There are several issues I can see with this plan:
1) it goes around all work-time related restrictions that the unions got passed. Brings 24 hour shifts for some people. They basically brought slavery again to the table. It would be very bad if this practise was expected that everyone would do.
2) it's marketed as alternative to starting your own company. Don't these people have jobs already at microsoft?
That said, there are plenty of open source programmers available and I bet many of them work hard hours for no pay. If these people just choose their platform correctly they would receive some extra bonus. And their plan would bring some fame and money to these people. There's also the skills development story in it. Some people just want to be the best in the world. And only way to get there is to work hard long hours.
But the minute I hear this is required that everyone needs to do it or get thrown out of the job, it'll be big NO. Some people do have life you know. In fact, their plan better include some way to bring back real life to these people who work hard hours on their platform. Of course it depends how successful this will be...
It's not about competition. It's more like providing phones to the world. It's just a good thing competition is successful with their platforms -- there is enough market for everyone.
The real trick is how you get presidential candidates to say on record that a person should be executed? I've always though that they carefully consider everything they say in order to win political bonus points. This fact alone makes it quite extraordinary. I don't think anyone else could even hope to make such an argument. Guess they went for the best argument they had, and it ended up quite strange argument.
I hope we'll see if the argument sticks or if they will find a way to go around it. Anyone reading it will think he's crazy even suggesting such an argument. (until they check the articles in question)
It's very easy to do. Just require a permission to buy a new one and it lets you control the number of them available.
It'll take some 20 years, but it'll do it. The amount of them will drop. You don't have to go fetch them from normal people. Maybe just provide a way to dump old ones safely...
like 1) someone have alarm systems available but noone wants to buy them. 2) and they saw the disaster as a good opportunity to sell more of them 3) and announcing that deepwater horizon lacked them sounds like a good business plan 4) just to guarantee that they will have customers for longer period of time 5) government is going to make them mandatory for any such operations 6) 7) profit
In a small company, testing is just waste of time. If you cannot trust your co-workers in a small company enough that they do not break the code, then you will have bigger problems than just lack of testing. Testing is for situations where your programmers are idiots, and you don't trust them enough to keep the code working. It's always a bad situation in small organisation. In large organisation testing is necessary. But below some treshold, once you know everyone involved, testing gives nothing new to your process.
It's programmers responsibility to ensure their code works perfectly in all situations. If a programmer cannot check that all execution paths are actually working, it'll take large amount of work for other people to find the paths and manually test every one of them.
My alternative to testing in small organisation is to teach people to write code correctly. Assuming you're in bad situation where you cannot trust your programmers already -- obviously trust needs to be deserved -- once you start finding errors in the field, the programmer will obviously lose the trust for short period of time.
It seems that he'll find out that writing a book is not that simple, even if you had all the necessary information available. My guess is that the book will be very short, very bad grammar, and then too late to cash on the success of wikileaks...
The real reason to concentrate on typing speed is that it allows you to detect people who have never written any code from those that have written large amounts of code. If you write code every day on your life for 40 years, it's pretty certain you have learned to use computer keyboards very efficiently. This shows in typing speed. Even if the programmers would not know anything about how speed-typing should be done -- once they keep writing code over and over again, they will figure out a way to do it quickly. Everyone has different way to do it, but they definitely can do it quickly.
well, it could be good offer if:
1) if you were already uncertain that you can finish university
2) you're really sick and tired of learning anything new
3) you think that you're better than the people who try to teach you in university
4) the offered prize is the only way you can get any money
5) the alternative to this great plan is to work on McD for rest of your life
Here's what happens:
1) they take the money
2) they work hard for 3 months
3) the money runs out
4) their idea is worthless
5) they have no education
6) next 30 years they have no job
What a convinient way to make people buy new computers. When the previous one dies because of some random timer in intel headquarters, you just need to buy a new one.
It'll be their way of making us rent the machines, and not actually own them.
From the information in the article, I'm not sure I understand what the case is based on? If the code was open-source, doesn't he have license to use it?
Are they claiming that the "open source" code is actually proprietary and cannot be used by anyone? Or that just their employees cannot use it? Or that the contract between him and the employer somehow prevents licensing the open source code? The article claimed there was no question that he violated the confidentiality agreement. Or did he disclose some proprietary information while copying the "open source" code? Or is the case not based on their ownership of the code that was copied, but something else? Or did he copy it directly from their servers and not use the "open source" versions of the code from external sources?
Guess there are many unanswered questions in this article. But guess it's difficult to understand how big organisation's rules work. Maybe there are some rules that are difficult to understand by normal open source developers. (but if the rules are difficult to understand, how they expect people to follow them?) Banks might have different rules compared to normal companies? More strict maybe...
Robot playing chess is one thing, but what will happen if you cannot make it stop playing games. We wouldnt want any more chess moves. Rules of chess need to be only slightly wrong and it keeps playing infinitely.
It just takes too long time to create all the 3d stuff for games, that programmers have no time to create the actual gameplay or levels. In the 90's, you could see 2d games where there was 100 levels of varying difficulty available. With 3d graphics, that's just impossible recardless of what kind of team is creating the game.
Isn't LHC supposed to destroy the universe by creating some black holes? It'll be very disappointing if the 2 billion investment for LHC will not even destroy the universe. If I were putting my money on it, I would immediately want them back.
To start contributing, easiest way is to find a lib that looks promising, but which have not been developed for some time. Developers cannot do it too long, and many projects are forgotten. The high profile libs have very strict requirements of who is able to contribute, but taking a not-so-high profile lib and make it world class. It's very large amount of work, but in the end it'll be worth the effort.
Here's what happens when your first game is ready: You'll find some publishers, and they will tell you to sign a contract, which makes the game useless for anyone else than that one publisher. Then they give you $1000 of money for 2 years of work for a completely finished product.. Getting a game ready is in reality a big disappointment and most people cannot handle it and will stop creating games or switch to something else. But this will happen quite early in your life, since only very young people will dream about game programming.
So it's not really worth the effort. The people who created the game learned large amount of programming, and that eventually provided a good job, so the effort did get rewarded eventually; but not immediately and definitely not in the way people originally thought it would happen. Large amount of effort is going to be rewarded one way or another -- it's just too obvious who have done the effort and who have not -- you need to talk to a person for 2 minutes and you can easily regognize if he ever spent years writing code. This effort will get rewarded later in your life.
But you shouldn't think that game programming alone will give you steady income. It's just not going to happen. The reward comes from learning things that noone else knows, and then when applying to a real job, they will regognize what you have learned while writing your first game. So game programming is a good way to get young people to get interested in programming, but it's not a substitute for a real job.
This is the real order of how it was learned, not which order they were teached. 1) numbers 2) addition/substraction 3) expressions (1+2+3+4) 4) variables x,y 6) equals sign x=10 7) functions f(x) = x+10 8) equations x+10 = 20 9) booleans / and/or/not 10) cartesian products (thanks to programming with structs in C language) 11) types f(x):: R->R 12) solving equations x+10=20 => x+10-10=20-10 => x+(10-10)=20-10 => x = 20-10 => x=10 13) implication 14) logic (forall/exists) 15) substitution 16) equivalence class/equivalence relation (thanks to beta reduction/lambda calculus) 17) subsets 18) identity vs equality 19) set theory (intersection) 20) diagram commutes 21) equalizers 22) pullbacks 23) limits 24) inverse image I've omitted anything that I don't think are related to the equals sign problem in the topic. I'm probably still missing some important parts of the problem. It's really quite complicated problem when you start to think about it. You can use a lifetime studying the problem and it still can give you lot's of fun when you learn new things about it. And this is just one path how you can learn about it, there are probably many other nice ways to learn about it.
When they teach everyone the basics, they're doing exactly the right thing. You don't need to teach Mozart how to create songs, and programmers are no different. If someone is interested about the subject, school cannot teach anything more about that subject. It's the other people who really need the computing skills. Those people who are interested in it will create some god awful software that is impossible to use, and thus word, excel, spreadsheet etc skills are absolutely necessary for everyone. Teachers will know this, they have seen it many times, some people create difficult-to-use software and others will need to learn how to use that. They're doing the same with other subjects too. You'll learn things you would prefer not to know anything about. But those things are necessary to learn because there are large number of people who know that stuff very well and anyone not knowing the basics will be in huge disadvantage.
Slashdot Mirror
There are several issues I can see with this plan:
1) it goes around all work-time related restrictions that the unions got passed. Brings 24 hour shifts for some people. They basically brought slavery again to the table. It would be very bad if this practise was expected that everyone would do.
2) it's marketed as alternative to starting your own company. Don't these people have jobs already at microsoft?
That said, there are plenty of open source programmers available and I bet many of them work hard hours for no pay. If these people just choose their platform correctly they would receive some extra bonus. And their plan would bring some fame and money to these people. There's also the skills development story in it. Some people just want to be the best in the world. And only way to get there is to work hard long hours.
But the minute I hear this is required that everyone needs to do it or get thrown out of the job, it'll be big NO. Some people do have life you know. In fact, their plan better include some way to bring back real life to these people who work hard hours on their platform. Of course it depends how successful this will be...
It's not about competition. It's more like providing phones to the world. It's just a good thing competition is successful with their platforms -- there is enough market for everyone.
IRS might have enough money, so it's probably very good target for lawsuits...
and do this before he did the evil acts of terror? (they could have secretly granted him citizenship in 1985?)
It's not possible because he has supposedly not done serious crimes in UK. Sweden is very different story.
The real trick is how you get presidential candidates to say on record that a person should be executed? I've always though that they carefully consider everything they say in order to win political bonus points. This fact alone makes it quite extraordinary. I don't think anyone else could even hope to make such an argument. Guess they went for the best argument they had, and it ended up quite strange argument.
I hope we'll see if the argument sticks or if they will find a way to go around it. Anyone reading it will think he's crazy even suggesting such an argument. (until they check the articles in question)
It's very easy to do. Just require a permission to buy a new one and it lets you control the number of them available.
It'll take some 20 years, but it'll do it. The amount of them will drop. You don't have to go fetch them from normal people. Maybe just provide a way to dump old ones safely...
like
1) someone have alarm systems available but noone wants to buy them.
2) and they saw the disaster as a good opportunity to sell more of them
3) and announcing that deepwater horizon lacked them sounds like a good business plan
4) just to guarantee that they will have customers for longer period of time
5) government is going to make them mandatory for any such operations
6)
7) profit
In a small company, testing is just waste of time. If you cannot trust your co-workers in a small company enough that they do not break the code, then you will have bigger problems than just lack of testing. Testing is for situations where your programmers are idiots, and you don't trust them enough to keep the code working. It's always a bad situation in small organisation. In large organisation testing is necessary. But below some treshold, once you know everyone involved, testing gives nothing new to your process.
It's programmers responsibility to ensure their code works perfectly in all situations. If a programmer cannot check that all execution paths are actually working, it'll take large amount of work for other people to find the paths and manually test every one of them.
My alternative to testing in small organisation is to teach people to write code correctly. Assuming you're in bad situation where you cannot trust your programmers already -- obviously trust needs to be deserved -- once you start finding errors in the field, the programmer will obviously lose the trust for short period of time.
Well, they don't get it right the first time...
I thought everyone in microsoft are just nerds, who know nothing about woman. Now they claim to know enough of it that they can patent it?
It seems that he'll find out that writing a book is not that simple, even if you had all the necessary information available. My guess is that the book will be very short, very bad grammar, and then too late to cash on the success of wikileaks...
The real reason to concentrate on typing speed is that it allows you to detect people who have never written any code from those that have written large amounts of code. If you write code every day on your life for 40 years, it's pretty certain you have learned to use computer keyboards very efficiently. This shows in typing speed. Even if the programmers would not know anything about how speed-typing should be done -- once they keep writing code over and over again, they will figure out a way to do it quickly. Everyone has different way to do it, but they definitely can do it quickly.
well, it could be good offer if:
1) if you were already uncertain that you can finish university
2) you're really sick and tired of learning anything new
3) you think that you're better than the people who try to teach you in university
4) the offered prize is the only way you can get any money
5) the alternative to this great plan is to work on McD for rest of your life
Seems like a clear dropout path to me.
Here's what happens:
1) they take the money
2) they work hard for 3 months
3) the money runs out
4) their idea is worthless
5) they have no education
6) next 30 years they have no job
Great plan.
What a convinient way to make people buy new computers. When the previous one dies because of some random timer in intel headquarters, you just need to buy a new one.
It'll be their way of making us rent the machines, and not actually own them.
couldn't you use entangled photons instead? :)
From the information in the article, I'm not sure I understand what the case is based on? If the code was open-source, doesn't he have license to use it?
Are they claiming that the "open source" code is actually proprietary and cannot be used by anyone? Or that just their employees cannot use it? Or that the contract between him and the employer somehow prevents licensing the open source code? The article claimed there was no question that he violated the confidentiality agreement. Or did he disclose some proprietary information while copying the "open source" code? Or is the case not based on their ownership of the code that was copied, but something else? Or did he copy it directly from their servers and not use the "open source" versions of the code from external sources?
Guess there are many unanswered questions in this article. But guess it's difficult to understand how big organisation's rules work. Maybe there are some rules that are difficult to understand by normal open source developers. (but if the rules are difficult to understand, how they expect people to follow them?) Banks might have different rules compared to normal companies? More strict maybe...
Robot playing chess is one thing, but what will happen if you cannot make it stop playing games. We wouldnt want any more chess moves. Rules of chess need to be only slightly wrong and it keeps playing infinitely.
It just takes too long time to create all the 3d stuff for games, that programmers have no time to create the actual gameplay or levels. In the 90's, you could see 2d games where there was 100 levels of varying difficulty available. With 3d graphics, that's just impossible recardless of what kind of team is creating the game.
Isn't LHC supposed to destroy the universe by creating some black holes? It'll be very disappointing if the 2 billion investment for LHC will not even destroy the universe. If I were putting my money on it, I would immediately want them back.
To start contributing, easiest way is to find a lib that looks promising, but which have not been developed for some time. Developers cannot do it too long, and many projects are forgotten. The high profile libs have very strict requirements of who is able to contribute, but taking a not-so-high profile lib and make it world class. It's very large amount of work, but in the end it'll be worth the effort.
Here's what happens when your first game is ready: You'll find some publishers, and they will tell you to sign a contract, which makes the game useless for anyone else than that one publisher. Then they give you $1000 of money for 2 years of work for a completely finished product.. Getting a game ready is in reality a big disappointment and most people cannot handle it and will stop creating games or switch to something else. But this will happen quite early in your life, since only very young people will dream about game programming.
So it's not really worth the effort. The people who created the game learned large amount of programming, and that eventually provided a good job, so the effort did get rewarded eventually; but not immediately and definitely not in the way people originally thought it would happen. Large amount of effort is going to be rewarded one way or another -- it's just too obvious who have done the effort and who have not -- you need to talk to a person for 2 minutes and you can easily regognize if he ever spent years writing code. This effort will get rewarded later in your life.
But you shouldn't think that game programming alone will give you steady income. It's just not going to happen. The reward comes from learning things that noone else knows, and then when applying to a real job, they will regognize what you have learned while writing your first game. So game programming is a good way to get young people to get interested in programming, but it's not a substitute for a real job.
This is the real order of how it was learned, not which order they were teached. :: R->R
1) numbers
2) addition/substraction
3) expressions (1+2+3+4)
4) variables x,y
6) equals sign x=10
7) functions f(x) = x+10
8) equations x+10 = 20
9) booleans / and/or/not
10) cartesian products (thanks to programming with structs in C language)
11) types f(x)
12) solving equations x+10=20 => x+10-10=20-10 => x+(10-10)=20-10 => x = 20-10 => x=10
13) implication
14) logic (forall/exists)
15) substitution
16) equivalence class/equivalence relation (thanks to beta reduction/lambda calculus)
17) subsets
18) identity vs equality
19) set theory (intersection)
20) diagram commutes
21) equalizers
22) pullbacks
23) limits
24) inverse image
I've omitted anything that I don't think are related to the equals sign problem in the topic. I'm probably still missing some important parts of the problem. It's really quite complicated problem when you start to think about it. You can use a lifetime studying the problem and it still can give you lot's of fun when you learn new things about it. And this is just one path how you can learn about it, there are probably many other nice ways to learn about it.
When they teach everyone the basics, they're doing exactly the right thing. You don't need to teach Mozart how to create songs, and programmers are no different. If someone is interested about the subject, school cannot teach anything more about that subject. It's the other people who really need the computing skills. Those people who are interested in it will create some god awful software that is impossible to use, and thus word, excel, spreadsheet etc skills are absolutely necessary for everyone. Teachers will know this, they have seen it many times, some people create difficult-to-use software and others will need to learn how to use that. They're doing the same with other subjects too. You'll learn things you would prefer not to know anything about. But those things are necessary to learn because there are large number of people who know that stuff very well and anyone not knowing the basics will be in huge disadvantage.