I wondered this as well... It seemed very strange until I put 2 and 2 together.
What if open source virus checkers are doing better in the market place than McAfee suggests? Open source virus checkers can only compete if there is full disclosure. Or in other words, if McAfee doesn't get advanced notice, then they lose any possible competative advantage.
So it seems to be a FUD attack aimed at shutting down their OSS competition. I'm actually rather surprised because I didn't realize the OSS alternatives were doing so well. Well done guys!
IANAL and don't really know what I'm talking about. But if I were to guess, I'd say that the *agreement* between Microsoft and the customer is the "license" (otherwise known as a contract). So what signifies the agreement? Well as far as I know there doesn't have to be anything physical that indicates an agreement. A handshake or a conversation can be enough.
So, again guessing, I think the point of the judgement is that the COA is not *necessarily* a proof of license. In the case here, there was clearly no agreement between Microsoft and the sellers of the software. Therefore no contract. Therefore no license, despite the presence of certificates.
I think if MS were to say that the certificates were not proof of a license, then the case would hinge on the details of how the certificates were obtained. If they were obtained through a regular channel, then I think MS would have a *very* hard time showing that no agreement was entered into.
I didn't read all the replies, so I hope I don't repeat someone. But since some of the replies are a little off, I thought I'd speak up. The vocabulary is actually very specific to agile methodologies and it is important to understand what it means. So you ask a very good question.
"Prioiritized" means that every proposed piece of functionality (including bugs) is prioritized in an ordinal fashion. So if you have 100 items, exactly one item has priority 1, and exactly one item has priority 100 (ditto for all the items in between). It is also *very* important that there is only *one* list of functionality (not one for "features" and one for "bugs"). Otherwise you have no way of determining priority.
"Vertical Slice" means that each item is a user visible/testable piece of functionality. It's called a vertical slice because this means you will almost certainly have to touch code in many different modules, but the functionality that results is all related from the *user's* perspective (not the programmers!)
"Iterate" means that when a vertical slice (aka item/issue/story/piece of functionality) is completed and integrated into the whole, it is reevaluated on a regular basis. Perceived defficiencies (regardless of whether it is a "bug" or not) create new items which are then prioritized into the queue of items. Again, this is done on a regular basis (every iteration -- hence the word "iterate").
"iterate on the most critical elements and features" means that work is done on the items *in the order of prioritization* (which is why the prioritization must be ordinal rather than the traditional "priority 1-10"). Work is *not* done on items that are not at the top of the queue.
This last issue is vitaly important, but counter intuitive. It means that you don't "plan ahead" for issues that are coming down the pipe. Why? Because more times than not the prioritization of today will *not* be the prioritization of tomorrow. This makes sure that you don't work on things that don't end up shipping. Also this makes sure that the code does not contain complexity from features that aren't implemented. It is the primary method by which agile methods improve productivity.
These are not all the concepts that make up a sensible agile development method, but it's a good chunk of them. Defining a set of practices for an agile method takes some practice because there is a gestalt that happens when all the practices integrate well. If the practices don't integrate well you end up with a bit of a mess. The problem is that from my experience each team will require a subtly different set of practices.
I suspect the answer to your question would be determined in roughly this fashion:
1. You charge $X for redistributing the source 2. Your customer thinks it's unreasonable and they make a stink 3. The holder of the copyright of the code notices (or is contacted) and they also agree it is unreasonable 4. The holder of the copyright contacts you and suggests that you should lower your price otherwise you will be in violation of the license 5. You hold steadfast to your price 6. The holder of the copyright terminates your right to distribute the software 7. You ignore this and continue to distribute the software 8. The holder of the copyright sues you 9. The judge asks you under what authority you were distributing the software 10. You have a choice of accepting the GPL or admitting that you don't have any authority to distribute the software. Since you actually have no choice, you say the GPL. 11. The judge determines whether or not the price is "reasonable". But I suspect that he/she would lean heavily in favour of the copyright holder's definition unless it were completely bonkers.
So, it's a long road to get to this point and quite likely you would resolve the situation before it ever got to the courts. And it would require several conversations with the copyright holder before it broke down that badly.
Please try to live comfortably on $2,182 *anywhere in the world*. I will do the same thing on $11,200 in *any place you choose*. Then we can see who is happier. Having already lived in some of the most expensive cities in the world on about that amount of money, I'm quite comfortable that I can do it. Also having seen the conditions in places where $2,182 will be enough to survive, I don't envy you at all.
Some stats that I picked up from Googling around (you might want to verify the numbers).
Average Yearly Salary worldwide: ~$5,000 US 85th percentile Yearly Salary in the world: $2,182 US Average Yearly Salary in US: $29,000 US Average Yearly Welfare Benefits for those on Welfare in the US: ~ $11,200
So the average salary in the US is nearly 6 times the average salary in the world. And more than 10 times the 85th percentile salary (the reason the average is so high is just because us fat b@stards are so stinking, filthy rich). Not only that, but the average person on welfare is making more than 2 times the world average salary and more than 5 times the 85th percentile salary.
So the poorest people in America are making 5 times for than the richest 85 percent of the people in the world. We don't need to make Americans richer, IMHO.
Re:My Linux Annoyances as a Hardended Windows user
on
Linux Annoyances For Geeks
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I'll bite for no particular reason...
1. Dunno about MP3 on XMMS on RedHat, works on those out of the box on Debian. But wrt to the others... Well the answer (as you probably know) is that the developers of those codecs would rather I not be able to use them on a system that isn't completely under their control. Ridiculous I agree. There are plenty of good codecs that can be implemented and used by anyone. Why don't content distributors use those codecs? Beats the hell out of me. Anyway, out of respect for the aforementioned developers most Free Software developers don't include support for their stupid codecs. You can hack around it (and it isn't hard) if you wish to show your disrespect...
2. You don't have to upgrade your kernel. Ever. Feel free to use a 10 year old kernel if you want. You've got source code. You can back port your own security fixes if you want. It's up to you. If you want the leading edge you can have that too. Somewhere in the middle -- suit yourself. That's why it's call "Free" software. You're "free" to do whatever the hell you want.
3. Well, you see there's these developers at NVidia who don't want you to use your graphics card in a system they can't completely control. Ridiculous I agree. There are plenty of good graphics cards that can be used by anyone. Why don't more people use those graphics cards? Beats the hell out of me. Anyway, out of respect for those aforementioned developers most Free Software developers don't include support for their stupid graphics cards. You can hack around it (and it isn't hard) if you wish to show your disrespect...
4. XWindows configuration is potentially hard if you decide to configure it by hand. You don't have to (give Ubuntu a try if you don't want to do it). Specifying the exact parameters for your monitor and mouse allows you to support a more hardware than some "Program Director" decided was important. Got a 20 year old monitor made in Java that noone has ever heard of. Go for it! It's up to you. Don't want to do it? No problem. That's why it's called "Free" software. You're "free" to do whatever the hell you want.
5. I don't use file browsers. Could never get the hang of them. If I want to open a file in an application (say "fun.txt" in emacs) I just type it in ("emacs fun.txt"). But have fun with your file browser. I find Windows explorer so completely useless that I've had to install a bash shell on Windows to get half of my stuff done. But like I said, whatever floats your boat.
I'm from Ottawa and have been to Le Panache. It is expensive for the area. There are probably a few more expensive restaurants, but not many. I don't know what they had for lunch, but there are plenty of cheaper (and still quite private) restaurants in the area. Personally, I find it offensive that a lobby group asked for a meeting and the government took them out to such a fancy place (or any place at all, really -- they don't have meeting rooms in the parliament buildings???). There are plenty of pro-user lobbiests who can't even get the Heritage department to read an email let alone take them out to lunch.
And it may not even be infringing because China is not a member of the Berne convention. They do not have copyright in the way that western countries do. I'm not overly familiar with Chinese laws, so I don't know if what they do is illegal. But I suspect not.
As an expat in a foreign country, you should be aware that there are foreign laws.
I'm a programmer with roughly 20 years of experience. And while I don't have a ponytail, or wear sandals (I don't even have a beard), I am often a little on the shabby side -- jeans, t-shirts and runners. I own exactly one sweater and I wear it every day (Hmmm... maybe I have Charlie Brown complex...)
Anyway, in deference to my advancing years, I thought I should probably clean up my act a bit and look respectible. I asked my friend what she thought. Her comment was very insightful.
She said, "You mean wear long sleeve shirts, nice pants and fancy shoes?"
"Ya. Something like that.", I replied.
"Don't do it. None of the technical people will take you seriously."
I fully support Google's stance on this issue. Providing guidance is just an invitation to cook the books. What they are asking is to forecast how much money the company is going to make or lose in the next quarter/year. And *then* they are asking the same company to report how close they came to the mark. If the estimate was wrong, the shareholders may have reason to launch a lawsuit.
So what happens? The company does it's best to juggle the numbers so that they match the estimate. This is one of the reasons that accounting practices are as bad as they are -- there is a huge amount of incentive to mislead.
But not only this conflict of interest, what does a company do if they have inside information that will affect their profits in the next quarter? They can't announce the information *and* they can't give accurate numbers (because they can't justify them). So if you are planning a big cash purchase and you know that earnings are going to be low because of it, you are stuck -- you either mislead the analysists or you give them a hint that something big is coming down the pipe. Both are really bad.
But having listened to a number of analyst meetings, I am constantly shocked how clueless these analysts are. They aren't even aware of basic public information that is published in the newspaper. One company I worked for won a large lawsuit (several million dollars) from the federal government a month before the quartly results were released. It was big news in all the papers. At the analyst meeting for the results, the analyst from Merill Lynch asked where the money came from. "The government lawsuit" was the reply. "What government lawsuit?".
I think I can help, but you might not like the advice.
First, you must get yourself into a state where you are not paying off a debt. I don't just mean money. You might think of it as karmic debt. It is anything you have convinced yourself through social convention (or physical coercion) that you have to have (or do). So a mortgage is a debt. A cell phone plan is a debt. A responsibility that you can't shirk (like raising kids, etc) is a debt.
Once you have freed yourself of those debts, you can now start living hand to mouth and life is immediate. The only things you *have* to do are the things that sustain life. This reduces your work load considerably.
Having removed all those attachments, you can now reflect on how much you like life itself. You like to eat, you like to drink, you like to sleep, you like to be warm, etc. You then pursue those tasks gratefully, because they bring you joy. Not doing them brings you misery.
You realize that you don't *have* to do any of these things. You choose to live. You choose to be comfortable. Once you have discovered this, you realize that pursuing your life is not work. It is play.
But living is often not enough for most people. They would like to pursue more than that. They would like to make a contribution to society. They would like to spend time with other people. They would like to have a family.
So if you find yourself interested in pursuing these avenues, you can choose to do so. But it is your choice. You are not bound to do it. So it is not work. It is play.
I was surprised to find out that Bell Sympatico rewrites all the headers in SIP messages as it goes through. I only discovered this because in certain circumstances it does it wrong and it caused the softphone I'm working on not to work.
I'm sure this is the start of some traffic shaping experiments for VOIP on that network. Whether they have started degrading service yet I couldn't say, though.
I think the very first question you should ask yourself is, do you really need a framework?
Yes, reuse is good. But too much functionality in one package is not necessarily good. Sometimes it is better to rely on multiple small reuse libraries than on one "all singing, all dancing" framework.
For instance, if you have a large number of teams, do they all have the same needs? If the teams have divergent needs, picking "the best compromise" in a framework can have negative implications on their productivity.
Also, is the quality of the framework consistent across the whole system? For instance, if you have network class libraries and gui class libraries, are they both equally good? Or are you sacrificing on one side to get the benefit of another?
What are your maintenance/upgrade needs? While it's relatively easy to keep 5 versions of a network library around for legacy applications that don't need to upgrade, it's a very different story to keep 5 different versions of.Net or the JRE around. Are you sure you want to upgrade all the apps all at the same time?
Do you need all of the functionality the framework is bringing you? It might be nice for you to have choice, but how does the size of the framework affect the end user? If your app is small (say 1 meg) compared to a large framework (say 25 megs), it might not be so good.
What's your backup plan? What if the vendor of your framework abandons it? Or refuses to fix critical bugs? Will you be able to find something else that you can use in its place? Smaller pieces can be replaced easier than bigger ones.
I know this isn't the point of the question. But before you decide what framework you want, I urge you to consider whether you *really* need one at all. There are lots of reuse libraries around for every kind of application. It seems likely to me that picking and choosing *exactly* what you want for each circumstance is going to give you better results.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Not because I necessarily disagree with what you wrote, but because you missed the point of a.Net upgrade..Net is not a language. It's a framework. As much as I hate frameworks (and hate them with a passion), saying "I have C code I haven't changed in 10 years" is completely beside the point. The class libraries have changed in the next version.
So this question is more analogous to "I'm moving from Gtk 1.2 to Gtk 2.0. What's likely to break?". Try doing that without any code changes. Your fancy, schmancy C language doesn't help you at all.
Granted, choosing to link against a framework where *everything* is going to get changed at once -- GUI, network, math, class libraries, etc -- (whether you want it or not) is a bloody stupid idea. And using a development environment where you can't write static libraries is a recipe for upgrade hell.
So I agree with you. I... umm... I mean *they*... deserve what they got. But it has nothing to do with the language they chose to write their code in.
Getting the wrong impression
on
Flexible Body Armor
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think people are getting the wrong impression here. This is put into suits for slalom and super G athletes. It's not to protect you from a fall, but to protect you from the flags that whip you when you go around them. It's not going to save you when you crash into a tree. It's going to stop you from getting bruises on your arms and legs when you hit the flags.
Cool idea. But probably not particularly practical in other applications (maybe useful for kendo??? -- but the armour's way cool, so why change:-) )
Seems to be yet another self-agrandizing Product Designer/Manager whose thinks that they "understand" the software development process. What's crazy about this article is that I haven't worked in a company that *doesn't* work like this. And yes, we have generally produced large quantities of user-useless poo.
The problem is largely due to the attitude of these guys. It's just another "throw it over the wall" to the programmers illusion. "If we just work out all the details before we write any code, we'll get it right the first time!"
The difference between most consumer goods and most computer software, is that computer software is a great deal more interactive than other things. It's therefore orders of magnitude more difficult to understand the subtleties of human interaction problems.
Usually, what I find is that these "product designers" have only a vaugue understanding of what they want, because they are not techinical (well, pedantic is a better word) enough to understand the difference. They figure out 10% of the problem and "throw it over the wall" to the programmers, saying "implement this, and I don't want any backtalk, you unwashed heathens".
So the programmers do what they do best -- solve problems. Only since they've never even seen a customer let alone talked to one, they get it all bass ackwards. The product "designers" then say, "Oh, well I told him what I wanted, but he insisted on doing his own thing -- it's not my fault".
Production pipeline indeed. It's some kind of pipe, but I'm not going to smoke it.
However, whether he is intentionally ingoring it, or whether he is ignorant, the fact of the matter is that "consolidation" on "stable" applications doesn't stop OSS projects.
Quite the reverse, actually. If you start a new (and immature) OSS project with 1000 programmers, you will almost certainly fail. Successes generally come from small seeds that grow over time. As they become more stable and popular they gradually take over the dinasaurs in the industry. Those that don't become stable or feature rich are weeded out.
Because OSS doesn't rely on speculative return on investment, being unpopular and unknown for several years doesn't hurt an OSS project at all. And then when it does what most people want, it bursts forth on the scene surprising all those people who weren't paying attention.
It is most unlike proprietary software. I think Mr. Graf will be one of those people who are surprised...
The thing that scares me about this scheme is the statement that you can continue to play the preloaded music as long as you continue to pay your monthly fee.
I was absolutely shocked when I discovered this same method with my DVR (through Rogers). When my credit card expirey date came, they promptly shut off my cable and told me to contact the support line (pretty rude if you ask me... should have just asked me to contact them on my previous bill). But even ruder was the fact that *I couldn't view the material I had previously recorded*. In fact, I was watching a recorded show when the damn thing shut down. I was pissed to say the least.
My guess is that this thing will need to phone home at least once a month to ensure that you are paying your fees. Otherwise it will shut down and be a fancy piece of junk.
Consumers have to send a message to these guys that we don't want to be treated like crap. If you're going to sell me music, sell me music. If you're going to sell me a piece of hardware that plays music, it better damn well do it even if I don't pay your monthly fees.
If you weren't replying to my post, I'd mod you up;-)
I think you've got it exactly right. The intent of my post was not to imply that martial arts should not be taught to people who are bullied. My intent was that people who think that beating the crap out of the bully will solve their problem should not be taught martial arts.
Self defence is about finding options. Sometimes your only option *is* to beat the crap out of someone. Sometimes your only option is to kill someone. But these situations are rare in the extreme.
It doesn't take long to train someone to fight (3-4 years is quite sufficient, especially for children who tend to learn quickly). It takes considerably longer to teach someone how to defend themselves properly. A child who is encouraged to fight by their parents, will probably never learn to see the other options.
I have read the responses to my post with interest. I feel sympathy for those people who have suffered (just as I did) in the past. But (again IMHO), to think that seriously injuring someone will have positive consequences with no negative consequences is naive in the extreme.
Again, it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes the greater good is achieved by fighting. But if a parent says that *the* reason for putting their child in martial arts is so that they will be able to physically intimidate bullies, then the deck is already stacked against my teaching. I will not participate.
When I read the sad story of the person who said that if they had a gun, their bully would have been dead 10 times over, I thought, "I would not give you that gun". His life as he knew it would have been over had he acted on that impulse. It is better to find other options (such as transferring to another school), than to got to jail for murder/manslaughter/aggrevated assault.
As a teacher, my responsibility is the safety and well being of my students. I will not knowingly put them in a dangerous situation. Sometimes, a well meaning, but ignorant parent is the greatest danger of all. I will not train someone if I think that the training will hurt them.
BTW, I'm replying to this message only because I thought the poster was very insightful. I probably should reply to others, but somehow I don't think that they would be interested in what I have to say.
But I want to make a quick comment about remuneration. Someone mentioned that if I accept payment for training these students, it's my *job* to teach them how to fight, not how to live. This is precisely why I have not, nor will I ever accept money for teaching.
It is the students' responsibility to learn. As such they pay for any expenses that the teacher will incur. If someone wishes to learn from me, they will have to accept my teaching as a whole. They will also have to do what is necessary to make sure that the teaching is possible. On my part, I will devote myself to teaching that person. It is huge responsibility on both sides, and not to be undertaken lightly.
I currently have no students, as I am neither senior enough (in my style one should be at least yon dan before opening a doujou) nor in a situation where I can commit myself to the 5-8 years it takes for the student to reach shodan level (where they can be more or less independent).
For my part, if I ever have kids, they will have martial arts training. That part is a simple decision for me. It won't solve every problem, but it will increase the odds considerably that they won't find themselves forced to be pushed around, at least physically. And perhaps a good instructor can help with some of the mental aspects, as well -- I understand that is an essential component of good training.
And it is children of parents like you who I will refuse to train.
Instead of sending your children to take martial arts, you should go yourself. Learn what martial arts is and what it isn't. Learn what self defence is and what it isn't.
The absolute last thing I want is for my students to use their skills to "defend" themselves against bullies in the playground. You think being bullied will give you a complex? What happens if you kick the crap out of someone and they hit their head on the ground and die. Don't think that will fuck you up some? What about the resulting police investigation and lawsuit? Will that allow you to integrate better? What happens if you get into a fight and get *your* head pounded in? Great for self esteem that is.
Martial arts is great. Self defence is great. Training kids to knock each other's blocks off is bad. Really, really bad.
Just like you can't solve a social problem with a technical solution, you can't solve a social problem with a violent solution. Avoiding being bullied is waaaaay more complex than learning how to beat someone up. It's even waaaay more complex than self-defence (i.e. avoiding getting beaten up). It's about learning to interact with a highly complex and screwed up social dynamic. It is something I have never seen taught in a martial arts class.
This is speaking as a shodan in karate and someone who was bullied every day for 6 years in school. Just as an example... People would wait for me every day on my way home from school (usually 5 to 10 guys). One of them would start trying to fight me. I would thrash them (and this was before I had training). The next day someone else would want to fight. Like I said, this went on for 6 years. I later found out that in order to join their gang you had to fight me -- to prove how tough you were. Fuckers never told me though. The abuse only stopped when I refused to fight them and let them pound me into the ground.
It shows pretty clearly what a pyramid scheme "the American Way" has become. Buy low, sell high, get stinking rich. Only, it's not sustainable. You think the government is exerting control now? You think they are engaged in dubious foreign policy? Just wait... As the economic situation becomes more and more untenable, the government will go to larger and larger extremes to "protect the American way of life". Anything to push back that inevitable economic reset.
Not that I have an answer....:-P But any economy that is dependent upon sustained growth is doomed to failure. I'm extremely interested in watching what happens to Japan in the next 20 years. The country is full to bursting, birth rates are waaay down, they are typically xenophobic - so they don't like immigration... How are they going to sustain that required increase in GDP year over year. And if their GDP falls consistently... Watch out. BIIIG trouble...
At one time I was in a similar situation as you. My boss told me that we were expected to generate a certain number of patents a year. Now, I am against software patents mainly because I see software as speech. A patent not only stops me from copying something that someone else has done, but it stops me from expressing the same thought. This makes my job considerably more difficult.
But, sotware patents exist today. Wishing they would go away won't solve the problem. I explained to my management that I was unable to positively contribute to the creation of patents. I explained my reasoning and told them that I didn't expect them to agree with me, but only to respect my wishes. In return I offered to do due dilligence for any patent application that the group produced. In other words I would look for problems in the application and look for prior art. I would do all the "boring" work that nobody else wanted to do.
I explained to them that I would be very motivated in my work and that I would save them money by helping them avoid patent applications that were sure to fail. Additionally, any patent applications that went through would be much stronger.
They were happy with this compromise, and I felt that I could live with this role. As it turned out, I found prior art for every single patent idea that the group turned out, so I did a very good job. In addition, because I didn't want to get caught having to sign on as a patent inventor myself, I took great pains to write code that was either non-novel (i.e. the technique was already proven to work), or obvious. This improved my programming ability greatly since I learned what others were doing rather than living in my own little world.
It is one of the major new additions to the proposed copyright law.
The election has delayed C60, but it's unlikely to stay delayed for long (as it apparently has a fair amount of support). If you oppose Bill C60, you should demand public hearings to that producers of copyrighted material can have input into the process (so far input has largely been made from distributors and Americans).
Slashdot Mirror
I wondered this as well... It seemed very strange until I put 2 and 2 together.
What if open source virus checkers are doing better in the market place than McAfee suggests? Open source virus checkers can only compete if there is full disclosure. Or in other words, if McAfee doesn't get advanced notice, then they lose any possible competative advantage.
So it seems to be a FUD attack aimed at shutting down their OSS competition. I'm actually rather surprised because I didn't realize the OSS alternatives were doing so well. Well done guys!
IANAL and don't really know what I'm talking about. But if I were to guess, I'd say that the *agreement* between Microsoft and the customer is the "license" (otherwise known as a contract). So what signifies the agreement? Well as far as I know there doesn't have to be anything physical that indicates an agreement. A handshake or a conversation can be enough.
So, again guessing, I think the point of the judgement is that the COA is not *necessarily* a proof of license. In the case here, there was clearly no agreement between Microsoft and the sellers of the software. Therefore no contract. Therefore no license, despite the presence of certificates.
I think if MS were to say that the certificates were not proof of a license, then the case would hinge on the details of how the certificates were obtained. If they were obtained through a regular channel, then I think MS would have a *very* hard time showing that no agreement was entered into.
I didn't read all the replies, so I hope I don't repeat someone. But since some of the replies are a little off, I thought I'd speak up. The vocabulary is actually very specific to agile methodologies and it is important to understand what it means. So you ask a very good question.
"Prioiritized" means that every proposed piece of functionality (including bugs) is prioritized in an ordinal fashion. So if you have 100 items, exactly one item has priority 1, and exactly one item has priority 100 (ditto for all the items in between). It is also *very* important that there is only *one* list of functionality (not one for "features" and one for "bugs"). Otherwise you have no way of determining priority.
"Vertical Slice" means that each item is a user visible/testable piece of functionality. It's called a vertical slice because this means you will almost certainly have to touch code in many different modules, but the functionality that results is all related from the *user's* perspective (not the programmers!)
"Iterate" means that when a vertical slice (aka item/issue/story/piece of functionality) is completed and integrated into the whole, it is reevaluated on a regular basis. Perceived defficiencies (regardless of whether it is a "bug" or not) create new items which are then prioritized into the queue of items. Again, this is done on a regular basis (every iteration -- hence the word "iterate").
"iterate on the most critical elements and features" means that work is done on the items *in the order of prioritization* (which is why the prioritization must be ordinal rather than the traditional "priority 1-10"). Work is *not* done on items that are not at the top of the queue.
This last issue is vitaly important, but counter intuitive. It means that you don't "plan ahead" for issues that are coming down the pipe. Why? Because more times than not the prioritization of today will *not* be the prioritization of tomorrow. This makes sure that you don't work on things that don't end up shipping. Also this makes sure that the code does not contain complexity from features that aren't implemented. It is the primary method by which agile methods improve productivity.
These are not all the concepts that make up a sensible agile development method, but it's a good chunk of them. Defining a set of practices for an agile method takes some practice because there is a gestalt that happens when all the practices integrate well. If the practices don't integrate well you end up with a bit of a mess. The problem is that from my experience each team will require a subtly different set of practices.
Hope that helps.
I suspect the answer to your question would be determined in roughly this fashion:
1. You charge $X for redistributing the source
2. Your customer thinks it's unreasonable and they make a stink
3. The holder of the copyright of the code notices (or is contacted) and they also agree it is unreasonable
4. The holder of the copyright contacts you and suggests that you should lower your price otherwise you will be in violation of the license
5. You hold steadfast to your price
6. The holder of the copyright terminates your right to distribute the software
7. You ignore this and continue to distribute the software
8. The holder of the copyright sues you
9. The judge asks you under what authority you were distributing the software
10. You have a choice of accepting the GPL or admitting that you don't have any authority to distribute the software. Since you actually have no choice, you say the GPL.
11. The judge determines whether or not the price is "reasonable". But I suspect that he/she would lean heavily in favour of the copyright holder's definition unless it were completely bonkers.
So, it's a long road to get to this point and quite likely you would resolve the situation before it ever got to the courts. And it would require several conversations with the copyright holder before it broke down that badly.
This is what makes the GPL so good.
Please try to live comfortably on $2,182 *anywhere in the world*. I will do the same thing on $11,200 in *any place you choose*. Then we can see who is happier. Having already lived in some of the most expensive cities in the world on about that amount of money, I'm quite comfortable that I can do it. Also having seen the conditions in places where $2,182 will be enough to survive, I don't envy you at all.
The US is already beyond rich.
Some stats that I picked up from Googling around (you might want to verify the numbers).
Average Yearly Salary worldwide: ~$5,000 US
85th percentile Yearly Salary in the world: $2,182 US
Average Yearly Salary in US: $29,000 US
Average Yearly Welfare Benefits for those on Welfare in the US: ~ $11,200
So the average salary in the US is nearly 6 times the average salary in the world. And more than 10 times the 85th percentile salary (the reason the average is so high is just because us fat b@stards are so stinking, filthy rich). Not only that, but the average person on welfare is making more than 2 times the world average salary and more than 5 times the 85th percentile salary.
So the poorest people in America are making 5 times for than the richest 85 percent of the people in the world. We don't need to make Americans richer, IMHO.
I'll bite for no particular reason...
1. Dunno about MP3 on XMMS on RedHat, works on those out of the box on Debian. But wrt to the others... Well the answer (as you probably know) is that the developers of those codecs would rather I not be able to use them on a system that isn't completely under their control. Ridiculous I agree. There are plenty of good codecs that can be implemented and used by anyone. Why don't content distributors use those codecs? Beats the hell out of me. Anyway, out of respect for the aforementioned developers most Free Software developers don't include support for their stupid codecs. You can hack around it (and it isn't hard) if you wish to show your disrespect...
2. You don't have to upgrade your kernel. Ever. Feel free to use a 10 year old kernel if you want. You've got source code. You can back port your own security fixes if you want. It's up to you. If you want the leading edge you can have that too. Somewhere in the middle -- suit yourself. That's why it's call "Free" software. You're "free" to do whatever the hell you want.
3. Well, you see there's these developers at NVidia who don't want you to use your graphics card in a system they can't completely control. Ridiculous I agree. There are plenty of good graphics cards that can be used by anyone. Why don't more people use those graphics cards? Beats the hell out of me. Anyway, out of respect for those aforementioned developers most Free Software developers don't include support for their stupid graphics cards. You can hack around it (and it isn't hard) if you wish to show your disrespect...
4. XWindows configuration is potentially hard if you decide to configure it by hand. You don't have to (give Ubuntu a try if you don't want to do it). Specifying the exact parameters for your monitor and mouse allows you to support a more hardware than some "Program Director" decided was important. Got a 20 year old monitor made in Java that noone has ever heard of. Go for it! It's up to you. Don't want to do it? No problem. That's why it's called "Free" software. You're "free" to do whatever the hell you want.
5. I don't use file browsers. Could never get the hang of them. If I want to open a file in an application (say "fun.txt" in emacs) I just type it in ("emacs fun.txt"). But have fun with your file browser. I find Windows explorer so completely useless that I've had to install a bash shell on Windows to get half of my stuff done. But like I said, whatever floats your boat.
I hope that answered most of your concerns.
I'm from Ottawa and have been to Le Panache. It is expensive for the area. There are probably a few more expensive restaurants, but not many. I don't know what they had for lunch, but there are plenty of cheaper (and still quite private) restaurants in the area. Personally, I find it offensive that a lobby group asked for a meeting and the government took them out to such a fancy place (or any place at all, really -- they don't have meeting rooms in the parliament buildings???). There are plenty of pro-user lobbiests who can't even get the Heritage department to read an email let alone take them out to lunch.
I just want to point out:
It's not stealing, it's infringing.
And it may not even be infringing because China is not a member of the Berne convention. They do not have copyright in the way that western countries do. I'm not overly familiar with Chinese laws, so I don't know if what they do is illegal. But I suspect not.
As an expat in a foreign country, you should be aware that there are foreign laws.
I'm a programmer with roughly 20 years of experience. And while I don't have a ponytail, or wear sandals (I don't even have a beard), I am often a little on the shabby side -- jeans, t-shirts and runners. I own exactly one sweater and I wear it every day (Hmmm... maybe I have Charlie Brown complex...)
Anyway, in deference to my advancing years, I thought I should probably clean up my act a bit and look respectible. I asked my friend what she thought. Her comment was very insightful.
She said, "You mean wear long sleeve shirts, nice pants and fancy shoes?"
"Ya. Something like that.", I replied.
"Don't do it. None of the technical people will take you seriously."
I fully support Google's stance on this issue. Providing guidance is just an invitation to cook the books. What they are asking is to forecast how much money the company is going to make or lose in the next quarter/year. And *then* they are asking the same company to report how close they came to the mark. If the estimate was wrong, the shareholders may have reason to launch a lawsuit.
So what happens? The company does it's best to juggle the numbers so that they match the estimate. This is one of the reasons that accounting practices are as bad as they are -- there is a huge amount of incentive to mislead.
But not only this conflict of interest, what does a company do if they have inside information that will affect their profits in the next quarter? They can't announce the information *and* they can't give accurate numbers (because they can't justify them). So if you are planning a big cash purchase and you know that earnings are going to be low because of it, you are stuck -- you either mislead the analysists or you give them a hint that something big is coming down the pipe. Both are really bad.
But having listened to a number of analyst meetings, I am constantly shocked how clueless these analysts are. They aren't even aware of basic public information that is published in the newspaper. One company I worked for won a large lawsuit (several million dollars) from the federal government a month before the quartly results were released. It was big news in all the papers. At the analyst meeting for the results, the analyst from Merill Lynch asked where the money came from. "The government lawsuit" was the reply. "What government lawsuit?".
I think I can help, but you might not like the advice.
First, you must get yourself into a state where you are not paying off a debt. I don't just mean money. You might think of it as karmic debt. It is anything you have convinced yourself through social convention (or physical coercion) that you have to have (or do). So a mortgage is a debt. A cell phone plan is a debt. A responsibility that you can't shirk (like raising kids, etc) is a debt.
Once you have freed yourself of those debts, you can now start living hand to mouth and life is immediate. The only things you *have* to do are the things that sustain life. This reduces your work load considerably.
Having removed all those attachments, you can now reflect on how much you like life itself. You like to eat, you like to drink, you like to sleep, you like to be warm, etc. You then pursue those tasks gratefully, because they bring you joy. Not doing them brings you misery.
You realize that you don't *have* to do any of these things. You choose to live. You choose to be comfortable. Once you have discovered this, you realize that pursuing your life is not work. It is play.
But living is often not enough for most people. They would like to pursue more than that. They would like to make a contribution to society. They would like to spend time with other people. They would like to have a family.
So if you find yourself interested in pursuing these avenues, you can choose to do so. But it is your choice. You are not bound to do it. So it is not work. It is play.
I hope that helped...
I was surprised to find out that Bell Sympatico rewrites all the headers in SIP messages as it goes through. I only discovered this because in certain circumstances it does it wrong and it caused the softphone I'm working on not to work.
I'm sure this is the start of some traffic shaping experiments for VOIP on that network. Whether they have started degrading service yet I couldn't say, though.
Very worrying...
I think the very first question you should ask yourself is, do you really need a framework?
.Net or the JRE around. Are you sure you want to upgrade all the apps all at the same time?
Yes, reuse is good. But too much functionality in one package is not necessarily good. Sometimes it is better to rely on multiple small reuse libraries than on one "all singing, all dancing" framework.
For instance, if you have a large number of teams, do they all have the same needs? If the teams have divergent needs, picking "the best compromise" in a framework can have negative implications on their productivity.
Also, is the quality of the framework consistent across the whole system? For instance, if you have network class libraries and gui class libraries, are they both equally good? Or are you sacrificing on one side to get the benefit of another?
What are your maintenance/upgrade needs? While it's relatively easy to keep 5 versions of a network library around for legacy applications that don't need to upgrade, it's a very different story to keep 5 different versions of
Do you need all of the functionality the framework is bringing you? It might be nice for you to have choice, but how does the size of the framework affect the end user? If your app is small (say 1 meg) compared to a large framework (say 25 megs), it might not be so good.
What's your backup plan? What if the vendor of your framework abandons it? Or refuses to fix critical bugs? Will you be able to find something else that you can use in its place? Smaller pieces can be replaced easier than bigger ones.
I know this isn't the point of the question. But before you decide what framework you want, I urge you to consider whether you *really* need one at all. There are lots of reuse libraries around for every kind of application. It seems likely to me that picking and choosing *exactly* what you want for each circumstance is going to give you better results.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Not because I necessarily disagree with what you wrote, but because you missed the point of a .Net upgrade. .Net is not a language. It's a framework. As much as I hate frameworks (and hate them with a passion), saying "I have C code I haven't changed in 10 years" is completely beside the point. The class libraries have changed in the next version.
... umm ... I mean *they* ... deserve what they got. But it has nothing to do with the language they chose to write their code in.
So this question is more analogous to "I'm moving from Gtk 1.2 to Gtk 2.0. What's likely to break?". Try doing that without any code changes. Your fancy, schmancy C language doesn't help you at all.
Granted, choosing to link against a framework where *everything* is going to get changed at once -- GUI, network, math, class libraries, etc -- (whether you want it or not) is a bloody stupid idea. And using a development environment where you can't write static libraries is a recipe for upgrade hell.
So I agree with you. I
I think people are getting the wrong impression here. This is put into suits for slalom and super G athletes. It's not to protect you from a fall, but to protect you from the flags that whip you when you go around them. It's not going to save you when you crash into a tree. It's going to stop you from getting bruises on your arms and legs when you hit the flags.
:-) )
Cool idea. But probably not particularly practical in other applications (maybe useful for kendo??? -- but the armour's way cool, so why change
Hrmph...
Seems to be yet another self-agrandizing Product Designer/Manager whose thinks that they "understand" the software development process. What's crazy about this article is that I haven't worked in a company that *doesn't* work like this. And yes, we have generally produced large quantities of user-useless poo.
The problem is largely due to the attitude of these guys. It's just another "throw it over the wall" to the programmers illusion. "If we just work out all the details before we write any code, we'll get it right the first time!"
The difference between most consumer goods and most computer software, is that computer software is a great deal more interactive than other things. It's therefore orders of magnitude more difficult to understand the subtleties of human interaction problems.
Usually, what I find is that these "product designers" have only a vaugue understanding of what they want, because they are not techinical (well, pedantic is a better word) enough to understand the difference. They figure out 10% of the problem and "throw it over the wall" to the programmers, saying "implement this, and I don't want any backtalk, you unwashed heathens".
So the programmers do what they do best -- solve problems. Only since they've never even seen a customer let alone talked to one, they get it all bass ackwards. The product "designers" then say, "Oh, well I told him what I wanted, but he insisted on doing his own thing -- it's not my fault".
Production pipeline indeed. It's some kind of pipe, but I'm not going to smoke it.
I'm sure Mr. Graf hopes this to be the case.
However, whether he is intentionally ingoring it, or whether he is ignorant, the fact of the matter is that "consolidation" on "stable" applications doesn't stop OSS projects.
Quite the reverse, actually. If you start a new (and immature) OSS project with 1000 programmers, you will almost certainly fail. Successes generally come from small seeds that grow over time. As they become more stable and popular they gradually take over the dinasaurs in the industry. Those that don't become stable or feature rich are weeded out.
Because OSS doesn't rely on speculative return on investment, being unpopular and unknown for several years doesn't hurt an OSS project at all. And then when it does what most people want, it bursts forth on the scene surprising all those people who weren't paying attention.
It is most unlike proprietary software. I think Mr. Graf will be one of those people who are surprised...
The thing that scares me about this scheme is the statement that you can continue to play the preloaded music as long as you continue to pay your monthly fee.
I was absolutely shocked when I discovered this same method with my DVR (through Rogers). When my credit card expirey date came, they promptly shut off my cable and told me to contact the support line (pretty rude if you ask me... should have just asked me to contact them on my previous bill). But even ruder was the fact that *I couldn't view the material I had previously recorded*. In fact, I was watching a recorded show when the damn thing shut down. I was pissed to say the least.
My guess is that this thing will need to phone home at least once a month to ensure that you are paying your fees. Otherwise it will shut down and be a fancy piece of junk.
Consumers have to send a message to these guys that we don't want to be treated like crap. If you're going to sell me music, sell me music. If you're going to sell me a piece of hardware that plays music, it better damn well do it even if I don't pay your monthly fees.
If you weren't replying to my post, I'd mod you up ;-)
I think you've got it exactly right. The intent of my post was not to imply that martial arts should not be taught to people who are bullied. My intent was that people who think that beating the crap out of the bully will solve their problem should not be taught martial arts.
Self defence is about finding options. Sometimes your only option *is* to beat the crap out of someone. Sometimes your only option is to kill someone. But these situations are rare in the extreme.
It doesn't take long to train someone to fight (3-4 years is quite sufficient, especially for children who tend to learn quickly). It takes considerably longer to teach someone how to defend themselves properly. A child who is encouraged to fight by their parents, will probably never learn to see the other options.
I have read the responses to my post with interest. I feel sympathy for those people who have suffered (just as I did) in the past. But (again IMHO), to think that seriously injuring someone will have positive consequences with no negative consequences is naive in the extreme.
Again, it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes the greater good is achieved by fighting. But if a parent says that *the* reason for putting their child in martial arts is so that they will be able to physically intimidate bullies, then the deck is already stacked against my teaching. I will not participate.
When I read the sad story of the person who said that if they had a gun, their bully would have been dead 10 times over, I thought, "I would not give you that gun". His life as he knew it would have been over had he acted on that impulse. It is better to find other options (such as transferring to another school), than to got to jail for murder/manslaughter/aggrevated assault.
As a teacher, my responsibility is the safety and well being of my students. I will not knowingly put them in a dangerous situation. Sometimes, a well meaning, but ignorant parent is the greatest danger of all. I will not train someone if I think that the training will hurt them.
BTW, I'm replying to this message only because I thought the poster was very insightful. I probably should reply to others, but somehow I don't think that they would be interested in what I have to say.
But I want to make a quick comment about remuneration. Someone mentioned that if I accept payment for training these students, it's my *job* to teach them how to fight, not how to live. This is precisely why I have not, nor will I ever accept money for teaching.
It is the students' responsibility to learn. As such they pay for any expenses that the teacher will incur. If someone wishes to learn from me, they will have to accept my teaching as a whole. They will also have to do what is necessary to make sure that the teaching is possible. On my part, I will devote myself to teaching that person. It is huge responsibility on both sides, and not to be undertaken lightly.
I currently have no students, as I am neither senior enough (in my style one should be at least yon dan before opening a doujou) nor in a situation where I can commit myself to the 5-8 years it takes for the student to reach shodan level (where they can be more or less independent).
And it is children of parents like you who I will refuse to train.
Instead of sending your children to take martial arts, you should go yourself. Learn what martial arts is and what it isn't. Learn what self defence is and what it isn't.
The absolute last thing I want is for my students to use their skills to "defend" themselves against bullies in the playground. You think being bullied will give you a complex? What happens if you kick the crap out of someone and they hit their head on the ground and die. Don't think that will fuck you up some? What about the resulting police investigation and lawsuit? Will that allow you to integrate better? What happens if you get into a fight and get *your* head pounded in? Great for self esteem that is.
Martial arts is great. Self defence is great. Training kids to knock each other's blocks off is bad. Really, really bad.
Just like you can't solve a social problem with a technical solution, you can't solve a social problem with a violent solution. Avoiding being bullied is waaaaay more complex than learning how to beat someone up. It's even waaaay more complex than self-defence (i.e. avoiding getting beaten up). It's about learning to interact with a highly complex and screwed up social dynamic. It is something I have never seen taught in a martial arts class.
This is speaking as a shodan in karate and someone who was bullied every day for 6 years in school. Just as an example... People would wait for me every day on my way home from school (usually 5 to 10 guys). One of them would start trying to fight me. I would thrash them (and this was before I had training). The next day someone else would want to fight. Like I said, this went on for 6 years. I later found out that in order to join their gang you had to fight me -- to prove how tough you were. Fuckers never told me though. The abuse only stopped when I refused to fight them and let them pound me into the ground.
That's an interesting way to put it.
:-P But any economy that is dependent upon sustained growth is doomed to failure. I'm extremely interested in watching what happens to Japan in the next 20 years. The country is full to bursting, birth rates are waaay down, they are typically xenophobic - so they don't like immigration... How are they going to sustain that required increase in GDP year over year. And if their GDP falls consistently... Watch out. BIIIG trouble...
It shows pretty clearly what a pyramid scheme "the American Way" has become. Buy low, sell high, get stinking rich. Only, it's not sustainable. You think the government is exerting control now? You think they are engaged in dubious foreign policy? Just wait... As the economic situation becomes more and more untenable, the government will go to larger and larger extremes to "protect the American way of life". Anything to push back that inevitable economic reset.
Not that I have an answer....
I can tell you what I did.
At one time I was in a similar situation as you. My boss told me that we were expected to generate a certain number of patents a year. Now, I am against software patents mainly because I see software as speech. A patent not only stops me from copying something that someone else has done, but it stops me from expressing the same thought. This makes my job considerably more difficult.
But, sotware patents exist today. Wishing they would go away won't solve the problem. I explained to my management that I was unable to positively contribute to the creation of patents. I explained my reasoning and told them that I didn't expect them to agree with me, but only to respect my wishes. In return I offered to do due dilligence for any patent application that the group produced. In other words I would look for problems in the application and look for prior art. I would do all the "boring" work that nobody else wanted to do.
I explained to them that I would be very motivated in my work and that I would save them money by helping them avoid patent applications that were sure to fail. Additionally, any patent applications that went through would be much stronger.
They were happy with this compromise, and I felt that I could live with this role. As it turned out, I found prior art for every single patent idea that the group turned out, so I did a very good job. In addition, because I didn't want to get caught having to sign on as a patent inventor myself, I took great pains to write code that was either non-novel (i.e. the technique was already proven to work), or obvious. This improved my programming ability greatly since I learned what others were doing rather than living in my own little world.
Hope that helps...
Bill C60 will change this.
It is one of the major new additions to the proposed copyright law.
The election has delayed C60, but it's unlikely to stay delayed for long (as it apparently has a fair amount of support). If you oppose Bill C60, you should demand public hearings to that producers of copyrighted material can have input into the process (so far input has largely been made from distributors and Americans).
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/billc60/ for more information...
Not only that, but if some deranged lunatic runs away with the ballot box and drives over it with his truck, all you have to do is put the ballots in another box... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews /TPStory/LAC/20060124/ELXNBRIEFS24-2/TPNational/Ca nada