> But, as usual, facts blow away knee-jerk
> applications of Socialist propaganda
It wasn't socialist propaganda. It was a case
being made for 'true' free markets. Patent laws
violate the concept of a free market. They
are anti free market and anti competition.
No. You miss the point. Its not about
price controls. Those usually don't work.
Its about free markets. Its about competition.
If other scientists are smart enough to clone
a drug, then the government shouldn't be
stepping in and stopping them from doing it.
Especially when its an issue of justice.
I agree. Who wins when Justice and Capitalism
are at odds? Usually Capitalism. Of course
dare to criticize it and your labeled a left
wing socialist commie.
No. He didn't say that the drugs should be
given away for free. They should, in the
name of justice, but he didn't say that.
What he was saying is that the patent destroys
the free market and the associated competition,
growth, progress, etc. that a free market brings.
Right. The real reason they don't need
patents is because they are anti free market.
Which means anti-competition, which means
anti-growth and anti-progress.
Well, You miss the point that the people that
do all of this R&D are not the ones that
get rich off of the patents. Scientists
usually have motives other than money.
If we can spend a trillion dollars for a
missile defense system, can't we sponsor
a little research?
You miss the point that the people that
do all of this R&D are not the ones that
get rich off of the patents. Scientists
usually have motives other than money.
If we can spend a trillion dollars for a
missile defense system, can't we sponsor
a little research?
You miss the point that the people that
do all of this R&D are not the ones that
get rich off of the patents. Scientists
usually have motives other than money.
If we can spend a trillion dollars for a
missile defense system, can't we sponsor
a little research?
Good point. Who wins win Justice is placed
at odds with Capitalism?
BTW: we don't have a free market system in
the United States. We have government
sponsored capitalism. There is a difference.
The tech corporations have a big
voice in government. Congress,
President, Senate. All of these
branches are tripping over themselves
to do what these corporations want.
Do you think that they are always acting
in our best interest?
Go to business school fool! Bottom-line.
Maximize profits.
Why does the union have to be of the 27-inch
neck variety? Why can't we have a union
that lobbies? Like the CPA's, or the Teachers,
or the Lawyers?
We need a voice! On the capitol! Who
denies this?! Who is representing your
interests? Laws are being passed people!
Amen brother.
I think most people here are too young
to know of anything but this incredibly
good economic run we have had.
It will end.
The corporations have lobbyists
squeezing congress. Tech companies
just met with Bush.
Who looks out for #1? What is your
power compared to them? Do you think
your company has your best interest
in mind?
Slashdotters think that unions are
bad for them, don't they realize that
a corporation exists to maximize profits?
Once we hit the low end of the business
cycle they can kiss their perks goodbye.
No more having to kiss up to those damn
techies!
Cliff, you can't back out of this one.
If you are seasoned, then you know you
can use whatever environment you want.
You just need to make sure it compiles &
runs with the TA's environment.
Do you really expect the TA to set up all
of the possible environments that a student
might use? Just to grade a program?
By the way, "ANSI C++" is a relatively new
standard, and not everything will transfer
cleanly from compiler to compiler (not
to mention os to os).
I can't believe you are that naive.
The TA will never know what environment
you wrote your code in, don't worry about it.
The TA has to demand a single environment
or else he/she would be spending all of
their time setting up different
environments just to grade a program. Since it
is an intro class, you will probably only use
a basic subset of c++ (which _should_ behave
the same across platforms). Develop your
code however you want to, just make sure it
compiles and runs with the TA's system.
Its actually better in many cases though.
Do some research on NASA's SEL. They
approach a level of efficiency that I
doubt any open source project has approached.
otherwise:
>I can count on the fingers of one hand the
>number of times I've actually been given a
>specification for a project, or even a
>reasonable list of requirements
Then how did you write the code?
>the established deadlines are typically even
>worse, you end up doubling or even tripling your
>estimates for project length simply because you
>know that whatever time you ask for will be cut
>in half (or more).
Real world businesses need deadlines. Maybe
you've just been unlucky to have poorly
educated managers (you did try to educate them
didn't you?)
"Open Source" doesn't do anything to solve these
problems. For every success in the OS world,
there are a dozen failures (just like in the
"closed source" world).
Software engineering is hard, and there are
no Silver Bullets (read "The Mythical Man Month").
Slashdot Mirror
Most research is done at universities.
Corporations will never focus on long term
research. It doesn't make sense for the bottom
line.
My bad. I'll take my own medicine.
I didn't make those comments.
Pay attention when you hit 'reply to this'
that you actually are replying to
the article you intended.
p.s. you said "You don't seem to understand that all publically funded research in the U.S. must be pretectivly patented "
If you're not going to state _why_, then don't
state it. I may say the moon is made out of
cheese but that don't make it so.
> But, as usual, facts blow away knee-jerk
> applications of Socialist propaganda
It wasn't socialist propaganda. It was a case
being made for 'true' free markets. Patent laws
violate the concept of a free market. They
are anti free market and anti competition.
Take your capitalistic fascism elsewhere.
What a load of BS.
Don't get me wrong. I am glad
Bill Gates is giving out money.
But it is like someone that makes
$100,000/year donating $100
Do you honestly think that a person dying
of aids really needs marketing to convince
him to use the drug?
Let me repeat, Do you honestly think that a
person dying of aids really needs marketing to
convince him to use the drug?
>while the legal implications of copyright
>infringment could be negotiated
Ummm. Thats the big problem there isn't it?
The fact is, its a patent. You do this and
you're violating a patent. That means trouble.
Patents are anti free market. Lets do away
with them.
No. You miss the point. Its not about
price controls. Those usually don't work.
Its about free markets. Its about competition.
If other scientists are smart enough to clone
a drug, then the government shouldn't be
stepping in and stopping them from doing it.
Especially when its an issue of justice.
I agree. Who wins when Justice and Capitalism
are at odds? Usually Capitalism. Of course
dare to criticize it and your labeled a left
wing socialist commie.
Its nice to see someone making sense.
Isn't government sponsored industry great?
No. He didn't say that the drugs should be
given away for free. They should, in the
name of justice, but he didn't say that.
What he was saying is that the patent destroys
the free market and the associated competition,
growth, progress, etc. that a free market brings.
Right. The real reason they don't need
patents is because they are anti free market.
Which means anti-competition, which means
anti-growth and anti-progress.
Well, You miss the point that the people that
do all of this R&D are not the ones that
get rich off of the patents. Scientists
usually have motives other than money.
If we can spend a trillion dollars for a
missile defense system, can't we sponsor
a little research?
You miss the point that the people that
do all of this R&D are not the ones that
get rich off of the patents. Scientists
usually have motives other than money.
If we can spend a trillion dollars for a
missile defense system, can't we sponsor
a little research?
> No incentive to R&D, no drugs
You miss the point that the people that
do all of this R&D are not the ones that
get rich off of the patents. Scientists
usually have motives other than money.
If we can spend a trillion dollars for a
missile defense system, can't we sponsor
a little research?
Good point. Who wins win Justice is placed
at odds with Capitalism?
BTW: we don't have a free market system in
the United States. We have government
sponsored capitalism. There is a difference.
> fine. that's anti-capitalist, but whatever
Yeah, but patents are anti free market.
Programmers need a voice!
The tech corporations have a big
voice in government. Congress,
President, Senate. All of these
branches are tripping over themselves
to do what these corporations want.
Do you think that they are always acting
in our best interest?
Go to business school fool! Bottom-line.
Maximize profits.
Why does the union have to be of the 27-inch
neck variety? Why can't we have a union
that lobbies? Like the CPA's, or the Teachers,
or the Lawyers?
We need a voice! On the capitol! Who
denies this?! Who is representing your
interests? Laws are being passed people!
Can WashTech step in?
Amen brother. I think most people here are too young to know of anything but this incredibly good economic run we have had. It will end. The corporations have lobbyists squeezing congress. Tech companies just met with Bush. Who looks out for #1? What is your power compared to them? Do you think your company has your best interest in mind? Slashdotters think that unions are bad for them, don't they realize that a corporation exists to maximize profits? Once we hit the low end of the business cycle they can kiss their perks goodbye. No more having to kiss up to those damn techies!
Your essay made was well written and well thought out. Are you sure you have the right place? :)
Cliff, you can't back out of this one.
If you are seasoned, then you know you
can use whatever environment you want.
You just need to make sure it compiles &
runs with the TA's environment.
Do you really expect the TA to set up all
of the possible environments that a student
might use? Just to grade a program?
By the way, "ANSI C++" is a relatively new
standard, and not everything will transfer
cleanly from compiler to compiler (not
to mention os to os).
I can't believe you are that naive.
Right on. I should have read this before I posted.
The TA will never know what environment you wrote your code in, don't worry about it. The TA has to demand a single environment or else he/she would be spending all of their time setting up different environments just to grade a program. Since it is an intro class, you will probably only use a basic subset of c++ (which _should_ behave the same across platforms). Develop your code however you want to, just make sure it compiles and runs with the TA's system.
Good Advice.
Its actually better in many cases though.
Do some research on NASA's SEL. They
approach a level of efficiency that I
doubt any open source project has approached.
otherwise:
>I can count on the fingers of one hand the
>number of times I've actually been given a
>specification for a project, or even a
>reasonable list of requirements
Then how did you write the code?
>the established deadlines are typically even
>worse, you end up doubling or even tripling your
>estimates for project length simply because you
>know that whatever time you ask for will be cut
>in half (or more).
Real world businesses need deadlines. Maybe
you've just been unlucky to have poorly
educated managers (you did try to educate them
didn't you?)
"Open Source" doesn't do anything to solve these
problems. For every success in the OS world,
there are a dozen failures (just like in the
"closed source" world).
Software engineering is hard, and there are
no Silver Bullets (read "The Mythical Man Month").