how broad is the BT patent? (and yes, I'm too lazy to search for the answer myself).
Seems to me that the idea of a hyperlink goes beyond just Internet use. Anyone using the <a> element in an intranet webpage might run afoul of this patent as well, as well M$ for the way they link their help files together.
In any event, this seems like a silly legal exercise to me.
Yup, worked for me. For what it's worth, this was my (latest) experience.
I don't know if it was good timing or luck (or both), but when I quit my last.com about a year-and-a-half ago, it only took two or three months to find a new application development job in a non-IT company. And yes, I make about $15K less per year here than I did in the.com, but it is nice to have a steady paycheck and to not have to work 100+ hour weeks.
I think one thing that helped me find a job so quickly is that I have a reasonable amount of experience in a lot of techie things (sysadmin, app dev, webmaster, tech support, etc.). For companies that are not in the tech-industry, I think this is valuable because they can hire one person to do a lot of things rather than having to hire a bunch of specialized people. I'm also willing to work cheap, so I guess that helps.:-)
For laid-off techies who are struggling to find a job, another place to look for jobs is with non-profit organizations (although I don't know what the job market is like with those now). My first job out of college was a 5-year stint at a non-profit. Granted, didn't pay much at all, but it was good soul-candy and I think I made more than I would have as a barista at Starbucks!
I had the same reaction when I read this. I don't mind that it's sensationalistic -- I love watching Battle-Bots -- but it bugs me when people misquote/misappropriate science. While there is obviously robotic science involved here (which I do find interesting), I think trying to equate this to Evolution is irresponsible.
Now, I Am Not A Zoologist, nor an expert in Darwin's theories, but it seems to me that
*) no physical evolution occurs (as other/.'ers have mentioned) -- the robots don't change physically, and the populations don't change either.
*) there is no real Natural Selection occuring since "breeding" is done randomly, according to the article. So, for example, the prey are not competing with each other to produce offspring.
It would also be interesting to know more about the rates of energy transfer and the amount of light sources available in the arena. For example,
*) how many light sources are there compared to the number of prey?
*) how fast does prey absorb the energy?
*) how fast does a predator drain energy from the prey?
*) what is the energy requirement/capacity of a predator compared to the prey (i.e., how much does a predator have to consume to "survive")?
It seems that these answers would help determine what the outcomes could be.
Oh well. If they televised it, I'd probably watch it.
While reading this article, I immediately thought of one of our users who has managed to break four PDAs in the last six months. It would be interesting to see how well one of these MetaPads could withstand
*) a 4' or 5' drop onto a hard floor
*) being left in a hot car for a couple of hours
*) rain
or various other kinds of abuse. If they're not easily fixed or cheaply replaced, it seems like it'll be awhile before businesses start using them (not to mention the security risks!).
Still, I imagine that one of these days we'll be plugging these things (or something like them) into our cars or segways or power armor.
"Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again." -- K, Men in Black
Cheesy first film, somewhat like Star Wars (be honest), and what looks like a cracking second film (just like ESB). Just what is it with Lucas and trilogies anyway?
In the "Special Edition" VHS series of the original Star Wars movies (not the remastered versions), Leonard Maltin interviews G.Lucas. Among other things, Lucas describes the first Star Wars trilogy as a "three-act play". He goes on to say that, in a three-act play, you introduce the characters in the first act (Star Wars), put them in the worst possible situation in the second act (Empire Strikes Back), and then get them out of it in the third (Return of the Jedi).
So, I guess if Lucas stays true to this formula, then Ep2 will be a dark cliffhanger. Anyway, I'll be there, if only to see Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor.:-)
-- D
"The Bastards have landed!" -- Peter Jackson, Bad Taste
I couldn't tell from the various websites, but if DTC is state/federal-funded, then that's another issue.
If you work for a state/federal-funded institute, you are prohibited from using any of the work equipment for "personal" use. And, especially, you are forbidden from using any work equipment to make money (personally, that is).
For example, the baristas at the espresso bar of the (state-funded) institution where I work are not allowed to accept tips because, technically, they are state employees. Technically, I shouldn't even be posting to/. either, but... well...
So, if DTC is publicly funded, then it sounds like McOwen fell afoul of those laws too.
Hear hear! I've worked in 2.coms and, for the most part, was very impressed by the professional pride and passion that the employees had for their work and for the companies, in both cases.
While I don't doubt that there are people who were in the.coms simply to cash in on the stock market frenzy, most of the people I've worked with were very dedicated, very competent and very committed to putting out high quality stuff.
And I loved the culture (which is why I sought to work for another.com after the first one failed). The sheer necessity of having to get a lot done in a short amount of time with little money has a way of forcing people to be innovative and efficient and to focus on the important things and cutting through the bulls**t.
I agree that the later episodes weren't as good as the earlier ones.
I thought I read somewhere that a couple of the more creative people (like Darin Morgan, who was responsible for Jose Chung's From Outer Space and was the morphing guy in Small Potatoes) had left the show after the first few seasons (somewhere around the 4th or 5th, IIRC). After that, it started becoming more formulaic.
Ah well. I'll probably still buy the DVDs anyway...
It seems to me that good developers are those who can
*) develop code on their own
*) collaborate with others to produce code
*) apply code that has already been developed to a new project
And the job of a CS program is to produce people who can do all three of these things.
In my experience, collaborating and applying pre-developed code is an important part of development in The Real World. It's pointless to reinvent the wheel if someone else has already come up with a workable solution. That's why there are websites like the Access Web.
It's also seems to me that it's fairly likely that people will create similar looking (and even identical) code independently, especially for basic programs, given the push for coding standards.
Now, none of this suggests that Georgia Tech is wrong to use their cheat-finder program, but I'd be wary about relying on such a program as your sole gauge as to whether a person is cheating (or, more importantly, if it's your sole gauge to determine if a person is *learning*) which, thankfully, doesn't sound like it's the case at GA Tech.
In response to the comments about bad developers, it seems to me that if people are getting CS degrees (or any kind of certification) without the basic skills, the problem isn't just that they're cheating; the problem is that the institutions that are granting those degrees are not teaching their students the right skills and/or are not testing those skills rigorously enough. And simply saying "write a program that does X and doesn't look like anyone else's" is not enough, IMHO.
But then, I *don't* have a CS degree, so what do I know?:-)
Hmmm... I was under the impression that one could not trademark generic English words. This is why cereal companies can't trademark "Raisin Bran," and why it's Froot Loops and not Fruit Loops (see the GigaLaw article on trademark law, for example).
From what I can tell, calling a product Lindows is not the same as calling a company Lisney. "Disney" is an arbitrary mark (according to the article above), and is entitled to protection.
On the other hand, "Windows" seems more like a generic mark to me (like Raisin Bran), and is thus not registrable as a trademark.
Did Apple using the term "windows" from the beginning? If so, to me that supports the idea that "Windows" is generic.
The issue of software liability is a sticky one but I agree that companies producing software should have some measure of accountability. I don't have a good solution, but here are some thoughts...
As an application developer, I am liable for the apps I produce. If I create applications that don't work, it is my job to fix the problems. If I don't fix the problems, then I run the risk of being fired. Certainly, I'd like software companies to be held to the same standards.
One might argue that, if I don't like the software that a company creates, then I can just stop using it (which is analogous to that company getting fired), just as I can change cars or toasters if the one I get is junk. But unlike cars or appliances, it's not always easy to switch software.
Aside from the cost, it's relatively easy to switch which car you drive -- doing so doesn't require a lot of preparation and generally doesn't affect other aspects of your life.
On the other hand, switching software can be a major undertaking, especially for operating systems, and especially in a business. Even upgrading software from one version to the next (and even applying security patches) can require a a good deal of resources (money, time, staff, energy, etc.). Plus, changing software can require re-education of the people who will be using it which, itself, can be resource-consuming. (By contrast, one doesn't usually need to learn how to drive again when changing cars.)
For example, I work in a hospital where changing software has ramifications far above just the monetary cost. Thus, to do so safely, changing software can require years of preparation, millions of dollars, swarms of people, etc. Certainly, we'd like to have some assurance in the quality of the software we install, and some recourse if it turns out to be crap.
In any event, I think whatever legislation gets developed will need to take this difference into account.
The legislation wouldn't have to be so open-ended that anyone could sue the company for any bug, but maybe there could be provisions that say that a software company is required to provide a patch for a significant bug/security flaw within X days or else businesses who are using the problem software can sue to be refunded the amount they paid for their support contract, for example.
Or maybe software products should require disclaimers like they have for drugs ("the most common side-effects include BSOD, dry-mouth and anxiety").
I admit I only saw part of one episode of the live-action series; but, as a fan of the comic book and the cartoon, I was awfully disappointed in what I saw (it was that episode where the Immortal dies).
I thought the pace or timing seemed off (although I did think that I could warm up to Warburton, eventually). And it seemed that they went for overused sight gags with the dead body too much (like those movies about the dead guy, Weekend at Bernies, I think it was called).
Basically, as others have mentioned, it seemed like much of the wacky humor of the Tick was replaced with the formulaic humor (and plot) of the networks.
I was also disappointed in Arthur, who looked and acted too much like Rick Moranis from the Ghostbusters. Plus, Arthur is supposed to be chubby -- he's the Pudgy-Voice-of-Reason! He seemed too scrawny in the live-action series to me.
Granted, this is just the impression I got from seeing about half of an episode, but it didn't make me want to watch it again. I can only imagine what people who were not already fans thought.
And while I was/am willing to give the series another chance, like other people have mentioned, I had no real idea what time it airs (aside from the Futurama-Simpsons-XFiles stretch, I don't watch much TV).
Well, here's hoping that it gets picked up (and improved) by some other channel. Comedy Central seems like a good candidate -- I could do without that bowling show.
I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for people who are Windows boosters. Where do they go for their community?
Hmmm... In the 15+ years that I've been working with computers, I don't think I've ever met anyone who was a Windows booster (who don't also work for Microsoft), and certainly none of the people I've met who have had to manage or support a Windows network have been real fans (myself included). At best I'd say people were neutral. [That's not MS-bashing, that's a true observation!]
In my experience, most people who do praise Microsoft do so for their business success (which is another issue, which I won't go into here) rather than the merits of Windows.
But, that aside, it seems to me that non-technically-savvy Windows-users would not be interested enough to want to attend a UG or convention, and technically-savvy Windows-users know enough about the problems with Windows that are hard to deny.
Linux fans can rally around the Open Source warcry; Mac users can bond over the cohesion of their systems. What can Windows users use as our mantra? "BSOD"? "Buffer Overflow"? The best we can use seems to be "market-share".
But the people with enough passion for the technology (who would be likely to organize/attend a convention) don't really care about Market-share, in my experience. We're motivated more by Cool-share.
With Microsoft's current totalitarian licensing scheme (e.g., forcing people to create a Passport account), the message that they send is that Microsoft isn't interested in cultivating user loyalty; they're more interested in developing subordination as a means to get to our money. [Okay, that _is_ a little MS-bashing, and a slight rant.:-)]
IANAP but I think the answer to your first question (about v=dx/dt) is that it's not the same pulse that exits the chamber, it's a different pulse but otherwise identical to the original (so that first description used in the article is somewhat misleading).
From what I gather from paragraphs later in the article, as the original pulse starts to enter the chamber, a duplicate pulse is emitted at the far end of the chamber travelling in the same direction. In addition, an equivalent pulse is created but travels in the opposite direction at 300 times c. The opposite pulse and the original pulse cancel each other out (destructive interference) just as the original pulse is fully entering the chamber while the new pulse beams on its merry way.
In any event, to quote my favorite Vulcan, "Fascinating, Captain..."
Slashdot Mirror
how broad is the BT patent? (and yes, I'm too lazy to search for the answer myself).
Seems to me that the idea of a hyperlink goes beyond just Internet use. Anyone using the <a> element in an intranet webpage might run afoul of this patent as well, as well M$ for the way they link their help files together.
In any event, this seems like a silly legal exercise to me.
-- D
Yup, worked for me. For what it's worth, this was my (latest) experience.
.com about a year-and-a-half ago, it only took two or three months to find a new application development job in a non-IT company. And yes, I make about $15K less per year here than I did in the .com, but it is nice to have a steady paycheck and to not have to work 100+ hour weeks.
:-)
I don't know if it was good timing or luck (or both), but when I quit my last
I think one thing that helped me find a job so quickly is that I have a reasonable amount of experience in a lot of techie things (sysadmin, app dev, webmaster, tech support, etc.). For companies that are not in the tech-industry, I think this is valuable because they can hire one person to do a lot of things rather than having to hire a bunch of specialized people. I'm also willing to work cheap, so I guess that helps.
For laid-off techies who are struggling to find a job, another place to look for jobs is with non-profit organizations (although I don't know what the job market is like with those now). My first job out of college was a 5-year stint at a non-profit. Granted, didn't pay much at all, but it was good soul-candy and I think I made more than I would have as a barista at Starbucks!
-- D
I had the same reaction when I read this. I don't mind that it's sensationalistic -- I love watching Battle-Bots -- but it bugs me when people misquote/misappropriate science. While there is obviously robotic science involved here (which I do find interesting), I think trying to equate this to Evolution is irresponsible.
/.'ers have mentioned) -- the robots don't change physically, and the populations don't change either.
Now, I Am Not A Zoologist, nor an expert in Darwin's theories, but it seems to me that
*) no physical evolution occurs (as other
*) there is no real Natural Selection occuring since "breeding" is done randomly, according to the article. So, for example, the prey are not competing with each other to produce offspring.
It would also be interesting to know more about the rates of energy transfer and the amount of light sources available in the arena. For example,
*) how many light sources are there compared to the number of prey?
*) how fast does prey absorb the energy?
*) how fast does a predator drain energy from the prey?
*) what is the energy requirement/capacity of a predator compared to the prey (i.e., how much does a predator have to consume to "survive")?
It seems that these answers would help determine what the outcomes could be.
Oh well. If they televised it, I'd probably watch it.
-- D.
While reading this article, I immediately thought of one of our users who has managed to break four PDAs in the last six months. It would be interesting to see how well one of these MetaPads could withstand
*) a 4' or 5' drop onto a hard floor
*) being left in a hot car for a couple of hours
*) rain
or various other kinds of abuse. If they're not easily fixed or cheaply replaced, it seems like it'll be awhile before businesses start using them (not to mention the security risks!).
Still, I imagine that one of these days we'll be plugging these things (or something like them) into our cars or segways or power armor.
"Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again." -- K, Men in Black
--D
Cheesy first film, somewhat like Star Wars (be honest), and what looks like a cracking second film (just like ESB). Just what is it with Lucas and trilogies anyway?
:-)
In the "Special Edition" VHS series of the original Star Wars movies (not the remastered versions), Leonard Maltin interviews G.Lucas. Among other things, Lucas describes the first Star Wars trilogy as a "three-act play". He goes on to say that, in a three-act play, you introduce the characters in the first act (Star Wars), put them in the worst possible situation in the second act (Empire Strikes Back), and then get them out of it in the third (Return of the Jedi).
So, I guess if Lucas stays true to this formula, then Ep2 will be a dark cliffhanger. Anyway, I'll be there, if only to see Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor.
-- D
"The Bastards have landed!" -- Peter Jackson, Bad Taste
I couldn't tell from the various websites, but if DTC is state/federal-funded, then that's another issue.
/. either, but... well...
If you work for a state/federal-funded institute, you are prohibited from using any of the work equipment for "personal" use. And, especially, you are forbidden from using any work equipment to make money (personally, that is).
For example, the baristas at the espresso bar of the (state-funded) institution where I work are not allowed to accept tips because, technically, they are state employees. Technically, I shouldn't even be posting to
So, if DTC is publicly funded, then it sounds like McOwen fell afoul of those laws too.
-- D.
Hear hear! I've worked in 2 .coms and, for the most part, was very impressed by the professional pride and passion that the employees had for their work and for the companies, in both cases.
.coms simply to cash in on the stock market frenzy, most of the people I've worked with were very dedicated, very competent and very committed to putting out high quality stuff.
.com after the first one failed). The sheer necessity of having to get a lot done in a short amount of time with little money has a way of forcing people to be innovative and efficient and to focus on the important things and cutting through the bulls**t.
While I don't doubt that there are people who were in the
And I loved the culture (which is why I sought to work for another
-- D.
I agree that the later episodes weren't as good as the earlier ones.
I thought I read somewhere that a couple of the more creative people (like Darin Morgan, who was responsible for Jose Chung's From Outer Space and was the morphing guy in Small Potatoes) had left the show after the first few seasons (somewhere around the 4th or 5th, IIRC). After that, it started becoming more formulaic.
Ah well. I'll probably still buy the DVDs anyway...
-- D.
For some reason this makes me think of Wallace and Gromit's The Wrong Trousers. Not that that's a Bad Thing.
-- D.
It seems to me that good developers are those who can
:-)
*) develop code on their own
*) collaborate with others to produce code
*) apply code that has already been developed to a new project
And the job of a CS program is to produce people who can do all three of these things.
In my experience, collaborating and applying pre-developed code is an important part of development in The Real World. It's pointless to reinvent the wheel if someone else has already come up with a workable solution. That's why there are websites like the Access Web.
It's also seems to me that it's fairly likely that people will create similar looking (and even identical) code independently, especially for basic programs, given the push for coding standards.
Now, none of this suggests that Georgia Tech is wrong to use their cheat-finder program, but I'd be wary about relying on such a program as your sole gauge as to whether a person is cheating (or, more importantly, if it's your sole gauge to determine if a person is *learning*) which, thankfully, doesn't sound like it's the case at GA Tech.
In response to the comments about bad developers, it seems to me that if people are getting CS degrees (or any kind of certification) without the basic skills, the problem isn't just that they're cheating; the problem is that the institutions that are granting those degrees are not teaching their students the right skills and/or are not testing those skills rigorously enough. And simply saying "write a program that does X and doesn't look like anyone else's" is not enough, IMHO.
But then, I *don't* have a CS degree, so what do I know?
-- D.
RePC is a good No-Frills place for old/recycled stuff. You can sell them your old equipment too.
-- D.
Hmmm... I was under the impression that one could not trademark generic English words. This is why cereal companies can't trademark "Raisin Bran," and why it's Froot Loops and not Fruit Loops (see the GigaLaw article on trademark law, for example).
From what I can tell, calling a product Lindows is not the same as calling a company Lisney. "Disney" is an arbitrary mark (according to the article above), and is entitled to protection.
On the other hand, "Windows" seems more like a generic mark to me (like Raisin Bran), and is thus not registrable as a trademark.
Did Apple using the term "windows" from the beginning? If so, to me that supports the idea that "Windows" is generic.
-- D.
The issue of software liability is a sticky one but I agree that companies producing software should have some measure of accountability. I don't have a good solution, but here are some thoughts...
As an application developer, I am liable for the apps I produce. If I create applications that don't work, it is my job to fix the problems. If I don't fix the problems, then I run the risk of being fired. Certainly, I'd like software companies to be held to the same standards.
One might argue that, if I don't like the software that a company creates, then I can just stop using it (which is analogous to that company getting fired), just as I can change cars or toasters if the one I get is junk. But unlike cars or appliances, it's not always easy to switch software.
Aside from the cost, it's relatively easy to switch which car you drive -- doing so doesn't require a lot of preparation and generally doesn't affect other aspects of your life.
On the other hand, switching software can be a major undertaking, especially for operating systems, and especially in a business. Even upgrading software from one version to the next (and even applying security patches) can require a a good deal of resources (money, time, staff, energy, etc.). Plus, changing software can require re-education of the people who will be using it which, itself, can be resource-consuming. (By contrast, one doesn't usually need to learn how to drive again when changing cars.)
For example, I work in a hospital where changing software has ramifications far above just the monetary cost. Thus, to do so safely, changing software can require years of preparation, millions of dollars, swarms of people, etc. Certainly, we'd like to have some assurance in the quality of the software we install, and some recourse if it turns out to be crap.
In any event, I think whatever legislation gets developed will need to take this difference into account.
The legislation wouldn't have to be so open-ended that anyone could sue the company for any bug, but maybe there could be provisions that say that a software company is required to provide a patch for a significant bug/security flaw within X days or else businesses who are using the problem software can sue to be refunded the amount they paid for their support contract, for example.
Or maybe software products should require disclaimers like they have for drugs ("the most common side-effects include BSOD, dry-mouth and anxiety").
-- D.
I admit I only saw part of one episode of the live-action series; but, as a fan of the comic book and the cartoon, I was awfully disappointed in what I saw (it was that episode where the Immortal dies).
I thought the pace or timing seemed off (although I did think that I could warm up to Warburton, eventually). And it seemed that they went for overused sight gags with the dead body too much (like those movies about the dead guy, Weekend at Bernies, I think it was called).
Basically, as others have mentioned, it seemed like much of the wacky humor of the Tick was replaced with the formulaic humor (and plot) of the networks.
I was also disappointed in Arthur, who looked and acted too much like Rick Moranis from the Ghostbusters. Plus, Arthur is supposed to be chubby -- he's the Pudgy-Voice-of-Reason! He seemed too scrawny in the live-action series to me.
Granted, this is just the impression I got from seeing about half of an episode, but it didn't make me want to watch it again. I can only imagine what people who were not already fans thought.
And while I was/am willing to give the series another chance, like other people have mentioned, I had no real idea what time it airs (aside from the Futurama-Simpsons-XFiles stretch, I don't watch much TV).
Well, here's hoping that it gets picked up (and improved) by some other channel. Comedy Central seems like a good candidate -- I could do without that bowling show.
-- D.
Your mother ate my dog! --Paquita, Braindead
>>> the
>> By the way, that's "0.13 microns."
> No, it's 0.13 micron.
One might argue that it's really "0.13-micron", but according to webster.commnet.edu, we may all be right.
I'm not a nazi, I'm just anal-retentive.
-- D.
I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for people who are Windows boosters. Where do they go for their community?
:-)]
Hmmm... In the 15+ years that I've been working with computers, I don't think I've ever met anyone who was a Windows booster (who don't also work for Microsoft), and certainly none of the people I've met who have had to manage or support a Windows network have been real fans (myself included). At best I'd say people were neutral. [That's not MS-bashing, that's a true observation!]
In my experience, most people who do praise Microsoft do so for their business success (which is another issue, which I won't go into here) rather than the merits of Windows.
But, that aside, it seems to me that non-technically-savvy Windows-users would not be interested enough to want to attend a UG or convention, and technically-savvy Windows-users know enough about the problems with Windows that are hard to deny.
Linux fans can rally around the Open Source warcry; Mac users can bond over the cohesion of their systems. What can Windows users use as our mantra? "BSOD"? "Buffer Overflow"? The best we can use seems to be "market-share".
But the people with enough passion for the technology (who would be likely to organize/attend a convention) don't really care about Market-share, in my experience. We're motivated more by Cool-share.
With Microsoft's current totalitarian licensing scheme (e.g., forcing people to create a Passport account), the message that they send is that Microsoft isn't interested in cultivating user loyalty; they're more interested in developing subordination as a means to get to our money. [Okay, that _is_ a little MS-bashing, and a slight rant.
But that's just my opinion.
-- D.
IANAP but I think the answer to your first question (about v=dx/dt) is that it's not the same pulse that exits the chamber, it's a different pulse but otherwise identical to the original (so that first description used in the article is somewhat misleading).
From what I gather from paragraphs later in the article, as the original pulse starts to enter the chamber, a duplicate pulse is emitted at the far end of the chamber travelling in the same direction. In addition, an equivalent pulse is created but travels in the opposite direction at 300 times c. The opposite pulse and the original pulse cancel each other out (destructive interference) just as the original pulse is fully entering the chamber while the new pulse beams on its merry way.
In any event, to quote my favorite Vulcan, "Fascinating, Captain..."