BTW, what's this about "Stanford-Caliber" courses?
I wanted to make the same point. I've also been to a variety of universities from state to top tier private and found the caliber of teachers to be largely equivalent between them. Because of the competitiveness in academia, almost all professors across the board come from the top school in their field, so they have very similar styles, knowledge, and values. You'll find professors at State U and Ivy U who probably were lab mates.
The real difference between schools is facilities and the quality of equipment for research. But taking your run-of-the-mill intro to AI or whatever course at State U for $400 and Ivy U for $4000 doesn't mean you really learned material of a "higher caliber" at Ivy U.
There are other factors not accounted for as well. I took the course just to experience what the state of the art in online learning is, even though I've taken almost all of the material in my undergraduate and graduate. The course was very easy for someone who's encountered this stuff before. Probably all the Stanford students were experiencing the material for the first time.
Also, I don't know how the class at Stanford was structured. Were those students taking an online class or a real class? As in show up and take the exam for a 3 hour period. People taking the online course had 72 hours to complete the exam, and of course it was open book, open web (even if ostensibly not). With the exams accounting for 70% of the final grade, doing well on those is a major factor.
I don't see how you could get online mechanical engineering, physics, or chemistry degrees, since each requires significant lab experience. Computer Science is probably the only science degree you could do fully on a computer, for obvious reasons.
I like how you ask me to make a valid argument, then turn around and make one that is not at all valid yourself. See: appeal to authority. Not to be outdone you follow up with a nice ad hominem.
It's not that those other operating systems are better. They might not be. Linux might be the best. It's the idea that Linux was vital, that without Linux, there would be no discovery.
It has been noted by others (in the article, for example) that Linux is the undisputed king of high-performance computing, in the public sector at least. My only assumption is that that is not random, that there are reasons for it.
Appeal to majority. This is the same as saying Windows is the best desktop OS because installed on 90% of PCs, which is a bogus argument. Before Linux was the king of supercomputing, UNIX was the king. Were Linux never invented, UNIX would probably still be used on the vast majority of super computers today to great effect.
As far as other open source solutions BSD kernels generally do not have such good support for hard real time applications.
The quote the story is based on was with respect to data analysis, which has no real-time requirement. For the actual data-collection, which is real-time critical, an actual real-time OS is most likely employed.
I have seen a lot of posts by you on this site and Engadget....
Wow, what the hell is your problem? What exactly have I done to you? Did I kick your dog or something? If you've been stalking me as well as you claim, you'd also know I work with Linux for a living in the robotics field, and contribute regularly to projects such as ROS, which we use almost exclusively on our robots. Open source is key to my work, and I wouldn't be able to do what I do without it, but I'm under no illusions that a) Linux is integral to my field or my research or b) the open source model is perfect. My work is based in mathematics, so I am platform agnostic. In fact we have a robot that runs entirely on a cluster of mac minis. We use Linux because it has the best driver support for our sensors, but were Linux to disappear tomorrow, we would write drivers for a new platform and continue on as if nothing happened.
I suspect this is the same for CERN. I did my undergraduate in Physics and worked under a particle physicist who worked at CERN and Fermilab. I did actual work on data from CERN (not the LHC but Linac2) and Fermilab's Tevatron using CERN's own ROOT, which is cross platform supporting Linux, Solaris, OSX, Windows, and others. For the number crunching I had time on supercomputers that ran modified SuSE, CentOS, and Solaris. So I'm really failing to see how Linux is so special, that without it the discovery of the Higgs boson would not have happened.
While I'm on this rant I'd like to take a stab at the other logical fallacy I see being plastered on this thread: appeal to authority, that the minds of CERN are so brilliant that if they use Linux, it must be better than all else. As a student of physics, through my course work and APS meetings I've been to, I've met high energy physicists, computational biologists, astrophysicists, computational statistical mechanic... ists... the common thread between them all is that they treat computers are tools meant to support the physics, which is front and center. There is no platform loyalty. The aforementioned CERN scientist uses Maple on a Mac for his work. I took several courses by a computational physicists who was a student of Richard Feynman and who programmed in FORTRAN and used Solaris. I also met a 90 year old pioneer of the standard model who doesn't even use computers, and he was 1000x more vital to the discovery of the Higgs boson than any particular computational platform.
He also says "In terms of data analysis, Windows could be used in principle. We could also use some type of device that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a simple table of rules." and "I work primarily in physics, not in computing, so I doubt that I am able to argue very competently for Linux over something such as BSD." but then goes on to conclude Linux is "vital" even though it's on principle interchangeable with these other platforms.
The only truly vital piece of equipment involved was the LHC, which created the necessary energy levels to find something like the Higgs Boson. Everything else seems like interchangeable tools: if it wasn't one operating system it would be another, if it wasn't one open source solution, it would be another maybe even closed source solution.
There's no redeeming quality with patents anymore. If you have a good idea, put it in a product.
Okay, let's say I have a great idea, I make a product, and I put it on the market without a patent. It starts selling, and Big Company X takes notice. They completely rip off my product, sell it for 50% cheaper, and launch a world-wide marketing campaign to promote it. What legal recourse do I have without patents?
Or let's even back up a bit. Let's say I have my great idea and I want to get capital just to start producing it. I go to a VC and I pitch my idea. The first thing he asks me when I'm done my pitch is: "Do you have a patent?" Because if not, why should he invest in your company when clearly every other company will just copy the idea and sell it cheaper to more people at better margins?
He's not moving any goal posts. Among others, there are generally two requirements for a patent to be granted: the invention has to be non-obvious and novel. The first part deals with the bolt lock analogue, the second part deals with the existence of prior art. Slide to unlock fails on both counts.
that the Judge did not rule in the first 5 minutes of the case that a "slide to unlock" patent was complete and utter void....Would have given him bonus points for finding the USPTO in contempt for even issuing the patent.
I think I'd prefer Judges to not be hasty and make snap decisions... you obviously should do the same: take a step back and not be so hasty with your postings, maybe even read the sumary, seeing as this is a UK case and the USPTO has nothing to do with this patent.
HTC is claiming victory in a patent dispute with Apple after a ruling by the High Court in London.
But that map makes even a 60m rise seem not bad at all.
Seriously? 60m puts the states of Florida and Delaware underwater, half of Maryland and New Jersey, and major cities including Houston, New Orleans, Baltimore, Washinton DC, Boston, Philadelphia, and oh yeah New York City. That's well over 50 million people left homeless on the Eastern seaboard alone.
Internationally, also say goodbye to Shanghai, Tokyo, Nanjing, Pyongyang, Nanjing, Cambodia, Bangkok, Bangladesh, Denmark, The Netherlands, London, Sydney, Melbourne.... notice the trend where highly populated major metropolitan areas are located near waterways?
Right because Google never experienced any crashes during a demo. Apple as well, known for their presentations, have always put on a perfect show with everything performing exactly as expected.
Have you ever given a high-stakes presentation? Have ever given hundreds of them? Shit happens, and the more you get up there and put yourself on the line, the more shit happens.
Steve Jobs had the right take on it.
Even though Steve was a fierce competitor, he actually drew the line at taking advantage of competitors’ demo woes. I remember one time during the “think different” years when Bill Gates suffered a terrible failure demoing a new Microsoft technology. We at the agency thought it would make a very funny commercial for Apple. It seemed like an idea being handed to us on a silver platter. We would simply show Gates failing and end the ad with a clever line about Apple.
Steve laughed — but he rejected it immediately. He said that demo crashes are an unavoidable part of the business, and that his own demos could fail as easily as Gates’.
Problem is, unlike Google with Android, Microsoft will step in. Part of the Windows Phone license is patent protection by Microsoft. So if Google wants to go after Nokia, they're effectively going after Microsoft, which is not the best idea in a patent war.
That makes it blindingly clear that these patents utterly fail every possible test as far as non-obviousness, inventiveness, etc.
Um, this isn't an issue of rounded corners or unsubstantial software patents. Nokia was a pioneer of mobile wireless technologies, none of which were obvious at the time. These patents were then incorporated into an operability standard, not the other way around.
If only it were that easy, but I image the rationale for doing it this way is a mix between accounting/financial reasons and content censorship reasons various countries impose.
Okay then this whole "software model" is pretty much a non issue. Everyone who would donate in a regular model will still donate, everyone who wouldn't normally donate will just compile from source. The intersection of people who don't know how to compile from source, and those who are likely to download open source software is approximately zero, and those who are likely to donate in this kind of model is approximately zero. Everyone who doesn't know how to compile from source who would download this software will just skip it and move on to something else. Again, all it does it decrease your user base without netting any additional money.
Because you can't return software. If I buy something at the store and it doesn't work as advertised, I return it. If I pay money for software and it doesn't work as advertised, I'm screwed.
I never said I wouldn't give money to a project that is easy to use and install, but only after I know if it does what I need it to do. You're just making assumptions. If I can't test his software first, I'm not donating. I'll donate to a different solution, one that doesn't play games to try and solicit donations.
He said "I build and maintain the “official” installers and packages and provide them, to those that contribute."
What does he mean by "official installers" ? I took it to mean make files / install scripts. As in, if it were as easy as just./configure; make; make-install; then what's the point of charging for the binaries?
I'm kind of confused about what he's actually doing. "I build and maintain the “official” installers and packages and provide them, to those that contribute." Does that mean he's holding back make files and install scripts? If he's not, it should be easy to compile your own binaries and thus there's no reason to donate at all, and yes, he's just charging people who don't know how to make from source. But if he is holding back make files, then he's making sure pretty much no one who has something better to do will download his software.
Slashdot Mirror
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bing-for-ipad/id418435837?mt=8
BTW, what's this about "Stanford-Caliber" courses?
I wanted to make the same point. I've also been to a variety of universities from state to top tier private and found the caliber of teachers to be largely equivalent between them. Because of the competitiveness in academia, almost all professors across the board come from the top school in their field, so they have very similar styles, knowledge, and values. You'll find professors at State U and Ivy U who probably were lab mates.
The real difference between schools is facilities and the quality of equipment for research. But taking your run-of-the-mill intro to AI or whatever course at State U for $400 and Ivy U for $4000 doesn't mean you really learned material of a "higher caliber" at Ivy U.
There are other factors not accounted for as well. I took the course just to experience what the state of the art in online learning is, even though I've taken almost all of the material in my undergraduate and graduate. The course was very easy for someone who's encountered this stuff before. Probably all the Stanford students were experiencing the material for the first time.
Also, I don't know how the class at Stanford was structured. Were those students taking an online class or a real class? As in show up and take the exam for a 3 hour period. People taking the online course had 72 hours to complete the exam, and of course it was open book, open web (even if ostensibly not). With the exams accounting for 70% of the final grade, doing well on those is a major factor.
I don't see how you could get online mechanical engineering, physics, or chemistry degrees, since each requires significant lab experience. Computer Science is probably the only science degree you could do fully on a computer, for obvious reasons.
I like how you ask me to make a valid argument, then turn around and make one that is not at all valid yourself. See: appeal to authority. Not to be outdone you follow up with a nice ad hominem.
It's not that those other operating systems are better. They might not be. Linux might be the best. It's the idea that Linux was vital, that without Linux, there would be no discovery.
It has been noted by others (in the article, for example) that Linux is the undisputed king of high-performance computing, in the public sector at least. My only assumption is that that is not random, that there are reasons for it.
Appeal to majority. This is the same as saying Windows is the best desktop OS because installed on 90% of PCs, which is a bogus argument. Before Linux was the king of supercomputing, UNIX was the king. Were Linux never invented, UNIX would probably still be used on the vast majority of super computers today to great effect.
As far as other open source solutions BSD kernels generally do not have such good support for hard real time applications.
The quote the story is based on was with respect to data analysis, which has no real-time requirement. For the actual data-collection, which is real-time critical, an actual real-time OS is most likely employed.
I have seen a lot of posts by you on this site and Engadget....
Wow, what the hell is your problem? What exactly have I done to you? Did I kick your dog or something? If you've been stalking me as well as you claim, you'd also know I work with Linux for a living in the robotics field, and contribute regularly to projects such as ROS, which we use almost exclusively on our robots. Open source is key to my work, and I wouldn't be able to do what I do without it, but I'm under no illusions that a) Linux is integral to my field or my research or b) the open source model is perfect. My work is based in mathematics, so I am platform agnostic. In fact we have a robot that runs entirely on a cluster of mac minis. We use Linux because it has the best driver support for our sensors, but were Linux to disappear tomorrow, we would write drivers for a new platform and continue on as if nothing happened.
I suspect this is the same for CERN. I did my undergraduate in Physics and worked under a particle physicist who worked at CERN and Fermilab. I did actual work on data from CERN (not the LHC but Linac2) and Fermilab's Tevatron using CERN's own ROOT, which is cross platform supporting Linux, Solaris, OSX, Windows, and others. For the number crunching I had time on supercomputers that ran modified SuSE, CentOS, and Solaris. So I'm really failing to see how Linux is so special, that without it the discovery of the Higgs boson would not have happened.
While I'm on this rant I'd like to take a stab at the other logical fallacy I see being plastered on this thread: appeal to authority, that the minds of CERN are so brilliant that if they use Linux, it must be better than all else. As a student of physics, through my course work and APS meetings I've been to, I've met high energy physicists, computational biologists, astrophysicists, computational statistical mechanic... ists... the common thread between them all is that they treat computers are tools meant to support the physics, which is front and center. There is no platform loyalty. The aforementioned CERN scientist uses Maple on a Mac for his work. I took several courses by a computational physicists who was a student of Richard Feynman and who programmed in FORTRAN and used Solaris. I also met a 90 year old pioneer of the standard model who doesn't even use computers, and he was 1000x more vital to the discovery of the Higgs boson than any particular computational platform.
So how was Linux vital and BSD not?
He also says "In terms of data analysis, Windows could be used in principle. We could also use some type of device that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a simple table of rules." and "I work primarily in physics, not in computing, so I doubt that I am able to argue very competently for Linux over something such as BSD." but then goes on to conclude Linux is "vital" even though it's on principle interchangeable with these other platforms.
The only truly vital piece of equipment involved was the LHC, which created the necessary energy levels to find something like the Higgs Boson. Everything else seems like interchangeable tools: if it wasn't one operating system it would be another, if it wasn't one open source solution, it would be another maybe even closed source solution.
There's no redeeming quality with patents anymore. If you have a good idea, put it in a product.
Okay, let's say I have a great idea, I make a product, and I put it on the market without a patent. It starts selling, and Big Company X takes notice. They completely rip off my product, sell it for 50% cheaper, and launch a world-wide marketing campaign to promote it. What legal recourse do I have without patents?
Or let's even back up a bit. Let's say I have my great idea and I want to get capital just to start producing it. I go to a VC and I pitch my idea. The first thing he asks me when I'm done my pitch is: "Do you have a patent?" Because if not, why should he invest in your company when clearly every other company will just copy the idea and sell it cheaper to more people at better margins?
He's not moving any goal posts. Among others, there are generally two requirements for a patent to be granted: the invention has to be non-obvious and novel. The first part deals with the bolt lock analogue, the second part deals with the existence of prior art. Slide to unlock fails on both counts.
that the Judge did not rule in the first 5 minutes of the case that a "slide to unlock" patent was complete and utter void....Would have given him bonus points for finding the USPTO in contempt for even issuing the patent.
I think I'd prefer Judges to not be hasty and make snap decisions... you obviously should do the same: take a step back and not be so hasty with your postings, maybe even read the sumary, seeing as this is a UK case and the USPTO has nothing to do with this patent.
HTC is claiming victory in a patent dispute with Apple after a ruling by the High Court in London.
But that map makes even a 60m rise seem not bad at all.
Seriously? 60m puts the states of Florida and Delaware underwater, half of Maryland and New Jersey, and major cities including Houston, New Orleans, Baltimore, Washinton DC, Boston, Philadelphia, and oh yeah New York City. That's well over 50 million people left homeless on the Eastern seaboard alone.
Internationally, also say goodbye to Shanghai, Tokyo, Nanjing, Pyongyang, Nanjing, Cambodia, Bangkok, Bangladesh, Denmark, The Netherlands, London, Sydney, Melbourne.... notice the trend where highly populated major metropolitan areas are located near waterways?
Slashdot: News for accountants, stuff that doesn't matter.
Have you ever given a high-stakes presentation? Have ever given hundreds of them? Shit happens, and the more you get up there and put yourself on the line, the more shit happens.
Steve Jobs had the right take on it.
Even though Steve was a fierce competitor, he actually drew the line at taking advantage of competitors’ demo woes. I remember one time during the “think different” years when Bill Gates suffered a terrible failure demoing a new Microsoft technology. We at the agency thought it would make a very funny commercial for Apple. It seemed like an idea being handed to us on a silver platter. We would simply show Gates failing and end the ad with a clever line about Apple.
Steve laughed — but he rejected it immediately. He said that demo crashes are an unavoidable part of the business, and that his own demos could fail as easily as Gates’.
Source - The Joy of Demo Crashes
Problem is, unlike Google with Android, Microsoft will step in. Part of the Windows Phone license is patent protection by Microsoft. So if Google wants to go after Nokia, they're effectively going after Microsoft, which is not the best idea in a patent war.
Considering the first post in this story is "Can't prove it but we all know this is another one of Microsoft's proxy wars" that seems about right
That makes it blindingly clear that these patents utterly fail every possible test as far as non-obviousness, inventiveness, etc.
Um, this isn't an issue of rounded corners or unsubstantial software patents. Nokia was a pioneer of mobile wireless technologies, none of which were obvious at the time. These patents were then incorporated into an operability standard, not the other way around.
If only it were that easy, but I image the rationale for doing it this way is a mix between accounting/financial reasons and content censorship reasons various countries impose.
Okay then this whole "software model" is pretty much a non issue. Everyone who would donate in a regular model will still donate, everyone who wouldn't normally donate will just compile from source. The intersection of people who don't know how to compile from source, and those who are likely to download open source software is approximately zero, and those who are likely to donate in this kind of model is approximately zero. Everyone who doesn't know how to compile from source who would download this software will just skip it and move on to something else. Again, all it does it decrease your user base without netting any additional money.
I know, I was checking this to try and get a confirmation either way, and was wondering the same thing.
Because you can't return software. If I buy something at the store and it doesn't work as advertised, I return it. If I pay money for software and it doesn't work as advertised, I'm screwed.
I never said I wouldn't give money to a project that is easy to use and install, but only after I know if it does what I need it to do. You're just making assumptions. If I can't test his software first, I'm not donating. I'll donate to a different solution, one that doesn't play games to try and solicit donations.
He said "I build and maintain the “official” installers and packages and provide them, to those that contribute." What does he mean by "official installers" ? I took it to mean make files / install scripts. As in, if it were as easy as just ./configure; make; make-install; then what's the point of charging for the binaries?
I'm kind of confused about what he's actually doing. "I build and maintain the “official” installers and packages and provide them, to those that contribute." Does that mean he's holding back make files and install scripts? If he's not, it should be easy to compile your own binaries and thus there's no reason to donate at all, and yes, he's just charging people who don't know how to make from source. But if he is holding back make files, then he's making sure pretty much no one who has something better to do will download his software.