No not really.
Since when did a senior manage know what a digital certificate was, let alone how to get one or where from.
They employ other people to do that kind of thing. Usually the same people that sort out the internet connection and domain names, so the poster had a good point.
Firstly, it looks to me like the can just has two compartments with a plastic bit on the base, so it's probably recylcable once the plastic has been removed.
And secondly, who cares if it's recyclable anyway?
Two points -
If hundred of blog sites have put this up, then the chance is that if you are seraching for a term then the blog thing is actually what you are looking for.
Also, I expect that this will only last until it gets to the top of the list and then the pages get replaces and it all goes away
So they product a version of windows without IE and maybe some other things.
Nobody would buy it.
Everyone would just buy the full version.
Why don't they just do it and keep everyone happy.
Well blocking whole areas is a start, but not an ideal solution.
I'm going to start filtering my email so that unless it meets one of the following conditions it gets rejected and sent back to the sender:-
1. The mail claims to be From someone I have pre-approved.
2. It's from a mailing list I've registered with.
3. It's sent To: a special purpose address within a couple of days of creating that address. (So I can post to newsgroups with addresses like jb10202 which will be valid for a couple of days for replies only)
4. The email contains a special approval code to bypass the checking.
The purpose of 4) is that when I get an email that is rejected it will send it back to the sender with an apology and a 4 digit random code which is valid only for a single mail from that address and only for 48 hours. They can simply forward the mail back to me and it will contain the code and get through.
I get *so* much spam, and 99% of my real email is from the same few address that I need to block the junk, and I think this scheme will annoy relativly few people, and not too much but should cut ALL the spam.
I've not implemented this yet, but it shouldn't be too hard to write.
I did read the article. My point was they want to stop people using the library for the very things people actually want to use it for.
If the majority of the developers want that, then it's fine, but it won't help the popularity of the code if lots less people use it. The developers seem somewhat confused over _why_ they wrote the code in the first place.
It's like saying "use wine, it's better than windows. But don't think of selling your improvements for money." Fine. But that will just make people use real windows instead. It's not like someone profiting from improvements to wine harms its development in any way.
And I hardly thing the word "bigot" is appropriate. As one of the original developers of wine I think that I have every right to state what I think of the license conditions.
My contribution was very small and a long time ago, and has pretty much all long since been replaced by better code, so I'm not voicing an official opinion over what should happen to the code. It should be up to the active developers. But I find it amusing that people who probably had nothing at all to do with the development of the code feel fit to hurl abuse at those people who did for daring to have an opinion over who should be allowed to use that code, and under what conditions.
[quote]Guess I can retire this topic icon [/quote]
Corel aren't going away as far as I know. Just not doing open source any more. Many people think that non-open source is just as important as open source software. In fact probably more so.
I see more of this in the future - if you want a search engine, buy one and put it on the network. If you want a web server, buy one and put it on the network. You want a disk server... Well you get the point.
As hardware continues to get cheaper and software more expensive as it gets more complex it makes sense to do this rather than trying to configure multiple applications all on the same server.
And good luck to google making money on this so they can keep their search engine fast and free of annoying advertisments.
Yeah well mechanical engineering is a worthy subject, but not of great help in many software and development technical jobs which is what the article was about. I mean no help --getting-- the job, when there are lots of people with more relevent --sounding-- qualifications.
The fact that he also has an MBA would make it very difficult for them to get a job in a technical subject as there is always the thought that they don't really want a technical job, they really want to be a manager of some kind.
And I've known several marketing people who claim to know some programming, but you wouldn't even consider them for a technical job.
I did say QA was an exception.
My point is that none of these people are good candidates for getting a techie job. I wasn't intending to doubt their qualifications, but just to say that it's hardly suprising to me that these people would find it difficult to get the kind of job being described here.
These are quotes from the article about the jobs that people were laid-off from:-
"Here I am throwing mail with an MBA"
"sharpening her resume as a marketing manager "
"write scripts for now-defunct Web soap opera The Spot"
"quality assurance (QA) job "
"product manager for software development "
With the possible exception of the QA job, none of these sound like techie jobs. They are all just fairly unskilled jobs that happen to be in a technical company. This article is very misleading.
It's a game. The game has rules and you have to play by them, you can't sell of your high score.
It would be like manchester united taking legal action because the rules of football don't allow them to auction of goals they scored to another team for real money. Nobody prevents them from trying, but the football authorities would just ignore any change in the match scores.
And to anyone who things this is a good idea, I've got a good space invaders high score for sale!
> Tie this security into strong biometric authentication (voice, handwriting, fingerprints)
Biometric identification is stupid. If someone gets a copy of your password you can change that, but if someone gets a copy of your fingerprints it's not so easy to change them.
I mean they get a copy of the data representing your fingerprints and insert that in to the system rather than actually copying your fingerprints (although that might be possible too!)
I *want* tv companies to know what I like to watch, and advertisers to know that I almost always skip their adverts because they are dull and pointless.
I don't want them to know that the data comes from *me*, but I certainly have no objection to them knowing what is watched so maybe they'll make more programs I like.
Well the TV part is fairly uninteresting. It's easier just to get satellite. And broadband internet over copper lines - isn't that what my adsl is using right now?
I'm not trying to justify it in any way, but it's not the same as shoplifting, or driving off withoug paying.
With those things you have prevented them from selling their stuff to someone else and therefore activly cost them money. With software "theft" you have not deprived them of the ability to sell as many copies as they like. You've not cost them any money at all. That's wh the term "theft" is wrong here.
That's the difference. Whether you think that it's equally bad is a matter of opinion only.
After several years of linux I finally tried freebsd a week ago for the first time, and it's great! Much of the clutter of typical linux distributions is not there, but you can still get much of the same software.
I recomment that everyone thinking of linux at least has a look at it before deciding for definate that linux is the right thing for them
Apache *is* multithreaded even in version 1. It forks() multiple copies of itsself. That is multithreading. Admittedly they are processes, not threads in some sense of the term, but in the sense of a thread as a "thread of execution" apache certainly is a multithreaded application.
We don't want to be arguing over terminology here, we all know what we mean.
I was mostly worried about the spelling. I tried 3 different ways and was happy with none of them so I gave up and figured you'd all know what I meant.
This isn't a case of hardware abstraction. You obviously have little idea how multiprocessor software works. It needs to be designed to use mutliple threads. And most software isn't.
A 40 processor machine would be of little use for running a single application. I doubt many applications could even be written to make effective use of this. I guess 3d rendering and so on might just about s it's very paralelizable (to invent, and mis-spell a new word).
Slashdot Mirror
No not really. Since when did a senior manage know what a digital certificate was, let alone how to get one or where from. They employ other people to do that kind of thing. Usually the same people that sort out the internet connection and domain names, so the poster had a good point.
No. FOr example my mail program downloads the mail messages but discards about 90% of them as spam and I never see them.
Firstly, it looks to me like the can just has two compartments with a plastic bit on the base, so it's probably recylcable once the plastic has been removed. And secondly, who cares if it's recyclable anyway?
Two points - If hundred of blog sites have put this up, then the chance is that if you are seraching for a term then the blog thing is actually what you are looking for. Also, I expect that this will only last until it gets to the top of the list and then the pages get replaces and it all goes away
So they product a version of windows without IE and maybe some other things. Nobody would buy it. Everyone would just buy the full version. Why don't they just do it and keep everyone happy.
Well it was just the week actually. I installed windows 2000 and had the choice between fat and ntfs. What's your point exactly?
Most people only used it because it was free. I don't suppose they'll get a significany market share and will decide to drop it soon enough.
Well blocking whole areas is a start, but not an ideal solution. I'm going to start filtering my email so that unless it meets one of the following conditions it gets rejected and sent back to the sender :-
1. The mail claims to be From someone I have pre-approved.
2. It's from a mailing list I've registered with.
3. It's sent To: a special purpose address within a couple of days of creating that address. (So I can post to newsgroups with addresses like jb10202 which will be valid for a couple of days for replies only)
4. The email contains a special approval code to bypass the checking.
The purpose of 4) is that when I get an email that is rejected it will send it back to the sender with an apology and a 4 digit random code which is valid only for a single mail from that address and only for 48 hours. They can simply forward the mail back to me and it will contain the code and get through.
I get *so* much spam, and 99% of my real email is from the same few address that I need to block the junk, and I think this scheme will annoy relativly few people, and not too much but should cut ALL the spam.
I've not implemented this yet, but it shouldn't be too hard to write.
I did read the article. My point was they want to stop people using the library for the very things people actually want to use it for. If the majority of the developers want that, then it's fine, but it won't help the popularity of the code if lots less people use it. The developers seem somewhat confused over _why_ they wrote the code in the first place. It's like saying "use wine, it's better than windows. But don't think of selling your improvements for money." Fine. But that will just make people use real windows instead. It's not like someone profiting from improvements to wine harms its development in any way. And I hardly thing the word "bigot" is appropriate. As one of the original developers of wine I think that I have every right to state what I think of the license conditions. My contribution was very small and a long time ago, and has pretty much all long since been replaced by better code, so I'm not voicing an official opinion over what should happen to the code. It should be up to the active developers. But I find it amusing that people who probably had nothing at all to do with the development of the code feel fit to hurl abuse at those people who did for daring to have an opinion over who should be allowed to use that code, and under what conditions.
It should be a BSD style licence so that people can use it how they like. Or else people will just use windows instead.
[quote]Guess I can retire this topic icon [/quote] Corel aren't going away as far as I know. Just not doing open source any more. Many people think that non-open source is just as important as open source software. In fact probably more so.
I see more of this in the future - if you want a search engine, buy one and put it on the network. If you want a web server, buy one and put it on the network. You want a disk server... Well you get the point.
As hardware continues to get cheaper and software more expensive as it gets more complex it makes sense to do this rather than trying to configure multiple applications all on the same server.
And good luck to google making money on this so they can keep their search engine fast and free of annoying advertisments.
Yeah well mechanical engineering is a worthy subject, but not of great help in many software and development technical jobs which is what the article was about. I mean no help --getting-- the job, when there are lots of people with more relevent --sounding-- qualifications.
The fact that he also has an MBA would make it very difficult for them to get a job in a technical subject as there is always the thought that they don't really want a technical job, they really want to be a manager of some kind.
And I've known several marketing people who claim to know some programming, but you wouldn't even consider them for a technical job.
I did say QA was an exception.
My point is that none of these people are good candidates for getting a techie job. I wasn't intending to doubt their qualifications, but just to say that it's hardly suprising to me that these people would find it difficult to get the kind of job being described here.
Uh no. Those were the jobs they had before losing them, not the ones that had afterwards. Please read the artical before calling me an idiot.
These are quotes from the article about the jobs that people were laid-off from :-
"Here I am throwing mail with an MBA"
"sharpening her resume as a marketing manager "
"write scripts for now-defunct Web soap opera The Spot"
"quality assurance (QA) job "
"product manager for software development "
With the possible exception of the QA job, none of these sound like techie jobs. They are all just fairly unskilled jobs that happen to be in a technical company. This article is very misleading.
It's a game. The game has rules and you have to play by them, you can't sell of your high score.
It would be like manchester united taking legal action because the rules of football don't allow them to auction of goals they scored to another team for real money. Nobody prevents them from trying, but the football authorities would just ignore any change in the match scores.
And to anyone who things this is a good idea, I've got a good space invaders high score for sale!
> Tie this security into strong biometric authentication (voice, handwriting, fingerprints)
Biometric identification is stupid. If someone gets a copy of your password you can change that, but if someone gets a copy of your fingerprints it's not so easy to change them.
I mean they get a copy of the data representing your fingerprints and insert that in to the system rather than actually copying your fingerprints (although that might be possible too!)
I *want* tv companies to know what I like to watch, and advertisers to know that I almost always skip their adverts because they are dull and pointless.
I don't want them to know that the data comes from *me*, but I certainly have no objection to them knowing what is watched so maybe they'll make more programs I like.
This is a *good* thing.
Well the TV part is fairly uninteresting. It's easier just to get satellite. And broadband internet over copper lines - isn't that what my adsl is using right now?
I'm not trying to justify it in any way, but it's not the same as shoplifting, or driving off withoug paying.
With those things you have prevented them from selling their stuff to someone else and therefore activly cost them money. With software "theft" you have not deprived them of the ability to sell as many copies as they like. You've not cost them any money at all. That's wh the term "theft" is wrong here.
That's the difference. Whether you think that it's equally bad is a matter of opinion only.
Well they must be pretty poor, uneducated "scientists" then.
After several years of linux I finally tried freebsd a week ago for the first time, and it's great! Much of the clutter of typical linux distributions is not there, but you can still get much of the same software.
I recomment that everyone thinking of linux at least has a look at it before deciding for definate that linux is the right thing for them
Apache *is* multithreaded even in version 1. It forks() multiple copies of itsself. That is multithreading. Admittedly they are processes, not threads in some sense of the term, but in the sense of a thread as a "thread of execution" apache certainly is a multithreaded application.
We don't want to be arguing over terminology here, we all know what we mean.
I was mostly worried about the spelling. I tried 3 different ways and was happy with none of them so I gave up and figured you'd all know what I meant.
This isn't a case of hardware abstraction. You obviously have little idea how multiprocessor software works. It needs to be designed to use mutliple threads. And most software isn't.
A 40 processor machine would be of little use for running a single application. I doubt many applications could even be written to make effective use of this. I guess 3d rendering and so on might just about s it's very paralelizable (to invent, and mis-spell a new word).