 pages of documents about the weapons programs.
Unfortunately some US dudes got to it first and "photocopied" it for the rest of the UN, I suppose leaving out a few pages that mentioned, well, American companies that were part of Iraq's supply chain.
This commented used RISC type language, and in the process, a logical error was accidentally introduced... the correct programmatic statement would be:
"Hyperthreading is not untested _nor_ unproven"
CISC has it's advantage in the way the intended statement would be encoded:
"Hyperthreading is better"
This is a complex statement succinctly written with fewer keywords and fewer potential (epistemological) errors.
that by writing his own platform instead of using a pre-made one, the code on top of it will never break just because someone released a new version of the platform. He can interface with.NET if he wants, but the Web Services platform he built under/into his product will not change until he wants it to.
It was a good article, but he ought to have reaped the benefits of what he had done by now, and thus mentioned it. I have in my time.
Slashdot Mirror
A beautiful thing I heard from the horse's mouth last time I was in Canberra:
The Intellectual Property departments are sharing source code with the Taxation Departments instead of spending tax dollars to rewrite the same functionality (online identification verification using PKI in Java).
Very good to hear already. This makes sense as well.
The first Chuck Yeager sim was simply a brilliant game. I loved making up missions:
"In your P-51 Mustang at 20000 feet flying into 5 Mig-17s"
Yaaah. I'm gonna find that now...
Here ya go...
With only a slightly larger stalling problem owing to the recoil from the gun than the A-10 Thunderbolt has.
Breakfast of Champions. Movie version is very very wacky, and has Bruce Willis in it from memory. Also the cute chick from Becker.
Forget your brand of "MS is doing it to get us on the sly".
How about:
MS took a calculated risk in allowing the Chinese government access to the code in order to secure more sales, and are now paying for it, because someone Freed Billy!
Were they watching?
But does it leave shit all over my hard disk like NAV did when I uninstalled it last night?
I know it's funny... here are a couple of things one can pretend to think about:
1) a database of submitted code answers is easily collated and checked against using a (gasp!) program. CS is the dumbest degree to plagiarise in.
2) when you write "Lets pretend each week I have a program to design and code", you will have reached a new level of programming maturity
3) you are already well on the way to being an effective programmer by looking for code re-use before reinventing the wheel.
Good luck... hypothetically.
Pissed myself. Thanks!
IAAA(ustralian), and it's more like "Beginning of a tightening end".
None of this has been discussed on the radio today. It's all about sugar being left out of the agreement. I work at an IP firm (IANAL,IAACP), but I think the homogenization of national laws also leads to the globalization of protest for legal change, which could be of benefit to countries with weaker lobby groups.
"It's like buying penis enlargements for all you friends and family"
Are you an (_*_) because you did this, or did you do it because you are an (_*_) ?
I thought that was Edsgar Djikstra?
"Those students who learn Basic as their first programming language will be seriously brain damaged and unable to have a future in computer science"
- E.W. Djikstra
Can you make haiku
That rhymes with each sentence, too?
Not so easy to.
Lego Mindblow
Good morning, Mr Breakfast Pants.
My point was about the marketability of a name, which is what makes a name valuable. In terms of domain names, whatever laws are applicable will be used to defend the fair use of one's own name, especially when other people are seeking to profit off it (by directing people to websites with advertising on them in most cases)
When other people make money from your own good name one day, you may change your mind about the value of legally being able to protect it for your own profit, perhaps by making the people who want to make the money pay you some kind of a licence fee.
Just a thought.
If I was famous, I'd like to be able to pass on my marketability to my loved ones. That includes copyright, trademarks, patents, etc.
I imagine most people who made a living as writer would feel the same way.
If you became famous, you would probably change your first name from "hugetits" anyway.
Saddam produced 12000 pages of documents about the weapons programs.
Unfortunately some US dudes got to it first and "photocopied" it for the rest of the UN, I suppose leaving out a few pages that mentioned, well, American companies that were part of Iraq's supply chain.
Do you mean maybe something like this story?
"Hyperthreading is not untested or unproven"
This commented used RISC type language, and in the process, a logical error was accidentally introduced... the correct programmatic statement would be:
"Hyperthreading is not untested _nor_ unproven"
CISC has it's advantage in the way the intended statement would be encoded:
"Hyperthreading is better"
This is a complex statement succinctly written with fewer keywords and fewer potential (epistemological) errors.
that by writing his own platform instead of using a pre-made one, the code on top of it will never break just because someone released a new version of the platform. He can interface with .NET if he wants, but the Web Services platform he built under/into his product will not change until he wants it to.
It was a good article, but he ought to have reaped the benefits of what he had done by now, and thus mentioned it. I have in my time.
Trollers are on teh sp0ke!
oops, link here