Mike Tyson, bite somebody. News is dry and we're repeating posts about polarization to effect 3D. Does anybody really want to sit with their eyes crossed for any period of time? To to see things in 3D? BTW, the rest of the world comes in 3D for free.
I agree. Thats why a cheap ring should be partnered with something outrageous and fun, like a motorcycle or a chef's stove or an exotic trip or wanted classes in some activity. Anything that has the potential to be a change into a passionate lifestyle is more worthwhile that a shiny finger.
Having said that, there is value and meaning to displaying to a society that you have been spoken for, and are loved by another. Rings are also an outward symbol that - no matter the content or expense - you've committed to a relationship for the time being.
My engagement will be inexpensive rings and probably a new car. Dunno yet. No hurry.
Some of these answers are still skipping the information given elsewhere: SCO CEO speaks against the GPL, although SCO uses this stuff. You mention this as irrelevant. Sorry, but (although not legally) this is certainly relevant to their marketing.
But, focusing on the case (me playing the IBM role):
One cannot determine from downloads how many people use Linux. Also, this is intertwined with SCO's own downloadable release. Can a company sue for damages for a product it gave away for free? Was SCO unaware that the four kernel modules were in the distro, or that it resembled their code licensed to IBM?
If this IP was part of (1) a GPL-like agreement between BSD and Caldera or (2) made public domain by ubiquitous usage in academia: it wouldn't matter WHO put it in there. The "property" no longer has value to differentiate it from common industry knowledge.
IF a developer at IBM found that the SCO implementation of a common algorithm was sufficient, why couldn't they use it? At what point would a "rewrite" have to appear different (a quite detailed C syntax question perhaps)?
SCO must show that:
That the algorithm was not in the public domain at the time of the alledged introduction to Linux code tree. What if similar code appears in the BSD code tree prior to this? What if the solution was published in textbooks?
That IBM didn't have the right to use this code for distribution in the Linux. This contractual issue is probably mute. I doubt they had permission, reading SCO's typical EULA.
That this code was not given to Linux freely by SCO itself. Since this reverts back to the version tree of the Linux Kernel, an exhaustive search will need to be performed by this, and a lookup about each contributor's parent company. This means each and every suspected SCO source code block needs to be traced back to the contributor. If, say, neither IBM nor SCO copied the code, but some other UNIX-source-code-aware person did, IBM is not the target alone.
That their assessment of damages is realistic. I would counter that SCO's lost customers, not Linux downloaders, are the damages. And lost to Linux replacing their installation. Possibly, Linux installs using the 4 modules in question that SCO alledgely owns could be considered lost revenue.
In a way, the interviewer tries his best to ask poignant questions. So I agree the article attempts at coherence. EXCEPT IT MISSES THINGS LIKE:
How do you address claims that SCO's demonstrated evidence so far is not theirs to copyright!
Nobody has answered the questions about the four kernal modules origin and algorithms being textbook common knowledge - in whole or in part. Why is this considered IP?
Why did SCO keep distributing the GPL'd code while putting out press releases?
Why does SCO make use of many many GPL'd tools for their own product?
Why does SCO [threaten to] spread this lawsuit out to Linux users instead of only IBM's copyright infringement case?
How is SCO planning a business model around a licensed copy of Linux when it will be quickly obsolete once the full body of evidence is released?
What are your definitions of "derivative works" in this case? Would future version of Linux without any SCO IP be within those bounds?
Why are the true numbers of lost existing customers for SCO due directly to their adopting a "free" Linux alternative? How are they calculating damages?
Can SCO provide the complete code references to things it DID contribute to Linux (as SCO or Caldera) and thus differentiate between given and stolen?
These are just a few things I'd like to ask anyone at SCO, legal or not, or both!
MS was GUILTY of monopolistic business practices. Anyone forget this? They unfairly competed and remvoed competition than threatened their bottom line. For YEARS Sun, Oracle, Apple, Netscape and dozens of other companies were raped of opportunity to get desktop placement, vendor preloads. THINK: Engineer buyouts, underpricing the sale, mass marketing FUD. All in the name of cuthroat competition. MS is high on the smell of money, and fights like a dog to keep it - rules be damned.
POP QUIZ Does this invite sacastic remarks from people who use other software, or write it? YES Does this make it a giant bullseye for virus kiddies? YES
Dude, Microsoft is so ugly these days, from their bastardized licensing schemes, their.NET initiatives rolling in/out/away from product lines, to their Longhorn, long winded "revolutions" of computing.
I don't want an OS-as-toaster every 5 years to pop out in some dancing paperclip vaudville act, focing upgrades, patches, virus checks and security updates likes it MY JOB TO WRITE GOOD SOFTWARE. I'M THE USER DAMMIT. Why is the world spending time dancing with this company, and paying for it? Because they CHEATED THE MARKET of free choice. Never forget that. We're stuck in a world that has to ween off of the MS tit of "everyone uses it"; interopability down the toilet.
Not exactly. Academic textbooks usually don't publish patented ideas. The spinlock/memory manager concept is so old, I've read and coded a few since school. Granted, if the code was copy/pasted from their implementation, crying foul is possible (to what avail?) but there is no patent/copyright of the algorithm I'm seeing. I stand to be corrected, but that's my take.
Both slides seem to be implementations of standard pseudo-code in textbook implementations. If SCO is claiming this is "proprietary" then we're gonna have to change the variables names? Ridiculous. I don't see anything in here that even closely resembles Intellectual Property. At a certain granularity, *X follows the same paradigm for some implementations anyway. I mean, any function implementing a heap manager is now suspect?
While I don't condone weapons research, I think this is certainly interesting. If the RPGs flaunted around today were capable of Tomakawk-size destruction, i think we'd simple see skirmishes ending faster, in a "disease-burnout" kind of way. I'd hate to see this effect be used as weaponry by anyone, but if people are going to fight, the faster its over the better, in my mind. Maybe I'm mistaken?
Well, in SCO's terms, there is NO point to the GPL. So if they play by those rules, they must pay by those rules. I disagree with doing this since all of these steps are absurd and anti-cooperative, but in the anal-retentive legal world of SCO IP, they would have to comply.
With your lawyer, send a certified mail letter explaining your understanding of the issue, and the possible causes
Also explain why you need to have them follow up on this, since it involves a federal offense. They are legally required to pursue this to their complete ability since they released you over it.
Give them a series of investigative measures they can perform to prove/disprove your possibilities for this occurance.
Remember to include their veiwpoint in this investigation, and show how they can prove you were not the culprit
Think of everything, the door access logs if any, the bus schedule you may have ridden, anything to prove you were somewhere else, you don't have files that made the alledged accesses, etc.
Explain the highest probably cause: a worm scanned around for boxes to infect and your box looked like a poor hack job
Tell them releasing you is serious enough to be illegal if they do not pursue it, since it affects your ability to hold a job in the future.
Point to your good work done elsewhere for clients, for your agency, or their own other projects. Explain your integrity
Await their response. Call mom and ask for laywer dough.
I've read the other responses. The GPL won't collapse. Here's why:
MS would love for Linux to go away. However, the power of OSS is that many minds can organize efficiently enough to create a workable product. After years of educationally-focused Unix-like software getting streamlined, studied, debugged and now ported, we've hit commercial grade server product. For free.
The GPL is the grease for that organization. It forces the trust to appear in the transactions working with this code. It also enables the rejection of people who won't play by the rules. We're simply watching a greed-based test of that right now with SCO. Sure MS is rooting for the SCO team, they need to sell against only SUN, HP and other moneymakers in the industry. They know how to undercut someone with production costs.
Linux's only production costs are in manhours donated. Come hither-dither, feast/famine, Linux has been at enterprise quality and will only improve as new theories and algorithms get tested and then put into the churning process for implmentation, testing, etc.
So if SCO's code is present in the current Linux, "derivative works" clauses be damned, we're going to end up with a free something as an OS. The machienery for creating such a beast is already well constructed. if we OSS'd the old BeOS, or the obscure other OS'es out there right now, it would quickly flower into a powerhouse. BSD isn't a derivative, so we're only a kernel away from another Nix flavor anyway.
That said, I believe this mess of a SCO press release per day (and all the FUD in it) and then the world's jabbering about it, will pass when the courtroom doors finally open. There just isn't any logic left in it anymore. Also, serious cases aren't tried in press releases. We're talking about simple sales numbers here. MS pays SCO, makes the next Munich sale. If this doesn't happen, the money well will dry up and the lawyers will pick the bones clean at SCO.
You can be sure, though, that this brain-numbing series of moves by SCO is not without support. 5 execs aren't doing this because they want their stock to simply go from 0.25 to 11.00 - this is an orchestrated effort to remove the trust/reliability and certainty in the Linux-is-an-option for corporate servers. Who benefits most? MS. By far. One could be very certain Balmer is getting an inside on the SCO moves word-by-word before we are. He's ready to play off of this.
If you need to check, ask for an MS sales rep to come by and give a little presentation for your next "long-range server upgrade" - for those in the $10mil and up range (they will check your company structure, sales and potential first). Those slides are hot off the press from that morning's sales meeting. And they say: "Linux is a liability because of the GPL." Almost verbatim SCO's press release.
The "Product"/"Software" terms referred to in the SCO license agreement seems to imply the ENTIRE Linux OS. No mention of Kernel vs apps, tools, etc.
This is the final, released version of their license - its been "reviewed" supposedly. I'm assuming they are placing a flag on the entire pile of code and all resultant executables. Given the vast array of code in there, and their debated small contribution (purposeful or not) in the 4 extensions [mentioned previously], are they just batty?
Something makes me think they are just shoveling money into a room full of lawyers and posting the output in press releases. Their advisors have left the building.
This is laughable. But hey lets avoid redundancy here.
Well I guess you wouldn't mind paying for it. everyone wants to "shift funds" from perceived unimportant ideas to their dear-at-heart ones, but without moving existing money, would you support higher taxes for this? Not many people would.
It's not that [all] people are greedy bastards [all the time], but our western system of capitalism demands money as the bringer of survival, and then leisure choices. Almost a basic need at the bottom. So, having the government pay for this is not my favorite idea.
Instead, the companies that produce and market, ship, administer and follow up on this concept should be reimbursed. Howabout we are given ownership of the land these people live (and die) on? "your jungle or your life" ? Ok, call me the greedy bastard.
Sorry, but modern nav systems are way too expensive than simply flying the existing infrastructure. Telephoto lenses, helmet mounts, and the prior investment in equipment slap your idea down, neat as is. Would you let your children play in a playground where one of these things swooped above them?
The liability you would assume in taking an RC hele above a crowd (moving or not) is immense. Perhaps a small blimp-like device would work, but in no way would a blade be accepted any closer than existing aircraft.
Spend one day at your local RC field to see the potential for destruction. I've driven my own planes into the dirt as a beginner, and seen 30-year experts lose the battle with a virgin ship on maiden flight. They are dangerous, make no doubt about it, and they crash a lot.
Whiners. Just like spammers, this is a case of people determined to make a medium not intended for advertising into one. Where does it stop? If they cannot call you, are they going to stand in front of my house and shout?
This is laughable. Like travel/insurance/real estate agents and media distribution, this industry sprang up because of a particular circumstance of the business environment. Now that its changing, all these business are crying foul. Not so. They are slowly being replaced with online/digital mediums for searcing and sorting, micropayments and validation services.
IMO, I hope these services die a painful death and the people involved with them go looking for work elsewhere. Economic disaster, true, but I think it'll be good for our population to be forced into newer concepts rather than propping up the old ones. A certain percentage may even train to be part of the digital industry's workforce. Sadly, some may become spammers (if not already).
We're content overloaded and most of it is junk food. There simply isn't enough quality out there to warrant getting it stuffed in our faces every way possible. Let's have a phone/Voip be for private conversations, not substance-free radio blather.
Whoa Troll. Are you implying that nowhere but your country of origin things get done? It sounds more like a specialization problem (or perhaps errors choosing an outsourcing vendor). Or maybe you were suffering from a communication problem?
Last time I checked, there were smart people all over the globe. I doubt your experience is the norm. heck, a lot of the tech on the web is built from non-US people.
- When you've learned all there is to know about C, find out how to simplify it a bit in C++. Notice the job security and look of awe when you master the ++.
- After mucking around in these low-density languages, step up to Perl and see how a language built by a task-oriented person stomps one built by a system-oriented person. See your project file sizes shrink before your very eyes!
- Now take your newfound magic ability to learn new languages and apply it to whipping out pages with PHP and MySQL for all your friends quickly! You'll be the talk of the C crawlers crowd! Hey! Gimmie some content! Aw, forget it - let me just play!
- Now plumb the depths of (supposed) machine-independent laguanges by writing some Java and finding out what "Sun-certified" means! (hint: Sun owns it)
- Optional: Head back to school to get a PhD in autoprogramming theory and self-construction methods. Sequester yourself away to your dorm room for endless hours of experiments training a neural net to convert tasks to code using the most efficient method possible.
- Finally, wrap up your technical life by examining all these related language nuances holistically and achieve the zen of programming: "there is no language"
Slashdot Mirror
Mike Tyson, bite somebody. News is dry and we're repeating posts about polarization to effect 3D. Does anybody really want to sit with their eyes crossed for any period of time? To to see things in 3D? BTW, the rest of the world comes in 3D for free.
mug
I agree. Thats why a cheap ring should be partnered with something outrageous and fun, like a motorcycle or a chef's stove or an exotic trip or wanted classes in some activity. Anything that has the potential to be a change into a passionate lifestyle is more worthwhile that a shiny finger.
Having said that, there is value and meaning to displaying to a society that you have been spoken for, and are loved by another. Rings are also an outward symbol that - no matter the content or expense - you've committed to a relationship for the time being.
My engagement will be inexpensive rings and probably a new car. Dunno yet. No hurry.
mug
Some of these answers are still skipping the information given elsewhere: SCO CEO speaks against the GPL, although SCO uses this stuff. You mention this as irrelevant. Sorry, but (although not legally) this is certainly relevant to their marketing.
But, focusing on the case (me playing the IBM role):
One cannot determine from downloads how many people use Linux. Also, this is intertwined with SCO's own downloadable release. Can a company sue for damages for a product it gave away for free? Was SCO unaware that the four kernel modules were in the distro, or that it resembled their code licensed to IBM?
If this IP was part of (1) a GPL-like agreement between BSD and Caldera or (2) made public domain by ubiquitous usage in academia: it wouldn't matter WHO put it in there. The "property" no longer has value to differentiate it from common industry knowledge.
IF a developer at IBM found that the SCO implementation of a common algorithm was sufficient, why couldn't they use it? At what point would a "rewrite" have to appear different (a quite detailed C syntax question perhaps)?
SCO must show that:
That the algorithm was not in the public domain at the time of the alledged introduction to Linux code tree. What if similar code appears in the BSD code tree prior to this? What if the solution was published in textbooks?
That IBM didn't have the right to use this code for distribution in the Linux. This contractual issue is probably mute. I doubt they had permission, reading SCO's typical EULA.
That this code was not given to Linux freely by SCO itself. Since this reverts back to the version tree of the Linux Kernel, an exhaustive search will need to be performed by this, and a lookup about each contributor's parent company. This means each and every suspected SCO source code block needs to be traced back to the contributor. If, say, neither IBM nor SCO copied the code, but some other UNIX-source-code-aware person did, IBM is not the target alone.
That their assessment of damages is realistic. I would counter that SCO's lost customers, not Linux downloaders, are the damages. And lost to Linux replacing their installation. Possibly, Linux installs using the 4 modules in question that SCO alledgely owns could be considered lost revenue.
This is fun, keep playing
How do you address claims that SCO's demonstrated evidence so far is not theirs to copyright!
Nobody has answered the questions about the four kernal modules origin and algorithms being textbook common knowledge - in whole or in part. Why is this considered IP?
Why did SCO keep distributing the GPL'd code while putting out press releases?
Why does SCO make use of many many GPL'd tools for their own product?
Why does SCO [threaten to] spread this lawsuit out to Linux users instead of only IBM's copyright infringement case?
How is SCO planning a business model around a licensed copy of Linux when it will be quickly obsolete once the full body of evidence is released?
What are your definitions of "derivative works" in this case? Would future version of Linux without any SCO IP be within those bounds?
Why are the true numbers of lost existing customers for SCO due directly to their adopting a "free" Linux alternative? How are they calculating damages?
Can SCO provide the complete code references to things it DID contribute to Linux (as SCO or Caldera) and thus differentiate between given and stolen?
These are just a few things I'd like to ask anyone at SCO, legal or not, or both!
mug
D00D1! did u c that MooV Giggly? Bytz A77! CU 2nite for more chat. A/S/L?
Thanks for clarifying the termiology, but perhaps people are still underestimating the effect those violations had.
mug
The "bashing in headline" debate continues.
.NET initiatives rolling in/out/away from product lines, to their Longhorn, long winded "revolutions" of computing.
MS was GUILTY of monopolistic business practices. Anyone forget this? They unfairly competed and remvoed competition than threatened their bottom line. For YEARS Sun, Oracle, Apple, Netscape and dozens of other companies were raped of opportunity to get desktop placement, vendor preloads. THINK: Engineer buyouts, underpricing the sale, mass marketing FUD. All in the name of cuthroat competition. MS is high on the smell of money, and fights like a dog to keep it - rules be damned.
POP QUIZ
Does this invite sacastic remarks from people who use other software, or write it? YES
Does this make it a giant bullseye for virus kiddies? YES
Dude, Microsoft is so ugly these days, from their bastardized licensing schemes, their
I don't want an OS-as-toaster every 5 years to pop out in some dancing paperclip vaudville act, focing upgrades, patches, virus checks and security updates likes it MY JOB TO WRITE GOOD SOFTWARE. I'M THE USER DAMMIT. Why is the world spending time dancing with this company, and paying for it? Because they CHEATED THE MARKET of free choice. Never forget that. We're stuck in a world that has to ween off of the MS tit of "everyone uses it"; interopability down the toilet.
mug
Not exactly. Academic textbooks usually don't publish patented ideas. The spinlock/memory manager concept is so old, I've read and coded a few since school. Granted, if the code was copy/pasted from their implementation, crying foul is possible (to what avail?) but there is no patent/copyright of the algorithm I'm seeing. I stand to be corrected, but that's my take.
Both slides seem to be implementations of standard pseudo-code in textbook implementations. If SCO is claiming this is "proprietary" then we're gonna have to change the variables names? Ridiculous. I don't see anything in here that even closely resembles Intellectual Property. At a certain granularity, *X follows the same paradigm for some implementations anyway. I mean, any function implementing a heap manager is now suspect?
Can't you do your own research on the guy? He's not expecting the Spanish Inquisition!
While I don't condone weapons research, I think this is certainly interesting. If the RPGs flaunted around today were capable of Tomakawk-size destruction, i think we'd simple see skirmishes ending faster, in a "disease-burnout" kind of way. I'd hate to see this effect be used as weaponry by anyone, but if people are going to fight, the faster its over the better, in my mind. Maybe I'm mistaken?
Well, in SCO's terms, there is NO point to the GPL. So if they play by those rules, they must pay by those rules. I disagree with doing this since all of these steps are absurd and anti-cooperative, but in the anal-retentive legal world of SCO IP, they would have to comply.
Get a lawyer if you want to do anything.
That said. Do something. This could haunt you.
With your lawyer, send a certified mail letter explaining your understanding of the issue, and the possible causes
Also explain why you need to have them follow up on this, since it involves a federal offense. They are legally required to pursue this to their complete ability since they released you over it.
Give them a series of investigative measures they can perform to prove/disprove your possibilities for this occurance.
Remember to include their veiwpoint in this investigation, and show how they can prove you were not the culprit
Think of everything, the door access logs if any, the bus schedule you may have ridden, anything to prove you were somewhere else, you don't have files that made the alledged accesses, etc.
Explain the highest probably cause: a worm scanned around for boxes to infect and your box looked like a poor hack job
Tell them releasing you is serious enough to be illegal if they do not pursue it, since it affects your ability to hold a job in the future.
Point to your good work done elsewhere for clients, for your agency, or their own other projects. Explain your integrity
Await their response. Call mom and ask for laywer dough.
mug
Wow! A couple hundred-thousand lines from now, this could be as good as GNUcash!
But what I really need is something that will report where I spent all my time (?), not my money (beer,games,toys).
I've read the other responses. The GPL won't collapse. Here's why:
MS would love for Linux to go away. However, the power of OSS is that many minds can organize efficiently enough to create a workable product. After years of educationally-focused Unix-like software getting streamlined, studied, debugged and now ported, we've hit commercial grade server product. For free.
The GPL is the grease for that organization. It forces the trust to appear in the transactions working with this code. It also enables the rejection of people who won't play by the rules. We're simply watching a greed-based test of that right now with SCO. Sure MS is rooting for the SCO team, they need to sell against only SUN, HP and other moneymakers in the industry. They know how to undercut someone with production costs.
Linux's only production costs are in manhours donated. Come hither-dither, feast/famine, Linux has been at enterprise quality and will only improve as new theories and algorithms get tested and then put into the churning process for implmentation, testing, etc.
So if SCO's code is present in the current Linux, "derivative works" clauses be damned, we're going to end up with a free something as an OS. The machienery for creating such a beast is already well constructed. if we OSS'd the old BeOS, or the obscure other OS'es out there right now, it would quickly flower into a powerhouse. BSD isn't a derivative, so we're only a kernel away from another Nix flavor anyway.
That said, I believe this mess of a SCO press release per day (and all the FUD in it) and then the world's jabbering about it, will pass when the courtroom doors finally open. There just isn't any logic left in it anymore. Also, serious cases aren't tried in press releases. We're talking about simple sales numbers here. MS pays SCO, makes the next Munich sale. If this doesn't happen, the money well will dry up and the lawyers will pick the bones clean at SCO.
You can be sure, though, that this brain-numbing series of moves by SCO is not without support. 5 execs aren't doing this because they want their stock to simply go from 0.25 to 11.00 - this is an orchestrated effort to remove the trust/reliability and certainty in the Linux-is-an-option for corporate servers. Who benefits most? MS. By far. One could be very certain Balmer is getting an inside on the SCO moves word-by-word before we are. He's ready to play off of this.
If you need to check, ask for an MS sales rep to come by and give a little presentation for your next "long-range server upgrade" - for those in the $10mil and up range (they will check your company structure, sales and potential first). Those slides are hot off the press from that morning's sales meeting. And they say: "Linux is a liability because of the GPL." Almost verbatim SCO's press release.
mug
I would rather start playing with the concept of negative mass, since gravity is still a by-product of, to me.
By this argument, does it make sense to put an airport next to a library? The coal plant next to the grade school? Cemetary next to the swimming hole?
Zoning laws are for appearance, logic and other subjctive concepts. Thus, they are local only.
FYI: Texas has no zoning laws. Houston has strip bars next to elementary schools.
The "Product"/"Software" terms referred to in the SCO license agreement seems to imply the ENTIRE Linux OS. No mention of Kernel vs apps, tools, etc.
This is the final, released version of their license - its been "reviewed" supposedly. I'm assuming they are placing a flag on the entire pile of code and all resultant executables. Given the vast array of code in there, and their debated small contribution (purposeful or not) in the 4 extensions [mentioned previously], are they just batty?
Something makes me think they are just shoveling money into a room full of lawyers and posting the output in press releases. Their advisors have left the building.
This is laughable. But hey lets avoid redundancy here.
mug
Well I guess you wouldn't mind paying for it. everyone wants to "shift funds" from perceived unimportant ideas to their dear-at-heart ones, but without moving existing money, would you support higher taxes for this? Not many people would.
It's not that [all] people are greedy bastards [all the time], but our western system of capitalism demands money as the bringer of survival, and then leisure choices. Almost a basic need at the bottom. So, having the government pay for this is not my favorite idea.
Instead, the companies that produce and market, ship, administer and follow up on this concept should be reimbursed. Howabout we are given ownership of the land these people live (and die) on? "your jungle or your life" ? Ok, call me the greedy bastard.
mug
nice one! mod parent up with your spare pts
Mix and match:
Catch Phrases
=============
Modding opinions into answers for over 315360000 seconds.
Where plots to take over are hatched every day.
The only non-machine language I understand.
FIRST SHIRT! -5 Irrelevant
This world's largest geek collective.
Anonymous thought sharing.
Measuring mountains and molehills with precision.
Educate your geek.
Not your mother's home page.
Layouts
===========
Title Logo on front. Catchphrase below. All "topic logos" on back smaller.
Title Logo on front. Catchphrase on back.
Title Logo on front. Generic "slouching geek" (like olymipic event symbol) picture below. Catchphrase on back.
Sorry, but modern nav systems are way too expensive than simply flying the existing infrastructure. Telephoto lenses, helmet mounts, and the prior investment in equipment slap your idea down, neat as is. Would you let your children play in a playground where one of these things swooped above them?
The liability you would assume in taking an RC hele above a crowd (moving or not) is immense. Perhaps a small blimp-like device would work, but in no way would a blade be accepted any closer than existing aircraft.
Spend one day at your local RC field to see the potential for destruction. I've driven my own planes into the dirt as a beginner, and seen 30-year experts lose the battle with a virgin ship on maiden flight. They are dangerous, make no doubt about it, and they crash a lot.
mug
Whiners. Just like spammers, this is a case of people determined to make a medium not intended for advertising into one. Where does it stop? If they cannot call you, are they going to stand in front of my house and shout?
This is laughable. Like travel/insurance/real estate agents and media distribution, this industry sprang up because of a particular circumstance of the business environment. Now that its changing, all these business are crying foul. Not so. They are slowly being replaced with online/digital mediums for searcing and sorting, micropayments and validation services.
IMO, I hope these services die a painful death and the people involved with them go looking for work elsewhere. Economic disaster, true, but I think it'll be good for our population to be forced into newer concepts rather than propping up the old ones. A certain percentage may even train to be part of the digital industry's workforce. Sadly, some may become spammers (if not already).
We're content overloaded and most of it is junk food. There simply isn't enough quality out there to warrant getting it stuffed in our faces every way possible. Let's have a phone/Voip be for private conversations, not substance-free radio blather.
mug
Whoa Troll. Are you implying that nowhere but your country of origin things get done? It sounds more like a specialization problem (or perhaps errors choosing an outsourcing vendor). Or maybe you were suffering from a communication problem?
Last time I checked, there were smart people all over the globe. I doubt your experience is the norm. heck, a lot of the tech on the web is built from non-US people.
Oh what enlightenment!
- When you've learned all there is to know about C, find out how to simplify it a bit in C++. Notice the job security and look of awe when you master the ++.
- After mucking around in these low-density languages, step up to Perl and see how a language built by a task-oriented person stomps one built by a system-oriented person. See your project file sizes shrink before your very eyes!
- Now take your newfound magic ability to learn new languages and apply it to whipping out pages with PHP and MySQL for all your friends quickly! You'll be the talk of the C crawlers crowd! Hey! Gimmie some content! Aw, forget it - let me just play!
- Now plumb the depths of (supposed) machine-independent laguanges by writing some Java and finding out what "Sun-certified" means! (hint: Sun owns it)
- Optional: Head back to school to get a PhD in autoprogramming theory and self-construction methods. Sequester yourself away to your dorm room for endless hours of experiments training a neural net to convert tasks to code using the most efficient method possible.
- Finally, wrap up your technical life by examining all these related language nuances holistically and achieve the zen of programming: "there is no language"