The problem with Linux on the desktop is seen in a microcosim with the question asked. The post suggests that we need more apps and that we should make it easier to build them. That is only half right. Sure, more apps would help a lot. Sure, making them easier to build would be nice. However, even if they are enormously hard to build, developers will flock to Linx in droves if it is PROFITABLE to build apps for it.
So, does making it hard to build apps cut into profit? Sure. But what really cuts into profit is the fact that there are so many different versions of Linux out there. Think back to the bad old days of CP/M. There where lots of flavors. Then along comes MS and creates DOS, of which there was essentially one flavor. The functionality of MS-DOS was not a lot greater than CP/M, but it sure garnered a lot of interest from developers.
So, to make people write apps for Linux, thereby driving the adoption of the Linux for the desktop, you must solve the economic problem. Making it easier is a small component of the economic problem, but making Linux uniform is the bigger issue. If you make Linux simple to install, and uniform from a developers point of view, then it has a chance. If you have a million different libraries, you are dead in the water.
Back in the late 90s when I was system admin for a trading company, they recruited me from a place that did 911 computer aided dispatch software. My shop, at least, recognized that some of the same reliability issues were at stake, so some people get it.
The real question is "Why did IBM even think Bill gates, a schoolboy at the time, might have an OS worth actually paying for without seeing it first, and why did they sign the most stupid license agreement since records began, if there was no corruption involved?"
IBM signed the license agreement because of an old antitrust lawsuit regarding the bundling of their OS with their hardware (mainframes at the time). Had they done otherwise, they would have opened up a whole new can of worms. Besides, this was back in the days when people thought the real money was in hardware.
For those pieces of intellectual property that are inherently hidden, you could expect that trade secrets would rise sharply. For example, the secret formula for Coke.
For IP like software, where you can see the code, I would also expect that companies would try to use technical means to lock you in, such as dongles. There may even be a rise in the need to buy signed software to run on a particular computer, a la xBox. Perhaps Apple or MS would require that you have an active Internet conenction had have continuous permission granted by a central server. Said permission being contingent on upon payment of a fee.
Modern cars are more reliable, and not to mention worlds safer and cleaner than anything made 30 years ago.
This is exactly right. Twenty years ago I was a firefighter/EMT and went on my fair share of auto accidents. About 3 months ago, I stopped to help out at an offset head-on collision. Both drivers walked away without injury eventhough the cars were unrecognizable. I know for sure that if the accident had happened in cars that were made 20 years ago, they would both be dead. I'll take that anyday, even if the car won't last 200K, though I note that my wife's Saab is at 185K with no major engine or transmission service, and is still on the original turbo.
What is dangerous: if the ignition lock on the steering column activates and you need to steer. This is why you should turn the key to the accessory-only position.
Not exactly. You can turn the key all the way off, but DO NOT remove it. Next time you turn off your car, try turning the wheel. Then pull out the key and try again. You should hear a click, and then only get a few degrees of movement. Having said that, if you don't think you can change the muscle memory to not pull the key out, then just try turning it to the accessory position.
Perhaps another reason is that it is the Dow Jones INDUSTRIAL Average. Let's face it, even though Apple makes stuff, it is really in the software business, not the manufacturing business. It just manufactures stuff so that it can better control the experience.
The preditors will not have to stop flying based on a ruling that the intellectual property of IISI was stolen. See the last clause of the fifth amendment to our Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This means the CIA doesn't need a license, it just needs to be willing to pay just compensation.
Of course, what constitutes "just compensation" tends to be considerably less than fair market value in practice. Fortunately for the tax payors, CIA might have a breach of contract claim against Netezza if the facts are as reported.
How on earth did this get modded insightful? Ignorant is more like it.
I guess I shouldn't presume that an institution made up of people is better than the people that make it up? Slashdot, that is.
The Church REQUIRES that instances of paedophilia be reported to the responsible civil authorities. Ratzinger is the one who issued this rule, long before he became Pope, back when he was the head of the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. As for long ago, do you blame the church for trying to counsel (read "fix") priests with problems, when that was what all the EXPERTS were telling civil authorities to do? Surely there are problem priests in the Church, but that is not an indictment of the Church itself anymore than bad cops are an indictment of the Police Department. I challange you to actually investigate the FACTS, not just the pontificating (love the irony of that word) of the talking heads and self interested plantiff's counsel, and still come to the conclusion that the Pope has done anything but act in the best interest of the children.
. . . everything else comes after that. A small illustration:
When I was system admin for a small brokerage, one of my first tasks was to determine the hardware configuration of every server. There was one particular server that I needed to shutdown in the process. I asked every employee (it was that small) if there were any critical services on that machine. All agreed it was ok to take it off line. For the next 15 minutes, while the machine rebooted, no trading happened because the main program was linking to some libraries that were served off of that server.
I immediately put a new task at the top of my to-do list: reconfiguring the network. Thereafter, production was done on one network and development on another. The router between them would not allow nfs mounts. Production users were not given accounts on development machines. Developers were no longer given the root password, but it was kept in a safe for emergencies.
I know that wasn't what you were asking, but that is the first thing I would take care of.
The most common test for the seizure of currency is a dog sniff. It is little know that cocaine is, in fact, odorless. Drug dogs do not detect cocaine. They detect a biproduct of the production of cocaine called methyl benzoate. Methyl benzoate is a volitile organic compound that dissapates quickly. If a dog hits on it, it is a clear sign not only that the money has been in close contact with cocaine, but that it was RECENTLY so.
Take a look at this case United States v. $30,670 in U.S. Funds, 403 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2005). There the court does a good analysis of the available facts. You would need at least 50,000 innocently tainted bills (not dollars, but bills!) for the dog to hit on it.
Of course, this is Slashdot, so I don't know why I would expect someone to know what they are talking about . . .
I think what you have in Mexico is a system where there are so many different identifiers that no one of them is worth much by itself. Here in the United States, it used to be that banks, schools, drivers licenses, health insurance, and, most importn, the credit reporting agencies all used your SSN to identify you. Thus, it was easy to commit identity theft with just your SSN. Now most states will issue you a non SSN drivers license upon request, and many companies are getting away from it as well, but there are still enough that insist on it that giving out your SSN is an invitation to identity theft.
Were it up to me, I would prohibit use of SSNs for any purpose other than social security. I would require the IRS to issue its own identifier to be used for all tax (including banking) related purposes. I was also require IRS and Social Security to allow you to change your number once every 5 years or earlier upon a showing of identity theft. Finally, I would require that the numbers be longer and include some hamming code. But that is just me . . .
Isn't there a theory that if we ever get a formally proven OS that all OSs will instantly vanish and be replaced by something more complex? I think there is a corallary that says this has already happened. Obviously, the proof referred to must be mistaken as my OS is still running as I typ
If I may interject, what you say is mostly correct, but it hides some very important underlying issues.
Respect: One key to communication is respect. Communication doesn't mean hearing, but listening. To listen, you MUST both hear the words and consider them. To give them full consideration is to show respect for your partner and it will also cause your respect for them to grow as you begin to see the their point of view.
Determination: In addition to that, you must both have a iron-willed determination to make it work. That is, you don't leave the room because you don't like the argument. That leads to leaving the marriage because you don't like it. Stay in the room and talk it through.
Humility: Be humble. Be willing to make the first move to resolve a conflict. Be willing to admit when you are wrong. Be willing to admit when you don't understand. Love means ALWAYS being willing to say you are sorry.
Religion: Don't ignore it. It is quite useful in both the "eternal life" sense and in the "temporal issues" sense. If you take the Catholic approach, as I do, that marriage is for life, then you will find that it is. You will also be very careful to select someone who feels the same way.
Children: Be open to them; they are a net plus. They are also a heck of a lot of work and your life will never be the same, but they will make you better people.
Other women: My wife and I have an understanding: I don't look and I don't touch. Some time when you are watching a movie with a sexy scene with your wife, turn to her and focus on here for the duration and tell her how beautiful she is. It is good moral discipline and it will strengthen your marriage.
No, please don't give me that line about how the church promoted scholarship. The ONLY thing the church did was force monks to copy old texts, and that's how SOME of the ancient knowledge was preserved. However monks weren't allowed to pass that knowledge on to the general public, and didn't communicate much among themselves lest they be called heretics.
Excsue me? Weren't allowed to pass knowledge on tot he general public? I think, perhaps, you have forgotten that the general public DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO READ! It's not that they weren't allowed to pass it on, it is that they were unable to do so. Yes, perhaps there were some rules about keeping the riff raff out of the libraries, but lets be fair, when they can't read, why would they need to be there?
It's no coincidence that the only "religious" scientist, Mendel, only had his work on genetics "discovered" 200 years AFTER HE WAS DEAD.
Actually, you are right, it is not a a coincidence, it was the fault of a "scientist". Mendel took his results to the leading scientist in the area who told him he was an idiot. So, Mendel abandoned his research and went onto become a fine abbot.
As for him being the only "religious" scientist, I guess you have never heard of Copernicus? Look him up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.
Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?
Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.
This is a classic unilateral contract offer, and I'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year. In a unilateral contract, you offer something to someone (someone specific or anyone in general) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety. It is not enough to say "I accept your offer" and it is not enough to try and fail; you must complete the terms offered. Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying "I accept" or words to that effect.
The traditional example is a reward. Rewards are almost never paid, at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually cannot show that they did the required conduct because of the offer. Heck, they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward, or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves, not because of the reward. In this case, however, the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis. Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip, he would be entitled to NOTHING, not even expenses.
No problem. You can generate any die roll you like from D6's, just do a little math.
For a D8, just roll two D6's, add them together, and then take the result modulo 8 and add 1. Poof! A random number between 1 and 8!
Math Fail!
Obviously you don't play craps. When you throw 2D6, there is a 6 in 36 chance of comming up seven, not the 1 in 12 chance you seem to assume. Try this thought experiement: What are all the combinations for each potential number between 2 and 12 when you throw 2D6? I'll give you a hint, there is only one way each to get 2 or 12. Now, if you take mod 8 and add 1 of the result, you have heavily weighted the middle numbers
Heck, even if your grades weren't decent, consider law school. Of course, I did that after about 6 years of systems administration work too. There are empirical studies that show that math students tend to do well in law school. If my experience is anything, so do CD students. Just as in math, there is no way to BS your way through a CS exam. The same is true for law, even if the tests are all essay.
I went to law school thinking that I would be a computer guy who knew about law. In the end I became a lawyer who knew about computers. While I don't have people beating down my door offering me jobs, since I don't want to do IP law, I still find that my cumputer background helps me to translate between the geeks and the lawyers, and that is a very valuable skill. It also helps in the modern era of discovery.
Of course, if you don't love law, don't bother to go to law school. It will cost you $100K plus 3 years of lost salary, and this is if you live frugally and get into a state school. When you get out you are likely to slave away for some time before you begin to feel a little free, so you had better like it.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not start on computers until I was 14. Nobody says I am behind now. Why rush it?
The problem with Linux on the desktop is seen in a microcosim with the question asked. The post suggests that we need more apps and that we should make it easier to build them. That is only half right. Sure, more apps would help a lot. Sure, making them easier to build would be nice. However, even if they are enormously hard to build, developers will flock to Linx in droves if it is PROFITABLE to build apps for it.
So, does making it hard to build apps cut into profit? Sure. But what really cuts into profit is the fact that there are so many different versions of Linux out there. Think back to the bad old days of CP/M. There where lots of flavors. Then along comes MS and creates DOS, of which there was essentially one flavor. The functionality of MS-DOS was not a lot greater than CP/M, but it sure garnered a lot of interest from developers.
So, to make people write apps for Linux, thereby driving the adoption of the Linux for the desktop, you must solve the economic problem. Making it easier is a small component of the economic problem, but making Linux uniform is the bigger issue. If you make Linux simple to install, and uniform from a developers point of view, then it has a chance. If you have a million different libraries, you are dead in the water.
Back in the late 90s when I was system admin for a trading company, they recruited me from a place that did 911 computer aided dispatch software. My shop, at least, recognized that some of the same reliability issues were at stake, so some people get it.
The real question is "Why did IBM even think Bill gates, a schoolboy at the time, might have an OS worth actually paying for without seeing it first, and why did they sign the most stupid license agreement since records began, if there was no corruption involved?"
IBM signed the license agreement because of an old antitrust lawsuit regarding the bundling of their OS with their hardware (mainframes at the time). Had they done otherwise, they would have opened up a whole new can of worms. Besides, this was back in the days when people thought the real money was in hardware.
For those pieces of intellectual property that are inherently hidden, you could expect that trade secrets would rise sharply. For example, the secret formula for Coke.
For IP like software, where you can see the code, I would also expect that companies would try to use technical means to lock you in, such as dongles. There may even be a rise in the need to buy signed software to run on a particular computer, a la xBox. Perhaps Apple or MS would require that you have an active Internet conenction had have continuous permission granted by a central server. Said permission being contingent on upon payment of a fee.
Even so, it may not be a bad idea.
They don't call it the Old Dominion for nothing
This is exactly right. Twenty years ago I was a firefighter/EMT and went on my fair share of auto accidents. About 3 months ago, I stopped to help out at an offset head-on collision. Both drivers walked away without injury eventhough the cars were unrecognizable. I know for sure that if the accident had happened in cars that were made 20 years ago, they would both be dead. I'll take that anyday, even if the car won't last 200K, though I note that my wife's Saab is at 185K with no major engine or transmission service, and is still on the original turbo.
Let's hope this works out better than the prospects for cold fusion.
What is dangerous: if the ignition lock on the steering column activates and you need to steer. This is why you should turn the key to the accessory-only position.
Not exactly. You can turn the key all the way off, but DO NOT remove it. Next time you turn off your car, try turning the wheel. Then pull out the key and try again. You should hear a click, and then only get a few degrees of movement. Having said that, if you don't think you can change the muscle memory to not pull the key out, then just try turning it to the accessory position.
UCSD doesn't have a law school. USD is the Catholic school on the hill over Mission Bay with a very fine law school.
In the interest of candor, I am an alum.
Perhaps another reason is that it is the Dow Jones INDUSTRIAL Average. Let's face it, even though Apple makes stuff, it is really in the software business, not the manufacturing business. It just manufactures stuff so that it can better control the experience.
The preditors will not have to stop flying based on a ruling that the intellectual property of IISI was stolen. See the last clause of the fifth amendment to our Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This means the CIA doesn't need a license, it just needs to be willing to pay just compensation.
Of course, what constitutes "just compensation" tends to be considerably less than fair market value in practice. Fortunately for the tax payors, CIA might have a breach of contract claim against Netezza if the facts are as reported.
Yes, IAAL, but I am not YOUR L.
How on earth did this get modded insightful? Ignorant is more like it.
I guess I shouldn't presume that an institution made up of people is better than the people that make it up? Slashdot, that is.
The Church REQUIRES that instances of paedophilia be reported to the responsible civil authorities. Ratzinger is the one who issued this rule, long before he became Pope, back when he was the head of the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. As for long ago, do you blame the church for trying to counsel (read "fix") priests with problems, when that was what all the EXPERTS were telling civil authorities to do? Surely there are problem priests in the Church, but that is not an indictment of the Church itself anymore than bad cops are an indictment of the Police Department. I challange you to actually investigate the FACTS, not just the pontificating (love the irony of that word) of the talking heads and self interested plantiff's counsel, and still come to the conclusion that the Pope has done anything but act in the best interest of the children.
And I thought glitter went out most of a decade ago. Time to dig into the closent!
. . . everything else comes after that. A small illustration:
When I was system admin for a small brokerage, one of my first tasks was to determine the hardware configuration of every server. There was one particular server that I needed to shutdown in the process. I asked every employee (it was that small) if there were any critical services on that machine. All agreed it was ok to take it off line. For the next 15 minutes, while the machine rebooted, no trading happened because the main program was linking to some libraries that were served off of that server.
I immediately put a new task at the top of my to-do list: reconfiguring the network. Thereafter, production was done on one network and development on another. The router between them would not allow nfs mounts. Production users were not given accounts on development machines. Developers were no longer given the root password, but it was kept in a safe for emergencies.
I know that wasn't what you were asking, but that is the first thing I would take care of.
When I first read the headline, I saw "NASA Discovers Life's Building Blocks in Cement". I figured they had found Jimmy Hoffa.
The most common test for the seizure of currency is a dog sniff. It is little know that cocaine is, in fact, odorless. Drug dogs do not detect cocaine. They detect a biproduct of the production of cocaine called methyl benzoate. Methyl benzoate is a volitile organic compound that dissapates quickly. If a dog hits on it, it is a clear sign not only that the money has been in close contact with cocaine, but that it was RECENTLY so.
Take a look at this case United States v. $30,670 in U.S. Funds, 403 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2005). There the court does a good analysis of the available facts. You would need at least 50,000 innocently tainted bills (not dollars, but bills!) for the dog to hit on it.
Of course, this is Slashdot, so I don't know why I would expect someone to know what they are talking about . . .
I think what you have in Mexico is a system where there are so many different identifiers that no one of them is worth much by itself. Here in the United States, it used to be that banks, schools, drivers licenses, health insurance, and, most importn, the credit reporting agencies all used your SSN to identify you. Thus, it was easy to commit identity theft with just your SSN. Now most states will issue you a non SSN drivers license upon request, and many companies are getting away from it as well, but there are still enough that insist on it that giving out your SSN is an invitation to identity theft.
Were it up to me, I would prohibit use of SSNs for any purpose other than social security. I would require the IRS to issue its own identifier to be used for all tax (including banking) related purposes. I was also require IRS and Social Security to allow you to change your number once every 5 years or earlier upon a showing of identity theft. Finally, I would require that the numbers be longer and include some hamming code. But that is just me . . .
Isn't there a theory that if we ever get a formally proven OS that all OSs will instantly vanish and be replaced by something more complex? I think there is a corallary that says this has already happened. Obviously, the proof referred to must be mistaken as my OS is still running as I typ
Making a marriage work requires three things:
Communication, communication and communication.
If I may interject, what you say is mostly correct, but it hides some very important underlying issues.
Respect: One key to communication is respect. Communication doesn't mean hearing, but listening. To listen, you MUST both hear the words and consider them. To give them full consideration is to show respect for your partner and it will also cause your respect for them to grow as you begin to see the their point of view.
Determination: In addition to that, you must both have a iron-willed determination to make it work. That is, you don't leave the room because you don't like the argument. That leads to leaving the marriage because you don't like it. Stay in the room and talk it through.
Humility: Be humble. Be willing to make the first move to resolve a conflict. Be willing to admit when you are wrong. Be willing to admit when you don't understand. Love means ALWAYS being willing to say you are sorry.
Religion: Don't ignore it. It is quite useful in both the "eternal life" sense and in the "temporal issues" sense. If you take the Catholic approach, as I do, that marriage is for life, then you will find that it is. You will also be very careful to select someone who feels the same way.
Children: Be open to them; they are a net plus. They are also a heck of a lot of work and your life will never be the same, but they will make you better people.
Other women: My wife and I have an understanding: I don't look and I don't touch. Some time when you are watching a movie with a sexy scene with your wife, turn to her and focus on here for the duration and tell her how beautiful she is. It is good moral discipline and it will strengthen your marriage.
No, please don't give me that line about how the church promoted scholarship. The ONLY thing the church did was force monks to copy old texts, and that's how SOME of the ancient knowledge was preserved. However monks weren't allowed to pass that knowledge on to the general public, and didn't communicate much among themselves lest they be called heretics.
Excsue me? Weren't allowed to pass knowledge on tot he general public? I think, perhaps, you have forgotten that the general public DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO READ! It's not that they weren't allowed to pass it on, it is that they were unable to do so. Yes, perhaps there were some rules about keeping the riff raff out of the libraries, but lets be fair, when they can't read, why would they need to be there?
It's no coincidence that the only "religious" scientist, Mendel, only had his work on genetics "discovered" 200 years AFTER HE WAS DEAD.
Actually, you are right, it is not a a coincidence, it was the fault of a "scientist". Mendel took his results to the leading scientist in the area who told him he was an idiot. So, Mendel abandoned his research and went onto become a fine abbot.
As for him being the only "religious" scientist, I guess you have never heard of Copernicus? Look him up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
Is a vial criminal one that steals test tubes?
I said I was a lawyer, not an english major! Being a lawyer, I charge extra for spell checking.
Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.
Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?
Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.
This is a classic unilateral contract offer, and I'm guessing it will be on all the first year contract exams next year. In a unilateral contract, you offer something to someone (someone specific or anyone in general) and they can only accept the contract by performing the terms in their entirety. It is not enough to say "I accept your offer" and it is not enough to try and fail; you must complete the terms offered. Contrast this with a bilateral contract where you form a binding contract by saying "I accept" or words to that effect.
The traditional example is a reward. Rewards are almost never paid, at least not the large ones for catching a vial criminal because the person trying to collect usually cannot show that they did the required conduct because of the offer. Heck, they usually catch the guy breaking into their home and either did not know of the reward, or suffer from catching him because they were defending themselves, not because of the reward. In this case, however, the student appears to have heard the offer and done the experiment on that basis. Note that if he had taken 29 minutes to complete the trip, he would be entitled to NOTHING, not even expenses.
Yes, IAAL, but I am not your L.
No problem. You can generate any die roll you like from D6's, just do a little math.
For a D8, just roll two D6's, add them together, and then take the result modulo 8 and add 1. Poof! A random number between 1 and 8!
Math Fail!
Obviously you don't play craps. When you throw 2D6, there is a 6 in 36 chance of comming up seven, not the 1 in 12 chance you seem to assume. Try this thought experiement: What are all the combinations for each potential number between 2 and 12 when you throw 2D6? I'll give you a hint, there is only one way each to get 2 or 12. Now, if you take mod 8 and add 1 of the result, you have heavily weighted the middle numbers
Heck, even if your grades weren't decent, consider law school. Of course, I did that after about 6 years of systems administration work too. There are empirical studies that show that math students tend to do well in law school. If my experience is anything, so do CD students. Just as in math, there is no way to BS your way through a CS exam. The same is true for law, even if the tests are all essay.
I went to law school thinking that I would be a computer guy who knew about law. In the end I became a lawyer who knew about computers. While I don't have people beating down my door offering me jobs, since I don't want to do IP law, I still find that my cumputer background helps me to translate between the geeks and the lawyers, and that is a very valuable skill. It also helps in the modern era of discovery.
Of course, if you don't love law, don't bother to go to law school. It will cost you $100K plus 3 years of lost salary, and this is if you live frugally and get into a state school. When you get out you are likely to slave away for some time before you begin to feel a little free, so you had better like it.