Professional UI designers tell us that user interfaces should be the first thing designed when we come to develop an application, and that programmers are incapable of doing this kind of design. They say it can only be done by the professional UI experts; OSS projects don't have access to these kind of people, and therefore can never be truly usable.
This is like saying all developers care only about performance, and all manager care only about impossible schedules. There are a number of books out there that aim to give developers the skills to design usable interfaces -- in fact some are on Roe's reference list!
Fitt's law is not the "most basic... of UI design". Fitt's law has become unreasonably important because UI designers stopped giving users visual cues about keyboard shortcuts. Even my Dad uses the backspace key rather than the back button! Its so much easier. Mouse gestures will also dramatically change the effect of Fitt's law.
In my experience, the weaknesses of open source UI design are also its strengths: (1) the ability to experiment with new interface metaphores; and (2) the flexibility of the software.
The more you conform to established metaphores, the more easily you can make your product usable. Creating new metaphores is difficult, and getting them accepted is even more difficult.
Flexible software typically has a lot of functions and options. The capacity of short term memory is important here: a person at random can remember or concentrate on 7 +/- 2 items at once. At no point should a person be presented with more than 9 items in a selection when one has to be chosen. So there should be at most 9 menus, 9 items per menu, etc. Any more than that and people are operating at less than peak efficiency in order to find the functionality they want.
Great list:) Here's a couple of skills and tasks I consider essential:
Know management: get yourself a good introductory book (not a 21 day guide to being an MBA). The areas you need to understand are general management, marketing (seriously!), and operations. Project management is part of the operations function. You need to understand basic management concepts like planning, leading, organizing and controlling.
Understand quality, productivity and risk: these are core operations concepts that managers need to grok. They afford the world view you need to do things right, and to do the right thing, so that what you actually deliver is valuable to the customer. Take a look at my essay, The Quality Gap.
Enhance communications: as a manager once of your functions is to facilitate. Do this by improving communications. Be a conduit for dialog, but also put people (inside and outside the team or company) in touch with each other, and encourage them to talk directly and to communicate this information back to you and to other team members.
Protect your team: another of your functions is to be an interface. You should be involved in all communication, and people shouldn't be communicating without your knowledge. As an interface you establish the lines of communication, and ensure you are getting feedback on them, and spreading that information where it needs to go. At the same time you need to protect your team from unreasonable demands from customers and from managers outside the team. Know when to step in and say "this is my team, hands off". Most programmers don't like dealing with "business people" -- they will appreciate your intervention.
Know how to plan: get the tools and knowledge to create and monitor a project schedule. All estimates must come from the technical persons who will actually do the work! Be sure to include time in the plan for planning (!), requirements documentation, design, implementation, testing, configuration management and packaging, customer acceptance test, and maintenance. Understand the dependencies! Never forget that all this time your team is likely to be taking support calls, asked to provide a quick estimate on some other project you're quoting on, fix a few bugs on other products, talking on Slashdot;) In my experience you can only count on about 6 hours of project work per day!
Delegate and defer: you don't have all the technical or management knowledge to do everything. Don't be afraid to delegate, to defer decisions, or to accept the advise of those above, beside and below you. Everyone has a wealth of personal knowledge and can contribute to any problem you are facing. Welcome their advise, even if you don't follow it -- they will appreciate it, and it can benefit you.
Insist on sign-off: requirements must be signed off. Changes to requirements must be signed off. Customer acceptance tests must be signed off. Sign-off is a basic risk management techique that protects the company, the team, and your butt.
I've haven't heard of a service that will do all of the administrative work for you (including tax), but there are a lot of shareware registration services that handle payments and give you transaction summaries.
Two of the best known (and trusted) are share-it and RegSoft. Regshare has a list of many such services, with comparison matrices for fees, services, etc. There is also a category in Google's directory for shareware registration services.
In software we have a strange conception of architecture. We understand it as the underlying structure. In construction the architecture specifies the structure and the facade. It's the equivalent of the software structure and the UI mock-ups.
ESRs essay is more about direction than actual work. In the "Cathedral model" it doesn't matter if you have a force of a thousand developers, as long as there is a small group that are in control of the direction and working towards a predefined goal. Before work started, someone said "we're going there" (indicating structure and facade), and all the effort is targetted at that end goal.
There are a lot of details missing that are filled in along the way -- you don't need to specify how each team must build its component, so long as it comes out in a way that fits the structure and the facade.
The essence of the Bazaar style is that there is no predefined goal. Development is nebulous. No single Master said "this is what it will look like when it is done". It is even debatable whether the structure (of Linux in its current form) was specified by a single Master.
No-one sits down and draws an accurate image of the structure and facade of a street bazaar. Traders gather and it just happens. They find space for themselves, shift around, argue, extend their patch into any available space. Initially someone planned and laid down a structure (perhaps some paths and covered rows of tables), but the bazaar soon evolves beyond the planning and grows without central control or a single, cohesive direction.
Its amazing how someone can take a great concept and paraphrase it to complete bullshit.
Linux overturned much of what I thought I knew. I had been preaching the Unix gospel of small tools, rapid prototyping and evolutionary programming for years. But I also believed there was a certain critical complexity above which a more centralized, a priori approach was required. I believed that the most important software (operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.
Linus Torvalds's style of development--release early and often, delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity--came as a surprise. No quiet, reverent cathedral-building here--rather, the Linux community seemed to resemble a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches (aptly symbolized by the Linux archive sites, who'd take submissions from anyone) out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles.
ESR's distinction has nothing to do with closed or open, good or evil, or any moral judgement you ascribe to it.
The Cathedral is a small group working in isolation to a common and predefined goal. "In isolation" meaning not involving collaborators outside the group during development. ESR himself says "It's fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn't try it. I didn't either." Open source projects general start in Cathedral style.
The Bazaar has everything open for collaboration from anyone during development. Some small group chooses and manages what does and doesn't go into the final "product", but there are only loose and informal goals. The product gets pushing into the shape of whatever anyone and everyone want it to be for them.
You can't modify Linux to do what you want. You can take the Linux source and make a derivation that does what you want, but its not the Linux that the rest of the world uses. Its not product development. Its not the Bazaar. The Bazaar is about contributing to a product, not forking it. The Bazaar is managed, it just doesn't look that way. The source tree isn't open for just anyone to modify, only to read, and to suggest modifications.
Java and Linux present an interesting case to which to apply TCATB.
Java uses a Cathedral style -- development on a revision is performed in isolation by a small group working to specified goals, then the result is released (with source code, but maybe not under your favourite license). But the determination of Java's goals uses the Bazaar style -- everyone gets to make their suggestion and have their say. Depending on community support (either in terms of being vocal or by contributing reference code or technically beneficial suggestions) the desired features may or may not be implemented during the next Cathedral phase.
Linux on the other hand uses Bazaar development. Anyone can hack on the code and contribute changes. But near the top there are a small group who are managing what changes do or do not make it into the official kernel, and ultimately Linus makes the final choice. So assuming that Linus and the patch managers have their own predetermined goals for Linux, the patches they admit to the official kernel tree are more typical of a Cathedral model, in that they are committed by a small group working towards a common and predetermined goal. Of course the argument can be made that Linus and co. don't have specific goals. I believe the truth is somewhere in between -- the goals of the patch managers change from time to time, but are (in the short term) generally predefined.
Great reply:) I have far too much direct and indirect experience with arrogant physicians to put much faith in their abilities or professionalism anymore.
Doctors seem overly keen on keeping a monopoly on medical information, and frown on "self diagnosers" and "cyberchondriacs", and in doing so they refuse to admit to themselves that the patient is the best person to recognise their own symptoms, and has a vested interest in their own health (rather than seeing their on-going ill-health as a source of cash).
Despite visits to three GPs and three specialists over a course of many years, the best answer I could get to ongoing abdominal discomfort and gastric reflux was "Irritable Bowel Symdrome". A little reading of reputable medical sources lets on that IBS is not the catch-all most doctors take it for, and that I wasn't subjected to a number of tests required to rule out other possibilities.
More importantly my doctors failed to pick up on other symptoms (Western medicine has never been very good at the holistic approach) and consider whether they could be related.
So it turns out that my abdominal pains and acid reflux, a significant portion of weight gain, and a minor problem with dry skin and acne is all related to food intolerance... to gluten. Yep -- an estimated 10% to 30% of the population have it, and it didn't cross the doctors' minds.
15 years suffering with sinusitis, itchy eyes, and generally feeling miserable all winter? Obviously an allergy, and the tests show house dust mite. And the medical opinion? Keep your house clean.
Do you think a doctor would prescribe a chronic oral anti-histamine to improve your quality of life, given that you can never really get rid of dust mite or confirm yourself to a sterile room in your house? Or perhaps a nasal corticosteroid? Or tell you that saline water taken nasally and in the eyes will dramatically reduce the symptoms? Or that food intolerances have an effect on your immune system and make you more susceptible to allergens? Hell no.
So sure, go and see your doctor. But make sure you consult Google for a second opinion.
While you're carefully protecting your fourth-graders from calculus, the government is systematically removing social liberties in the name of safety, and social responsibility in the name of progress. Its a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
From the reading I've done, the "bury and forget" approach is not great. What you want to do is identify an isolated area with stable tectonics where you can bury the waste below the water table, and monitor it on an ongoing basis.
This gives you the opportunity of knowing if something goes wrong with the containment for any reason, if some terrorists attempt to steal it, etc. In other words, take the same approach as you would to any security problem: secure the target, then monitor.
I did not mean that all paper systems provide an audit trail. A properly created paper system does, whereas even a properly created electronic system cannot, at least not in anything like the form we understand voting today.
I am not familiar with much of the mechanical voting technology, but my understanding has been that the machine simply punches a hole in a ballot paper -- it doesn't check your identity, issue the ballot, or accept the ballot deposit. In such a case you still have an auditable trail.
The problem with the "use paper if you don't like the electronic machines" system is that it isn't auditable, unless the entire paper vs electronic system is in parallel. i.e. you get to the voting station and go into the "paper" queue (check identity, cross of voter's roll, get ballot paper, mark it, deposit it in box, with all the cross-checks I spoke of before), or you go into the "electronic" queue (do whatever you're supposed to do with the electronic machine). Then part of your election result is auditable, and the rest (the electronic part) isn't.
So although you cast a paper ballot and can be certain about how it was accounted for, you have no certainty about the accuracy of the election as a whole, because the majority of the ballots (electronic) are not auditable.
Okay, this one seriously needs a reply. In a good paper-based voting system, the steps will be (more or less) the following:
Some time prior to voting day, you will register. You should receive a receipt for registration (in some countries it will be stamped into your national ID, for example). Usually you can only vote at the station at which you register.
The voter's roll is compiled at a central location to ensure that each voter is registered for only one station.
On voting day you arrive at the voting station and present your proof of citizenship (i.e. proof of right to vote) and your receipt.
Your voter registration is cross-checked against a voter's roll, and your hand is checked for markings. If everything is clear your name is crossed off the roll and your hand is marked with indelible ink. You are ushered to the next table...
... where you receive a ballot paper.
You take the ballot paper into a little cubicle, make your mark, and fold the ballot.
Exiting from the cubicle you place your ballot into a box.
The entire process (voter verification, ballot issue and vote deposit) is monitored by officials from all parties contesting the election (or those that want to, at least).
So, at the end of the day, this is what you have:
Every station has been issued with a number of ballot pads. It can determine the exact number of ballot papers issued by counting the remaining pages in used pads, and the number of unused pads.
The number of ballots issued is cross-checked against the number of voters crossed off the voters roll, and against the number of votes placed in the boxes.
The number of votes for each candidate are added together, plus the spoilt votes, and should match the expected number of ballots.
All these tallies are done in the presence of representatives of different parties, who all report independently to their own party's counting centres, which allow them to cross-check the official count.
Because ballot issue is independent of voter verification, your ballot secrecy is guaranteed.
In order to vote more than once you will need to be able to get around the indelible ink marking and have multiple entries on the voter's role.
All in all, you walk away from the voting station without any "receipt", but with a strong and auditable trail that requires a triple failure to lose a vote, and a double failure or collusion under observation to miscount a vote.
Pure electronic voting cannot provide this audit trail. Only a combined paper/electronic system is able to match it.
"If I make a dub of a DVD"... clearly you are the person doing the copying. But if you leave a DVD lying on your desk, and someone else comes along and makes a copy, then what?
Actually, in American law, the person with the illegal copy is the infringer. The person who enabled them to get the illegal copy is a contributory infringer.
7. A method for dynamically displaying data values on a client computer, comprising:
I'll paraphrase the result of (7):
Request a result set
Result set returned with a "control module" and "rules of enforcement of... combinations"
In response to user adjustments the control module applies the rules on the client-side in real time and dynamically displays the "processed data values"
Claim (7) is independent of claim (1), and pertains to "data values" not just to "pricing information".
When you talk about SATA, SCSI and FCAL, are you meaning the interface or the drives themselves?
There are numerous cheaper products out there that stuff PATA or SATA disks into a rack chassis and provide a SCSI and/or Fiber interface to the collection as a single logical drive.
On the other hand I have seen a fair amount of information on speed and reliability of SCSI drives versus IDE drives, and it all points to SCSI being a better choice.
I'd imaging that a "cheaper" solution that uses PATA/IDE disks will end up costing more than expected because (1) performance won't match the IBM system, (2) you'll be replacing individual drivers more often, and (3) the reliability of the "cheaper" chassis & electronics won't be up to IBM's standard so ultimately you'll take more downtime.
Is that it, or is there something more I need to know?
Hint: not all countries work like the US. In particular:
Emergency services may take longer to respond that you would expect, and will not respond to certain classes of call-out.
Healthcare facilities may require details of your health insurance before admission.
Some facilities will not admit children without the consent of a parent or guardian, unless the situation if "life threatening".
So if your child has an incident that is not immediately life threatening (e.g. concussion, asthma attack, large cut) they may not even be able to get to a hospital (unless the baby sitter can drive and has a car), and even once there they may not be treated until their condition worsens severely.
BBC: UK did great, but our best players actually represented their home countries so the Netherlands won. All of our other players did great, but got knocked out early.
Slashdot: USA wins ... uh... some medals that is. They came third, really.
WCG:
First place: The Netherlands
Second place: South Korea
Third place: USA
And you're assuming it is there. Creating a truely objective longitudinal study to observe the effects of smoking on a group as compared to a control group is incredibly difficult.
Few of studies that are cited as "hard evidence" take into account psychological factors -- stress, for example, is a predisposing factor for both smoking and many forms of cancer.
Other studies are worse, turning to geographically disparate groups in an effort to separate smokers from non-smokers who will not be subjected to cigaratte smoke, i.e. people in rural areas. This obviously doesn't take into account the effect of city pollutants, etc.
Consider for a moment the difficulty in taking two groups of people from the same environment (same building, various people from various job levels) and ensuring that your control group isn't subject to secondary smoke. Since these studies have concluded that secondary smoke is bad, they must have had to keep the control group in a "clean" environment, somehow, for 10+ years.
In other words most of the research linking smoking to cancer is tainted in some way, and comes down to manipulatable statistical models based on estimates of environmental influences. It is only because we have dozens of such studies by various independent groups using different control models over a period of more than 30 years that we are generally satisfied now that there is a statistically significant relationship between smoking and cancer. In other words we have extensive circumstantial evidence rather than 'hard evidence'.
Scientists are different. You don't go into science to make money, or to get power.
I am eagerly awaiting the first mad accountant who tries to take over the world...
More seriously, I see media articles on a regular basis about scientists forging their results in order to gain recognition, about scientists responsible for Environmental Impact Assessments accepting bribes, about scientists deliberately overstating the risk of some activity in order to further their own agendas. Scientists are just people; they don't have special immunity to the concerns of the the masses.
Science is a disciplined approach to a subject that involves building up a sound theoretical knowledge and questioning all assumptions and hypotheses. Thus we not only have natural sciences but commercial sciences, including accounting science, economic science, and legal science. All uses the same fundamental principles to build the theoretical foundations of their subjects, and all practices by very different individuals.
The logical underpinnings of modern science have their roots in millennia of philosophy. Sadly the study of philosophy is neglected in modern science, otherwise you would be able to spot the many fallacious arguments you are making.
A true scientist always questions until shown proof. You cannot accuse someone of "not being a scientist" because they question a widely held belief. Neither is "95% of climate scientists" enough to prove anything. Proof requires objective observation and/or deduction that holds up under peer review. Belief is irrelevant.
As for the "80% of scientists (that) believe in global warming", ask yourself: why do these scientists believe that theory? Have the read the research, have they checked the conclusions, or do they, like your average citizen, simply trust in the beliefs of the majority of climate scientists? Why do 5% of climate scientists disagree, and who are those 5%? If (say) only 10% of climate scientists are actively involved in academic research, and the 5% that disagree about global warming are all academics, then fully half of the climate research community doesn't support global warming.
You also need to ask yourself what "believe in global warming" means. Does it mean that the average temperature of the world's surface is rising, or just certain parts? Is there an implication of human involvement? How does this weigh up against glacial records of CO2 levels? Does it mean that we (humanity) can take action to reduce or reverse this effect?
Two words: "business acumen". If you don't have it, you're not going to succeed at running your own business.
If you want to be a contrator, get some real business management training, or team up with someone who has it.
If you want to have a successful business, you'll need technical experience and business experience.
Market yourself, build a portfolio, network. Focus on service -- people respect good service. Find a niche market and take control of it. Get your contracts in writing and understand the legal issues around them. Protect yourself by using a business form that provides limited liability. Understand the work involved in a contract and the amount of money you need to cover all expenses and required profits, and don't take jobs that aren't worth it. Prefer contracts that leave you with an opportunity for recurring revenue (more contracts from the same source, or reuse the work/knowledge in other contracts).
Similar experience here. The head "burned out" in my Canon BJC printer. Cost of replacement R600 (~ $92); cost of newer, better printer R450 (~ $70).
If you can remove the print head from the printer you can often recover it by soaking in warm water (just the end bit, really) and then allow it to dry thoroughly. Doesn't work with burned out heads unfortunately.
In my experience, cartridges without a head are cheaper, but your printer will not last as long. Personal opinion, if you don't need color, get a laser.
So I not only pay for $20 the DVD, but also $24 for a pair of tickets, $8 for parking, and $12 for popcorn & drinks.
Okay, these prices are sortof freaking me out. I pay R33 (South African Rands) for an evening movie, that's around $5. With various club memberships that comes down to R15 / $2.50 for a second ticket, so $7 - $10 for a pair of tickets. A popcorn and coke (500ml - 750ml) will be around $3, and parking just $1.
A new DVD release on the other hand is between R250 and R320, averaging out at around R280 (that $43). Even with most loyalty discounts you can't get close to $20.
Another factor is the price of suitable home theatre systems. Anything in the 100cm / 39in range that has good picture quality (two aspects I consider crucial to the home theatre experience) starts above R8000 ($1250), and a 43" plasma display will come in over $3700.
The way I see it, R8000 is 160 movies, which covers me for about 4 years (one movie a week, seldom more, occasionally less). Assuming I rent (not buy) the movies at R20 when they come out, it will take over 6 years to see the home theatre come out cheaper, given that I have no other justification for a big screen TV ; and that's not factoring in the time value of money.
I think the picture in the US is a bit different... but I honestly can't see the benefit in a home theatre.
No, there is perfectly legitimate adware out there. I'm thinking of software the is free (beer) subject to it downloading and displaying ads while you run it. A number of software producers use this technique in a forthright and legitimate manner to supplement income and encourage the purchase of "professional" version of the product.
What we need is a restriction that prohibits any software from installing itself without the consent of the PC owner/user, from using any system resources without disclosing to the user up front and in an obvious and straightforward way what resources it will use and why, and requiring that all software can be simply and completely uninstalled on demand.
Re:the whole IP issue is invalid
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
One of the basic principles of economics is supply and demand, which work together to determine price. If the supply is unlimited then any level of demand can be satisfied, and the price will be low. Thus most businesses carefully consider their production levels to maximum economic benefit, even though they could produce more.
In the case of works subject to Copyright, it is only Copyright law the causes artificial scarcity, and thus economic value. Without this scarcity there is no economic value in intellectual works, and only telecoms and blank DVD media manufacturers would be making money.
The concept of economic loss does not necesarily suppose that every illegal copy would have been purchased -- it also takes into account the effect on economic value of an alternate supply; in particular the human response of "why should I pay if you didn't".
In that case one cannot "lose" a job. A job is not something you have, it is not something you can trade or eat or read. It is merely a future economic benefit that you may receive, usually on pay day. So there is no reason to have labour laws to protect employees, as they cannot actually "lose" anything by not "having" a job.
And perhaps you should realise that there are other professions out there that have their own "technical jargon", and distinguish between things like "accounting loss" and "economic loss", and the only reason you are being "mislead" is your ignorance.
"The public" are not the final decision makers in a socioeconomic system. You may think otherwise, given the modern understanding of democracy, but it is simply not so. "The public" has a nasty habbit of wanting to enforce ethnic separation or religion on all its members. "The public" has a nasty habbit of wanting economic socialism because "the public" is, on average, working class citizens. "The public" is also an unruly, uneducated bunch; which is why we have people like Bush and Blair in the comfy chairs.
In fact, it is precisely because "the public" see the opportunity to get something interesting or useful for free, and that by doing so they destroy the possibility of an economic foundation for sustainable development of such interesting or useful things, that some wise people saw a need for Copyright.
Not true. Copyright is not restricted to copying, it also explicitly (in the law) provides the copyright holder with the exclusive rights to leasing, public performance (as you note) and derived works, amongst others.
The 9th Circuit ruling and the Betamax ruling set precedents. In the future other courts will refer to such precents and determine the extent to which they are applicable to new cases.
Laws do not overturn rulings, but they regularly superceed precedents. A Betamax-equivalent case could be brought before a court which must now consider the fact that the environment under which the Betamax decision was taken (i.e. the laws applicable at the time) is different to the new environment (assuming the INDUCE act is passed), and that the Betamax precedent thus has limited effect.
Always remember that the law trumps precedents. Courts must rule according to law. Judicial precedents serve to clarify the courts' interpretation of laws with respect to the conditions of a case. Only in cases with the same legal environment and factual background is a court bound by the precedents of other courts of an equal or higher level. At any time, a new law can be passed, even with the explicit intent of changing something that has previously been set by a judicial precedent (assumedly not to the satisfaction of the lawmakers).
The constitution is a very special case. It provides for an avenue to challange a law directly. The court will not simply "bypass" the law when it rules - it either upholds it or rules that the law is unconstitutional and no longer valid.
The only bases on which a court can rule in a manner inconsistent with a law is when the law is inconsistent with the constitution, or inconsistent with another law that the court chooses to observe in preference given the facts of the case. The judiciary interprets and adjudicates the rules created by the legislature; it has no power to create substantial law.
Slashdot Mirror
An article with noble intentions, but it falls far short.
To begin with, anyone involved in UI development needs to read Joel Spolsky's User Interface Design for Programmers .
From Roe's article:
This is like saying all developers care only about performance, and all manager care only about impossible schedules. There are a number of books out there that aim to give developers the skills to design usable interfaces -- in fact some are on Roe's reference list!
Fitt's law is not the "most basic ... of UI design". Fitt's law has become unreasonably important because UI designers stopped giving users visual cues about keyboard shortcuts. Even my Dad uses the backspace key rather than the back button! Its so much easier. Mouse gestures will also dramatically change the effect of Fitt's law.
In my experience, the weaknesses of open source UI design are also its strengths: (1) the ability to experiment with new interface metaphores; and (2) the flexibility of the software.
The more you conform to established metaphores, the more easily you can make your product usable. Creating new metaphores is difficult, and getting them accepted is even more difficult.
Flexible software typically has a lot of functions and options. The capacity of short term memory is important here: a person at random can remember or concentrate on 7 +/- 2 items at once. At no point should a person be presented with more than 9 items in a selection when one has to be chosen. So there should be at most 9 menus, 9 items per menu, etc. Any more than that and people are operating at less than peak efficiency in order to find the functionality they want.
In other words, outsourcing the HR deparment ...?
Great list :) Here's a couple of skills and tasks I consider essential:
I've haven't heard of a service that will do all of the administrative work for you (including tax), but there are a lot of shareware registration services that handle payments and give you transaction summaries.
Two of the best known (and trusted) are share-it and RegSoft. Regshare has a list of many such services, with comparison matrices for fees, services, etc. There is also a category in Google's directory for shareware registration services.
Not architectural framework. End goal.
In software we have a strange conception of architecture. We understand it as the underlying structure. In construction the architecture specifies the structure and the facade. It's the equivalent of the software structure and the UI mock-ups.
ESRs essay is more about direction than actual work. In the "Cathedral model" it doesn't matter if you have a force of a thousand developers, as long as there is a small group that are in control of the direction and working towards a predefined goal. Before work started, someone said "we're going there" (indicating structure and facade), and all the effort is targetted at that end goal.
There are a lot of details missing that are filled in along the way -- you don't need to specify how each team must build its component, so long as it comes out in a way that fits the structure and the facade.
The essence of the Bazaar style is that there is no predefined goal. Development is nebulous. No single Master said "this is what it will look like when it is done". It is even debatable whether the structure (of Linux in its current form) was specified by a single Master.
No-one sits down and draws an accurate image of the structure and facade of a street bazaar. Traders gather and it just happens. They find space for themselves, shift around, argue, extend their patch into any available space. Initially someone planned and laid down a structure (perhaps some paths and covered rows of tables), but the bazaar soon evolves beyond the planning and grows without central control or a single, cohesive direction.
Its amazing how someone can take a great concept and paraphrase it to complete bullshit.
ESR's distinction has nothing to do with closed or open, good or evil, or any moral judgement you ascribe to it.
The Cathedral is a small group working in isolation to a common and predefined goal. "In isolation" meaning not involving collaborators outside the group during development. ESR himself says "It's fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn't try it. I didn't either." Open source projects general start in Cathedral style.
The Bazaar has everything open for collaboration from anyone during development. Some small group chooses and manages what does and doesn't go into the final "product", but there are only loose and informal goals. The product gets pushing into the shape of whatever anyone and everyone want it to be for them.
You can't modify Linux to do what you want. You can take the Linux source and make a derivation that does what you want, but its not the Linux that the rest of the world uses. Its not product development. Its not the Bazaar. The Bazaar is about contributing to a product, not forking it. The Bazaar is managed, it just doesn't look that way. The source tree isn't open for just anyone to modify, only to read, and to suggest modifications.
Java and Linux present an interesting case to which to apply TCATB.
Java uses a Cathedral style -- development on a revision is performed in isolation by a small group working to specified goals, then the result is released (with source code, but maybe not under your favourite license). But the determination of Java's goals uses the Bazaar style -- everyone gets to make their suggestion and have their say. Depending on community support (either in terms of being vocal or by contributing reference code or technically beneficial suggestions) the desired features may or may not be implemented during the next Cathedral phase.
Linux on the other hand uses Bazaar development. Anyone can hack on the code and contribute changes. But near the top there are a small group who are managing what changes do or do not make it into the official kernel, and ultimately Linus makes the final choice. So assuming that Linus and the patch managers have their own predetermined goals for Linux, the patches they admit to the official kernel tree are more typical of a Cathedral model, in that they are committed by a small group working towards a common and predetermined goal. Of course the argument can be made that Linus and co. don't have specific goals. I believe the truth is somewhere in between -- the goals of the patch managers change from time to time, but are (in the short term) generally predefined.
Great reply :) I have far too much direct and indirect experience with arrogant physicians to put much faith in their abilities or professionalism anymore.
Doctors seem overly keen on keeping a monopoly on medical information, and frown on "self diagnosers" and "cyberchondriacs", and in doing so they refuse to admit to themselves that the patient is the best person to recognise their own symptoms, and has a vested interest in their own health (rather than seeing their on-going ill-health as a source of cash).
Despite visits to three GPs and three specialists over a course of many years, the best answer I could get to ongoing abdominal discomfort and gastric reflux was "Irritable Bowel Symdrome". A little reading of reputable medical sources lets on that IBS is not the catch-all most doctors take it for, and that I wasn't subjected to a number of tests required to rule out other possibilities.
More importantly my doctors failed to pick up on other symptoms (Western medicine has never been very good at the holistic approach) and consider whether they could be related.
So it turns out that my abdominal pains and acid reflux, a significant portion of weight gain, and a minor problem with dry skin and acne is all related to food intolerance ... to gluten. Yep -- an estimated 10% to 30% of the population have it, and it didn't cross the doctors' minds.
15 years suffering with sinusitis, itchy eyes, and generally feeling miserable all winter? Obviously an allergy, and the tests show house dust mite. And the medical opinion? Keep your house clean.
Do you think a doctor would prescribe a chronic oral anti-histamine to improve your quality of life, given that you can never really get rid of dust mite or confirm yourself to a sterile room in your house? Or perhaps a nasal corticosteroid? Or tell you that saline water taken nasally and in the eyes will dramatically reduce the symptoms? Or that food intolerances have an effect on your immune system and make you more susceptible to allergens? Hell no.
So sure, go and see your doctor. But make sure you consult Google for a second opinion.
US Government: Be afraid.
US population: Eeeek!
While you're carefully protecting your fourth-graders from calculus, the government is systematically removing social liberties in the name of safety, and social responsibility in the name of progress. Its a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
From the reading I've done, the "bury and forget" approach is not great. What you want to do is identify an isolated area with stable tectonics where you can bury the waste below the water table, and monitor it on an ongoing basis.
This gives you the opportunity of knowing if something goes wrong with the containment for any reason, if some terrorists attempt to steal it, etc. In other words, take the same approach as you would to any security problem: secure the target, then monitor.
I did not mean that all paper systems provide an audit trail. A properly created paper system does, whereas even a properly created electronic system cannot, at least not in anything like the form we understand voting today.
I am not familiar with much of the mechanical voting technology, but my understanding has been that the machine simply punches a hole in a ballot paper -- it doesn't check your identity, issue the ballot, or accept the ballot deposit. In such a case you still have an auditable trail.
The problem with the "use paper if you don't like the electronic machines" system is that it isn't auditable, unless the entire paper vs electronic system is in parallel. i.e. you get to the voting station and go into the "paper" queue (check identity, cross of voter's roll, get ballot paper, mark it, deposit it in box, with all the cross-checks I spoke of before), or you go into the "electronic" queue (do whatever you're supposed to do with the electronic machine). Then part of your election result is auditable, and the rest (the electronic part) isn't.
So although you cast a paper ballot and can be certain about how it was accounted for, you have no certainty about the accuracy of the election as a whole, because the majority of the ballots (electronic) are not auditable.
Okay, this one seriously needs a reply. In a good paper-based voting system, the steps will be (more or less) the following:
The entire process (voter verification, ballot issue and vote deposit) is monitored by officials from all parties contesting the election (or those that want to, at least).
So, at the end of the day, this is what you have:
Pure electronic voting cannot provide this audit trail. Only a combined paper/electronic system is able to match it.
"If I make a dub of a DVD" ... clearly you are the person doing the copying. But if you leave a DVD lying on your desk, and someone else comes along and makes a copy, then what?
Actually, in American law, the person with the illegal copy is the infringer. The person who enabled them to get the illegal copy is a contributory infringer.
I'll paraphrase the result of (7):
Claim (7) is independent of claim (1), and pertains to "data values" not just to "pricing information".
When you talk about SATA, SCSI and FCAL, are you meaning the interface or the drives themselves?
There are numerous cheaper products out there that stuff PATA or SATA disks into a rack chassis and provide a SCSI and/or Fiber interface to the collection as a single logical drive.
On the other hand I have seen a fair amount of information on speed and reliability of SCSI drives versus IDE drives, and it all points to SCSI being a better choice.
I'd imaging that a "cheaper" solution that uses PATA/IDE disks will end up costing more than expected because (1) performance won't match the IBM system, (2) you'll be replacing individual drivers more often, and (3) the reliability of the "cheaper" chassis & electronics won't be up to IBM's standard so ultimately you'll take more downtime.
Is that it, or is there something more I need to know?
Hint: not all countries work like the US. In particular:
So if your child has an incident that is not immediately life threatening (e.g. concussion, asthma attack, large cut) they may not even be able to get to a hospital (unless the baby sitter can drive and has a car), and even once there they may not be treated until their condition worsens severely.
CNN: USA wins World Cyber Games.
BBC: UK did great, but our best players actually represented their home countries so the Netherlands won. All of our other players did great, but got knocked out early.
Slashdot: USA wins
... uh ... some medals that is. They came third, really.
WCG:
First place: The Netherlands
Second place: South Korea
Third place: USA
And you're assuming it is there. Creating a truely objective longitudinal study to observe the effects of smoking on a group as compared to a control group is incredibly difficult.
Few of studies that are cited as "hard evidence" take into account psychological factors -- stress, for example, is a predisposing factor for both smoking and many forms of cancer.
Other studies are worse, turning to geographically disparate groups in an effort to separate smokers from non-smokers who will not be subjected to cigaratte smoke, i.e. people in rural areas. This obviously doesn't take into account the effect of city pollutants, etc.
Consider for a moment the difficulty in taking two groups of people from the same environment (same building, various people from various job levels) and ensuring that your control group isn't subject to secondary smoke. Since these studies have concluded that secondary smoke is bad, they must have had to keep the control group in a "clean" environment, somehow, for 10+ years.
In other words most of the research linking smoking to cancer is tainted in some way, and comes down to manipulatable statistical models based on estimates of environmental influences. It is only because we have dozens of such studies by various independent groups using different control models over a period of more than 30 years that we are generally satisfied now that there is a statistically significant relationship between smoking and cancer. In other words we have extensive circumstantial evidence rather than 'hard evidence'.
I am eagerly awaiting the first mad accountant who tries to take over the world...
More seriously, I see media articles on a regular basis about scientists forging their results in order to gain recognition, about scientists responsible for Environmental Impact Assessments accepting bribes, about scientists deliberately overstating the risk of some activity in order to further their own agendas. Scientists are just people; they don't have special immunity to the concerns of the the masses.
Science is a disciplined approach to a subject that involves building up a sound theoretical knowledge and questioning all assumptions and hypotheses. Thus we not only have natural sciences but commercial sciences, including accounting science, economic science, and legal science. All uses the same fundamental principles to build the theoretical foundations of their subjects, and all practices by very different individuals.
The logical underpinnings of modern science have their roots in millennia of philosophy. Sadly the study of philosophy is neglected in modern science, otherwise you would be able to spot the many fallacious arguments you are making.
A true scientist always questions until shown proof. You cannot accuse someone of "not being a scientist" because they question a widely held belief. Neither is "95% of climate scientists" enough to prove anything. Proof requires objective observation and/or deduction that holds up under peer review. Belief is irrelevant.
As for the "80% of scientists (that) believe in global warming", ask yourself: why do these scientists believe that theory? Have the read the research, have they checked the conclusions, or do they, like your average citizen, simply trust in the beliefs of the majority of climate scientists? Why do 5% of climate scientists disagree, and who are those 5%? If (say) only 10% of climate scientists are actively involved in academic research, and the 5% that disagree about global warming are all academics, then fully half of the climate research community doesn't support global warming.
You also need to ask yourself what "believe in global warming" means. Does it mean that the average temperature of the world's surface is rising, or just certain parts? Is there an implication of human involvement? How does this weigh up against glacial records of CO2 levels? Does it mean that we (humanity) can take action to reduce or reverse this effect?
Two words: "business acumen". If you don't have it, you're not going to succeed at running your own business.
If you want to be a contrator, get some real business management training, or team up with someone who has it.
If you want to have a successful business, you'll need technical experience and business experience.
Market yourself, build a portfolio, network. Focus on service -- people respect good service. Find a niche market and take control of it. Get your contracts in writing and understand the legal issues around them. Protect yourself by using a business form that provides limited liability. Understand the work involved in a contract and the amount of money you need to cover all expenses and required profits, and don't take jobs that aren't worth it. Prefer contracts that leave you with an opportunity for recurring revenue (more contracts from the same source, or reuse the work/knowledge in other contracts).
Similar experience here. The head "burned out" in my Canon BJC printer. Cost of replacement R600 (~ $92); cost of newer, better printer R450 (~ $70).
If you can remove the print head from the printer you can often recover it by soaking in warm water (just the end bit, really) and then allow it to dry thoroughly. Doesn't work with burned out heads unfortunately.
In my experience, cartridges without a head are cheaper, but your printer will not last as long. Personal opinion, if you don't need color, get a laser.
Okay, these prices are sortof freaking me out. I pay R33 (South African Rands) for an evening movie, that's around $5. With various club memberships that comes down to R15 / $2.50 for a second ticket, so $7 - $10 for a pair of tickets. A popcorn and coke (500ml - 750ml) will be around $3, and parking just $1.
A new DVD release on the other hand is between R250 and R320, averaging out at around R280 (that $43). Even with most loyalty discounts you can't get close to $20.
Another factor is the price of suitable home theatre systems. Anything in the 100cm / 39in range that has good picture quality (two aspects I consider crucial to the home theatre experience) starts above R8000 ($1250), and a 43" plasma display will come in over $3700.
The way I see it, R8000 is 160 movies, which covers me for about 4 years (one movie a week, seldom more, occasionally less). Assuming I rent (not buy) the movies at R20 when they come out, it will take over 6 years to see the home theatre come out cheaper, given that I have no other justification for a big screen TV ; and that's not factoring in the time value of money.
I think the picture in the US is a bit different ... but I honestly can't see the benefit in a home theatre.
No, there is perfectly legitimate adware out there. I'm thinking of software the is free (beer) subject to it downloading and displaying ads while you run it. A number of software producers use this technique in a forthright and legitimate manner to supplement income and encourage the purchase of "professional" version of the product.
What we need is a restriction that prohibits any software from installing itself without the consent of the PC owner/user, from using any system resources without disclosing to the user up front and in an obvious and straightforward way what resources it will use and why, and requiring that all software can be simply and completely uninstalled on demand.
In the case of works subject to Copyright, it is only Copyright law the causes artificial scarcity, and thus economic value. Without this scarcity there is no economic value in intellectual works, and only telecoms and blank DVD media manufacturers would be making money.
The concept of economic loss does not necesarily suppose that every illegal copy would have been purchased -- it also takes into account the effect on economic value of an alternate supply; in particular the human response of "why should I pay if you didn't".
And perhaps you should realise that there are other professions out there that have their own "technical jargon", and distinguish between things like "accounting loss" and "economic loss", and the only reason you are being "mislead" is your ignorance.
In fact, it is precisely because "the public" see the opportunity to get something interesting or useful for free, and that by doing so they destroy the possibility of an economic foundation for sustainable development of such interesting or useful things, that some wise people saw a need for Copyright.
Not true. Copyright is not restricted to copying, it also explicitly (in the law) provides the copyright holder with the exclusive rights to leasing, public performance (as you note) and derived works, amongst others.
The 9th Circuit ruling and the Betamax ruling set precedents. In the future other courts will refer to such precents and determine the extent to which they are applicable to new cases.
Laws do not overturn rulings, but they regularly superceed precedents. A Betamax-equivalent case could be brought before a court which must now consider the fact that the environment under which the Betamax decision was taken (i.e. the laws applicable at the time) is different to the new environment (assuming the INDUCE act is passed), and that the Betamax precedent thus has limited effect.
Always remember that the law trumps precedents. Courts must rule according to law. Judicial precedents serve to clarify the courts' interpretation of laws with respect to the conditions of a case. Only in cases with the same legal environment and factual background is a court bound by the precedents of other courts of an equal or higher level. At any time, a new law can be passed, even with the explicit intent of changing something that has previously been set by a judicial precedent (assumedly not to the satisfaction of the lawmakers).
The constitution is a very special case. It provides for an avenue to challange a law directly. The court will not simply "bypass" the law when it rules - it either upholds it or rules that the law is unconstitutional and no longer valid.
The only bases on which a court can rule in a manner inconsistent with a law is when the law is inconsistent with the constitution, or inconsistent with another law that the court chooses to observe in preference given the facts of the case. The judiciary interprets and adjudicates the rules created by the legislature; it has no power to create substantial law.