You wouldn't put it this way...you'd say "Successful candidates will have demonstrated their abilities by making source code from past successful projects available for public download."
If the big bosses ask why, just explain that you're not looking for a 9-5 type, you want someone who eats, breathes, and lives code. Coding in their spare time is evidence of that. You want someone who's not a glory hound but is willing to share their work. You want to be able to see what kind of work they do without violating anyone else's IP.
So why do we care what Asus does to their drivers? As long as we can hack the code, we...
WHAT?!?
You mean their drivers aren't Free? They're not even Open Source?
Denizens of slashdot, why, oh WHY are you worrying about what features are in closed source software? Why do you complain to the vendor that their features suck? Do you also complain because your congressional representatives take too much bribe money, instead of rioting over their acceptance of ANY bribes? Do you petition the police to shoot unarmed black men only ten times? Do you ask the RIAA and the MPAA to charge you only $14.99 per CD instead of $15?
GET REAL!
The issue is, always has been, and always will be FREEDOM.
In the Great Scheme of Things (tm), cheats don't matter, but closed-source software, is a Bad Thing. Instead of wasting rhetoric to change a companies policy WRT the functions of their code, why not change their policy regarding the OPENNESS of their code?
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works.
The correct response to this is:
All Microsoft licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Microsoft licenses do notvary in how infectious they are, allprograms are derivative works.
Regaining your honor after you have spammed 1. Obtain a sword
2. Slit your belly horizontally and vertically
3. Lean forward, spilling your intestines to the ground
4. Hand the sword to a close associate who will lop off your head
Close adherence to this procedure will permit you to regain the honor you have lost in spamming.
Webcasting the proceeding is preferred but not required.
I agree completely. The USPTO was set up to grant inventors a limited monopoly in return for disclosing their invention. Who profits from the monopoly? Not me; not you; certainly not the taxpayer. Who then?
The patent holders!
So who is using the patent office?
The patent holders!
Who should pay to make their patents publicly available?
The patent owners!
Patents already work on a 'subscription' basis - you have to pay every so often to renew your patent, up to the limit of 20 years (IANAL - correct me if needed). my somewhat immodest proposal is this...
Make the patent office self-supporting. You and I get access to all the patents on the internet. The USPTo charges a variable fee every year to cover their costs. Any profits are returned to the patent holders (sort of like an income tax refund).
As was said earlier; it's not worth having some hugely complex formula on your shoulder if you have to explain it to everyone that sees your shoulder on a beach.
I don't see how this is any different from having a mystic sigil tattooed onto your body. A friend of mine delights in explaining what the eye of Ra is.
One of the joys of mathematics is proving the consistency of a set of axioms. In other words, start with a set of statements and prove that none of them can be disproved by using the other axioms. If one of them can be, then you have to throw some axioms out.
In short, given a consistent set of axioms, NONE of them are false. They can't be. If any of them were, then the axioms are not consistent, and that flies in the face of what I told you in the first sentence of the paragraph, doesn't it?
HOWEVER (and this, perhaps, addresses your concerns), when you try to apply mathematics to reality (as you do by asking if lines REALLY ARE PARALLEL) you don't have mathematics anymore; you have physics. You can have a beautiful, consistent set of axioms that describe no reality that ever existed.
BTW, note that, in reality, points and lines don't exist - or at least, they've never been observed. I've seen graphite deposited on paper, I've seen glowing phosphors on a piece of glass, I've seen calcium carbonate dust on slate. But I've never seen a point or a line. Therefore, all of geometry is false.:)
IANATA (I am not a tax attorney), but I read something on the desk of a tax attorney recently. I forget what jurisdiction this was in, but software was only considered an asset for taxation purposes if it was "operating software"
Developers aren't the only ones who have to query the database. Hear, hear! My first database-related job involved writing Crystal Reports against an Informix databse. I knew zilch about CR, SQL, and databases in general when I started, but I was up to speed in about a month (enough to do the job, anyway). I was working in suitland (the 'real' developers were elsewhere in the building); there was one former coder who was my manager, and one other report writer. EVERYONE else was nontechnical - MBAs or MBAs to be. ALl of them had a decent understanding of the database structure.
Exactly which taxpayer dollars are being spent here? The judge doesn't work for free, you know. Nor was the courtroom constructed without cost. The staff who work behind the scenes filing and typing for the judge (and who do 99 % of the work, I'm sure) also need to be payed.
In short, unless someone is required to pay the court costs, the U.S. taxpayer will be footing the bill for the trial.
There's a bit in the Constitution that says "Congress shall have the sole power to declare war." Congress didn't declare it; therefore there was no Gulf War. Clearly the poster meant that they were a border state in WWII.
Yeah. It's not like his skin is dark, or anything. He is so Asian looking, he'd be considered a good ol' boy in most redneck establishments in the rural deep south. Why, I'll bet he could even join the KKK, he is so not black!
</sarcasm>
C'mon, open your eyes...the media dubbed him "black" because his skin tones are similar to those of African-Americans. Despite this, he has risen to the top of one of the bastions of oppressive rich white males. Nobody cares who the 67th white male champion golfer is (exept golf fans), but it is significant who the 1st black champion golfer is.
Sort of - but not quite. The decision has to be appealed and confirmed in order to set a precedent that must be followed in the future.
However, what this does do is to add to the growing number of cases where spammers have lost. At some point, someone will ask their attorney "So should I spam my customers?" The attorney will look at the history of spam-related cases and say "No, because 15 other spammers have been sued and lost; your potential liablity will be $78 per email sent."
Lawyers are risk-averse; this case sets the precedent that sending spam is risky.
Congratulations - you just discovered the interesting bit of the arms race that has been excalating on this planet for the last thousand years or so...
I have no background in aerospace (IANAAE), but I am perfectly willing to believe that a human piloted vehicle moving at mach 5 is too fast to shoot down. Rapid, small changes in velocity (speed & direction) can make its flight path unpredictable; the human pilot can correct for the navigational errors introduced thereby and still get to the target. Since you don't know where it's going to be, you can't shoot it down. And if you shoot at where it is, you'll be shooting at air (unless you're firing a laser).
Ballistic missiles move in a completely predictable path. It's easy (theoretically) to watch them for a second or two, produce a complete model of its ballistic path, and shoot at where it will be.
I see no contradiction. I still don't think anti-projectile defense systems will be effective until energy weapons are used.
Right, and hand-held calculators aren't correct to 9,000 significant digits. What's your point? That limitations are bugs? I would suggest that well-documented limitations are not bugs.
Responding to the numerous inane respondents to my original post thread:
There is no single cure for cancer, any more than there is a single cure for heart disease. "Cancer" is a catch-all term that refers to a huge variety of cellular disorders that cause the cells to go out of control. Furthermore, a single computing project cannot hope to find the cure for cancer. Come on, do you really think someone had a blinding flash of the obvious and said "Hey! This code will cure cancer! If only I had a hugely distributed computing network to run it on..." The most such a project can hope to accomplish is to cheaply model folding of proteins and assist in research that could lead to a better understanding of life processes.
Slashdot Mirror
must have contributed to an open source project
You wouldn't put it this way...you'd say "Successful candidates will have demonstrated their abilities by making source code from past successful projects available for public download."
If the big bosses ask why, just explain that you're not looking for a 9-5 type, you want someone who eats, breathes, and lives code. Coding in their spare time is evidence of that. You want someone who's not a glory hound but is willing to share their work. You want to be able to see what kind of work they do without violating anyone else's IP.
Am thinkink that you are wery funny...
But here's a point-by-point analysis of How Wrong You Are.
Open Source is the ONLY way to write software
Agreed.
everything must be free
Yes.
What we need is a balanced approach
Exactly. I don't have all the rights, you don't have all the rights, we SHARE the rights.
On second thought, you're not wrong at all!
So why do we care what Asus does to their drivers? As long as we can hack the code, we...
WHAT?!?
You mean their drivers aren't Free? They're not even Open Source?
Denizens of slashdot, why, oh WHY are you worrying about what features are in closed source software? Why do you complain to the vendor that their features suck? Do you also complain because your congressional representatives take too much bribe money, instead of rioting over their acceptance of ANY bribes? Do you petition the police to shoot unarmed black men only ten times? Do you ask the RIAA and the MPAA to charge you only $14.99 per CD instead of $15?
GET REAL!
The issue is, always has been, and always will be FREEDOM.
In the Great Scheme of Things (tm), cheats don't matter, but closed-source software, is a Bad Thing. Instead of wasting rhetoric to change a companies policy WRT the functions of their code, why not change their policy regarding the OPENNESS of their code?
/me stomps away in disgust
Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works.
The correct response to this is:
All Microsoft licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Microsoft licenses do notvary in how infectious they are, allprograms are derivative works.
Regaining your honor after you have spammed
1. Obtain a sword
2. Slit your belly horizontally and vertically
3. Lean forward, spilling your intestines to the ground
4. Hand the sword to a close associate who will lop off your head
Close adherence to this procedure will permit you to regain the honor you have lost in spamming.
Webcasting the proceeding is preferred but not required.
the people who use it should pay for it.
I agree completely. The USPTO was set up to grant inventors a limited monopoly in return for disclosing their invention. Who profits from the monopoly? Not me; not you; certainly not the taxpayer. Who then?
The patent holders!
So who is using the patent office?
The patent holders!
Who should pay to make their patents publicly available?
The patent owners!
Patents already work on a 'subscription' basis - you have to pay every so often to renew your patent, up to the limit of 20 years (IANAL - correct me if needed). my somewhat immodest proposal is this...
Make the patent office self-supporting. You and I get access to all the patents on the internet. The USPTo charges a variable fee every year to cover their costs. Any profits are returned to the patent holders (sort of like an income tax refund).
All in favor?
As was said earlier; it's not worth having some hugely complex formula on your shoulder if you have to explain it to everyone that sees your shoulder on a beach.
I don't see how this is any different from having a mystic sigil tattooed onto your body. A friend of mine delights in explaining what the eye of Ra is.
One of the joys of mathematics is proving the consistency of a set of axioms. In other words, start with a set of statements and prove that none of them can be disproved by using the other axioms. If one of them can be, then you have to throw some axioms out.
:)
In short, given a consistent set of axioms, NONE of them are false. They can't be. If any of them were, then the axioms are not consistent, and that flies in the face of what I told you in the first sentence of the paragraph, doesn't it?
HOWEVER (and this, perhaps, addresses your concerns), when you try to apply mathematics to reality (as you do by asking if lines REALLY ARE PARALLEL) you don't have mathematics anymore; you have physics. You can have a beautiful, consistent set of axioms that describe no reality that ever existed.
BTW, note that, in reality, points and lines don't exist - or at least, they've never been observed. I've seen graphite deposited on paper, I've seen glowing phosphors on a piece of glass, I've seen calcium carbonate dust on slate. But I've never seen a point or a line. Therefore, all of geometry is false.
Those who can't manage, manage managers.
Big difference...
:) I'd rather work on a '57 Chevy than anything newer...
Cars wear out. The gubbermint implements new emission and safety standards. Gas prices triple suddenly.
But having said that, I've got to agree with you.
IANATA (I am not a tax attorney), but I read something on the desk of a tax attorney recently. I forget what jurisdiction this was in, but software was only considered an asset for taxation purposes if it was "operating software"
Developers aren't the only ones who have to query the database.
Hear, hear! My first database-related job involved writing Crystal Reports against an Informix databse. I knew zilch about CR, SQL, and databases in general when I started, but I was up to speed in about a month (enough to do the job, anyway). I was working in suitland (the 'real' developers were elsewhere in the building); there was one former coder who was my manager, and one other report writer. EVERYONE else was nontechnical - MBAs or MBAs to be. ALl of them had a decent understanding of the database structure.
I wish there was another way, perhaps distance learning.
Libraries.
All the people I know are toaster operators. WHen their toaster breaks, they buy a new one. But then, toasters don't cost $20K.
Exactly which taxpayer dollars are being spent here?
The judge doesn't work for free, you know. Nor was the courtroom constructed without cost. The staff who work behind the scenes filing and typing for the judge (and who do 99 % of the work, I'm sure) also need to be payed.
In short, unless someone is required to pay the court costs, the U.S. taxpayer will be footing the bill for the trial.
There's a bit in the Constitution that says "Congress shall have the sole power to declare war." Congress didn't declare it; therefore there was no Gulf War. Clearly the poster meant that they were a border state in WWII.
Yeah. It's not like his skin is dark, or anything. He is so Asian looking, he'd be considered a good ol' boy in most redneck establishments in the rural deep south. Why, I'll bet he could even join the KKK, he is so not black!
</sarcasm>
C'mon, open your eyes...the media dubbed him "black" because his skin tones are similar to those of African-Americans. Despite this, he has risen to the top of one of the bastions of oppressive rich white males. Nobody cares who the 67th white male champion golfer is (exept golf fans), but it is significant who the 1st black champion golfer is.
Sort of - but not quite. The decision has to be appealed and confirmed in order to set a precedent that must be followed in the future.
However, what this does do is to add to the growing number of cases where spammers have lost. At some point, someone will ask their attorney "So should I spam my customers?" The attorney will look at the history of spam-related cases and say "No, because 15 other spammers have been sued and lost; your potential liablity will be $78 per email sent."
Lawyers are risk-averse; this case sets the precedent that sending spam is risky.
That's why ferrets are used professionally in this situation. No joke.
Congratulations - you just discovered the interesting bit of the arms race that has been excalating on this planet for the last thousand years or so...
I read the whole thing. One of the threads running through it was "How I seduced this woman away from her man."
I have no background in aerospace (IANAAE), but I am perfectly willing to believe that a human piloted vehicle moving at mach 5 is too fast to shoot down. Rapid, small changes in velocity (speed & direction) can make its flight path unpredictable; the human pilot can correct for the navigational errors introduced thereby and still get to the target. Since you don't know where it's going to be, you can't shoot it down. And if you shoot at where it is, you'll be shooting at air (unless you're firing a laser).
Ballistic missiles move in a completely predictable path. It's easy (theoretically) to watch them for a second or two, produce a complete model of its ballistic path, and shoot at where it will be.
I see no contradiction. I still don't think anti-projectile defense systems will be effective until energy weapons are used.
It's kinda hard to know what to do about this -
Buy stock in gaming companies...
Right, and hand-held calculators aren't correct to 9,000 significant digits. What's your point? That limitations are bugs? I would suggest that well-documented limitations are not bugs.
Responding to the numerous inane respondents to my original post thread:
There is no single cure for cancer, any more than there is a single cure for heart disease. "Cancer" is a catch-all term that refers to a huge variety of cellular disorders that cause the cells to go out of control. Furthermore, a single computing project cannot hope to find the cure for cancer. Come on, do you really think someone had a blinding flash of the obvious and said "Hey! This code will cure cancer! If only I had a hugely distributed computing network to run it on..." The most such a project can hope to accomplish is to cheaply model folding of proteins and assist in research that could lead to a better understanding of life processes.