Helping the imprisoned developers . . .
on
Embracing Insanity
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone think that a book like this would help open the minds of those enslaved by Microshit rhetoric and their own ignorance? I know people, as most of us do, who have blind faith in everything Microshit. If Gates, of Hell, says something, it's gospel. I like some MS products, as some are appropriate for what I do at work. However, too many other developers are never even willing to give anything non-MS a try. Anyone feel something like this, basic from the start, will help people be more open-minded?
Kind of ironic the algorithm is called RACE, isn't it? Can we filter by RACE? Can we browse domains of only a certain RACE? Can it be enhanced with RACISM, Row-based ASCII Compatible Interface for Stereotyping Mayhem?
My Chinese co-worker has informed me that to type Chinese, he sets the desired language in whatever app to Chinese and then types phonetically. The problem is that even phonetically there are many similar words, so he basically types a few English letters to verbally spell out a word, then Chinese characters appear on the screen which he must then choose. He tells me there are also special keyboards where you hold down multiple keys.
True, but.... 386 came out, requiring new motherboard requiring new case... 486 came out, requiring new motherboard and some new cases... Pentium comes out, new motherboard, new case... PII, new motherboard, some new cases... Even if you only change the dimensions and mounting locations of the motherboard, you need a new case design. I don't think it's that big a deal. Heat must build as circuitry is made smaller. I guess the best way, and probably the cheapest for manufacturers, to help reduce the heat is to basically expose the heat sink to the air outside the computer. New, drastic changes in technology are being worked out before we hit the limits of Moore's law.
How old are you? Are you new to computers? What chip release from any company hasn't been exactly the same? Hardware technology has always outrun software speed needs. Games are always behind the latest hardware for one simple reason: why would you write software to run on hardware no one yet has? That's like selling a railroad car in a country with no railroad tracks. It's simple economics. If you've ever, ever, ever bought a computer, you know that the best value for the buck is to purchase a model that's at least a little older than the very latest. When P IIIs came out, P IIs sold like crazy because they were more than sufficient for most people and prices dropped. There's certainly nothing out of the ordinary here. All initial releases of first generation chips by Intel cost over $1K.
For the stylish "Intel Inside" sticker. Overall, they are still the best processors for home use. The heat problems are impossible to avoid. To make chips run faster, the circuits must be shorter and gates closer together. Tighter wiring, more heat. Maybe you can hold out for the optic processor. It'll be at least a 10 year wait for all of the necessary technology to be available, but then you can have a cool "Light Inside" logo. Maybe I'll trademark that one. . .
Does that mean that homework is considered intellectual propery owned by the university? So you can share homework with others in the school, since it's all owned by the same university, but you can't share it with other schools. Let's say I'm studying for a test or contest. As my personal studying method, I end up writing a pretty cool app, that I think others would find useful. The university didn't ask me to create it, but I did it while admitted to the school. Is that app owned by the university?
No contract, no university ownership. I'm no lawyer, but many companies (like the one I work for), require employees to sign documents stating that anything they develop during work hours are automatically owned by the company. IBM even used to make employees sign a document that stated anything ever written while working for them was theirs, including your own personal time spent at home. I would imagine that if you didn't sign anything which states your code is only for the university, it's not. Maybe the corporations just make people sign a document for safety's sake, but maybe it's because without a contract the ownership rights of the company or university would lose in court. Any ideas?
Does this information reside in your head? If so, then it is not engineering.
It usually resides on paper (physical or electronic), but engineering is a process. Whether the end knowledge of what will exist later is created logically in one's mind or mathematically on paper, engineering is still the process of building.
If this is solely in text form, it is trivial to prove that (unless the system is very, very simple) the text is incomplete, inconsistent and incorrect (i.e. does not reflect what needs to happen correctly). It will also be close to impossible to manage changes.
It may be rare for software projects to run smoothly enough, but proper analysis and design can result in a product which looks and performs exactly as expected.
What I meant by my last statement was that engineering, or the design process before construction has begun, must be done by any good developer. You can't code anything if you don't know what you're trying to make. You at the very least must have some idea of the expected outcome.
Read my earlier post and you'll see what the problem is. I don't read in most other posts that it's okay to break copyright laws. The GPL may be built upon copyright law, but its purpose, just as the copyright law it's based upon, exists to give creators their due recognition. Having these games available for download over the internet does not break copyright law. If I own an original of something, I'm permitted to leave a backup copy wherever I please, with whomever I want to give access to. If someone without a license decides to take it, it's that person who's breaking the law, not the web site.
IDSA claims an incorrect interpretation of the following US code:
Title 17, Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs -
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
continued possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful.
IDSA states "the right to make backup copies of computer programs for archival purposes, as embodied in 17 U.S.C. Section 117(2), does not in any way authorize the owner of a copy of a video or computer game to post or download a copy of that game to or from the Internet." The law states the purpose of copying, and does not limit the methods. Laws are written to limit actions, yet they are claiming that the law does not state you can do something, so you can't. That's like saying that since there's no part of the US Code which states I can breath, I'm not permitted to breath. It would be very sad if arguments such as this hold up in court.
This is true all too often, but well managed projects may not be as rare as you think. I can tell you exactly what new features will exist in the next releases of my applications and how they will look and feel to the user. In a well run project, you can write the app's user documentation before coding even begins. That's one difference between a programmer and a developer/engineer. Unless development is done what I call cowboy-style (come into down, get the dirty work done, then get out asap, leaving a mess behind), any good developer should be doing pseudo-engineering.
I would agree if our graduation tax system wasn't corrupt. Either everyone must support equally (as you state, in terms of the impact on their personal wellbeing), or none should financially support at all. The income tax came into effect in 1913. Our government ran smoothly on excise taxes and tarrifs for 150 years. The only reason government costs so much more today is due to the outragious spending that should be abolished. If we must tax, tax with equal burdon, I agree. But we have taxes on capital gains which are lower than taxes on income. Capital gains are enjoyed more by the rich and not at all by the poor, yet it's taxed lower than the poor's income. The government intentionally underfunds the IRS, which in turn can not possibly go after all of the people who avoid income taxes. Income taxes inherently cause problems, both for individuals and our government.
That's a very good point regarding removal of low-income families from tax rolls. He's obviously trying to garnish more votes. Historically the GOP have had the upper and some middle-class support, but most working-class families have been Democrats, e.g. union support of Gore.
But what I think politicians are missing is the REALLY big picture: welfare and government health care are socialist policies. Taking money from everyone and spreading it among large groups is not the way our country was intended to operate. Socialist policies, as well as those that put money at high value should be removed. I personally don't believe in taxing by percentage of income for a simple reason: some state that the more you earn from this country, the more you should have to give back; but if we are all equal, then we each have an equal responsiblity to financially support the government. No matter how much you earn, you owe the same support. However, I don't know how this can be accomplished, other than by completely removing income tax, cutting government spending (which should be done anyway), and getting money into government from other sources. There are too many fundamental issues that go ignored.
I'm contending that Bush's answer is not relavant, but not for not mentioning every religion on the planet. In 1999 (June I believe), ABC News asked Bush his opinion on allowing soldiers in the army to worship Wicca freely. He stated that "witchcraft" has no place in the military. He approves prayers for common religions, but does not approve free religion. Note that in 1984 Wicca was recognized by a federal judge as a religion just as any other. I do not believe in this religion. I'm simply using it as one example of Bush's lack of belief in our complete freedom.
I do not care that he didn't mention a specific religion. He missed the point of the question. FREEDOM of religion. Does he believe in a person's right to worship any religion they wish. Take a look at the book he published earlier this year and you should see that he doesn't. He wants to bring the christian religion into public schools. Public school is no place for worship.
Some of you people will never be satisfied with Bush no matter what he says or what his opinions on the issues are. We're not satisfied with Bush because of what he says and what his opinions are on issues. There's plenty of reason to bash a person who has beliefs such as his. His father had put him in charge of 3 oil companies in Texas. All 3 went under. Almost no oil companies go under in Texas! I don't bash Bush because others do it or because it feels good. I believe he is a piece of scum who should never be allowed to work as a public servant, because his goal is not to be a servant, but to be a ruler. Unfortunately that's also the goal of some of our other public servants.
The thought of either becoming president makes me sick. But more than likely one of them will. Bush scares me more than Gore. He believes in removing freedoms. His stance on religion, for example, is that the ten commandments should be placed in all public buildings, including schools. He also feels that some religions should have a right to practice freely in the military, while others shouldn't (specifically a past statement on Wicca). He has no right to say anything at all about governing religion.
I sincerely hope everyone who reads about the lies finds them very disturbing. I'm actually getting scared that Bush might get elected. I'm not even vote for who I want in office: I may vote for Gore just to make sure Bush isn't elected. I'm seriously scared of that happening.
Howard Stern was speaking about this in his morning show today. He said the problem isn't the drunk driving, it's any lying he's done since then. But Howard didn't know about these incidents. I'm going to try to send this to him. Hopefully word of the lies can spread quickly (and loud) by Tuesday.
What about his statement is not intelligent? His view appears to come from much contemplation and thought. Are you stating this simply because it doesn't conform to your "standard" view of politics? Open your mind and study what many people have to say if you'd like to become more intelligent.
Are you at all familiar with the concept of democracy? Or did you just study your bible and not our constitution. STUDY the US Constitution and Declaration of Independance (not read) and figure out what it's about: FREEDOM. It is not at all relevant what religion a person is, or what proportion of the population that religion represents. Our government is not at all supposed to have anything to say regarding religions. Therefore the question is not rediculous because it applies to everyone of any or no religion. If Bush's religion was Wicca, then I bet you wouldn't have minded that question at all. And what survey have you read which states that 99+% of religious people in the US are from those "major" religions? And what of those who aren't religious? You don't think that non-religious people are influenced by our government's view on religion? Please study our form of government rather than just reading a little about it.
Bush "believes" the federal government should be smaller. At least he's stated that many times in the past, e.g. "more local control." He proposes to increase spending by billions of dollars, on defense, education, the so-called drug war, etc. He guarantees, along with billions in spending, billions in tax deductions. I'd like to know how that's economically possible. He states we should "give back" much of the money taken. Yet he states that the poorest in the country would be relieved of a tax burden at all. Well if you're already taxed, then years later you choose to return it, what good are you doing for the poor now? Permanently remove the poorest people's taxes and you're helping them.
With respect to the debt, I think he doesn't realize (or the people who really speak for him don't realize) that the interest on debt costs too much money. If we are the richest country in the world, with the best economy in history, why can't we pay off the debt. It's like saying that Bill Gates should keep maxing out his credit cards and never pay them off. Ah, it's only a few billion a year, so what's the difference. I imagine his 18 year old child has huge credit card bills that daddy won't pay off, if he runs his household like he wants to run the country.
Because no one is perfect and right all of the time. It was his expert opinion, which in this case happened to be incorrect. That doesn't make all of his other ideas irrelevant.
Re:When is this a good thing?
on
Death March
·
· Score: 1
Simple answer: because there aren't enough well-managed projects. I worked hard on a 9 month project with the best project manager I've ever met. We had a great team and I learned a lot, and was allowed to contribute quite a lot. I was very proud of our work. Then my vice president got involved and it all went downhill. He turned a highly successful project into a death march. But I still didn't leave until it was complete. I've found that you don't always know if your project is a death march before it begins.
Finally I find someone else who sees another of our major issues: the majority's vote doesn't win an election. Dismantle the electoral college. Lots of things can change then, but one very important thing: no more news stories of "Bush is in XX state today to sway the swing votes in his direction." Candidates don't just travel the country to spread what they believe in. They go to states where they don't get enough votes and spew their rhetoric over and over again. Do you know that most of the time they repeat the same exact speach hundreds of times? The concept of the electoral college is completely against our democracy.
"Making the patent-submission process an electronic one removes one more barrier, but that's a good thing"
The problem is not solved by letting more patents be written, but to prevent so many from being written in the first place. The government intentionally underfunds the patent office, as well as the FDA and some other agencies, so that basically in the end the wealthiest can have things the way they like it. The patent office is grossly understaffed, so even requests to repeal current patents take forever to process. We don't want to simplify the process. We need to be much more discreet in approvals. The patent office is also staffed by very non-technical people. Think about it: if someone wants to patent a gizmo in the medical field, shouldn't the patent approval officer chosen be well-versed in the medical field?
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone think that a book like this would help open the minds of those enslaved by Microshit rhetoric and their own ignorance? I know people, as most of us do, who have blind faith in everything Microshit. If Gates, of Hell, says something, it's gospel. I like some MS products, as some are appropriate for what I do at work. However, too many other developers are never even willing to give anything non-MS a try. Anyone feel something like this, basic from the start, will help people be more open-minded?
Kind of ironic the algorithm is called RACE, isn't it? Can we filter by RACE? Can we browse domains of only a certain RACE? Can it be enhanced with RACISM, Row-based ASCII Compatible Interface for Stereotyping Mayhem?
My Chinese co-worker has informed me that to type Chinese, he sets the desired language in whatever app to Chinese and then types phonetically. The problem is that even phonetically there are many similar words, so he basically types a few English letters to verbally spell out a word, then Chinese characters appear on the screen which he must then choose. He tells me there are also special keyboards where you hold down multiple keys.
True, but.... 386 came out, requiring new motherboard requiring new case... 486 came out, requiring new motherboard and some new cases... Pentium comes out, new motherboard, new case... PII, new motherboard, some new cases... Even if you only change the dimensions and mounting locations of the motherboard, you need a new case design. I don't think it's that big a deal. Heat must build as circuitry is made smaller. I guess the best way, and probably the cheapest for manufacturers, to help reduce the heat is to basically expose the heat sink to the air outside the computer. New, drastic changes in technology are being worked out before we hit the limits of Moore's law.
How old are you? Are you new to computers? What chip release from any company hasn't been exactly the same? Hardware technology has always outrun software speed needs. Games are always behind the latest hardware for one simple reason: why would you write software to run on hardware no one yet has? That's like selling a railroad car in a country with no railroad tracks. It's simple economics. If you've ever, ever, ever bought a computer, you know that the best value for the buck is to purchase a model that's at least a little older than the very latest. When P IIIs came out, P IIs sold like crazy because they were more than sufficient for most people and prices dropped. There's certainly nothing out of the ordinary here. All initial releases of first generation chips by Intel cost over $1K.
For the stylish "Intel Inside" sticker. Overall, they are still the best processors for home use. The heat problems are impossible to avoid. To make chips run faster, the circuits must be shorter and gates closer together. Tighter wiring, more heat. Maybe you can hold out for the optic processor. It'll be at least a 10 year wait for all of the necessary technology to be available, but then you can have a cool "Light Inside" logo. Maybe I'll trademark that one. . .
Does that mean that homework is considered intellectual propery owned by the university? So you can share homework with others in the school, since it's all owned by the same university, but you can't share it with other schools. Let's say I'm studying for a test or contest. As my personal studying method, I end up writing a pretty cool app, that I think others would find useful. The university didn't ask me to create it, but I did it while admitted to the school. Is that app owned by the university?
No contract, no university ownership. I'm no lawyer, but many companies (like the one I work for), require employees to sign documents stating that anything they develop during work hours are automatically owned by the company. IBM even used to make employees sign a document that stated anything ever written while working for them was theirs, including your own personal time spent at home. I would imagine that if you didn't sign anything which states your code is only for the university, it's not. Maybe the corporations just make people sign a document for safety's sake, but maybe it's because without a contract the ownership rights of the company or university would lose in court. Any ideas?
It usually resides on paper (physical or electronic), but engineering is a process. Whether the end knowledge of what will exist later is created logically in one's mind or mathematically on paper, engineering is still the process of building.
If this is solely in text form, it is trivial to prove that (unless the system is very, very simple) the text is incomplete, inconsistent and incorrect (i.e. does not reflect what needs to happen correctly). It will also be close to impossible to manage changes.
It may be rare for software projects to run smoothly enough, but proper analysis and design can result in a product which looks and performs exactly as expected.
What I meant by my last statement was that engineering, or the design process before construction has begun, must be done by any good developer. You can't code anything if you don't know what you're trying to make. You at the very least must have some idea of the expected outcome.
Read my earlier post and you'll see what the problem is. I don't read in most other posts that it's okay to break copyright laws. The GPL may be built upon copyright law, but its purpose, just as the copyright law it's based upon, exists to give creators their due recognition. Having these games available for download over the internet does not break copyright law. If I own an original of something, I'm permitted to leave a backup copy wherever I please, with whomever I want to give access to. If someone without a license decides to take it, it's that person who's breaking the law, not the web site.
Isn't this true of most drivers on the road? If we're all such good drivers, as most of us think we are, then why are there so many accidents?
This is true all too often, but well managed projects may not be as rare as you think. I can tell you exactly what new features will exist in the next releases of my applications and how they will look and feel to the user. In a well run project, you can write the app's user documentation before coding even begins. That's one difference between a programmer and a developer/engineer. Unless development is done what I call cowboy-style (come into down, get the dirty work done, then get out asap, leaving a mess behind), any good developer should be doing pseudo-engineering.
I would agree if our graduation tax system wasn't corrupt. Either everyone must support equally (as you state, in terms of the impact on their personal wellbeing), or none should financially support at all. The income tax came into effect in 1913. Our government ran smoothly on excise taxes and tarrifs for 150 years. The only reason government costs so much more today is due to the outragious spending that should be abolished. If we must tax, tax with equal burdon, I agree. But we have taxes on capital gains which are lower than taxes on income. Capital gains are enjoyed more by the rich and not at all by the poor, yet it's taxed lower than the poor's income. The government intentionally underfunds the IRS, which in turn can not possibly go after all of the people who avoid income taxes. Income taxes inherently cause problems, both for individuals and our government.
That's a very good point regarding removal of low-income families from tax rolls. He's obviously trying to garnish more votes. Historically the GOP have had the upper and some middle-class support, but most working-class families have been Democrats, e.g. union support of Gore.
But what I think politicians are missing is the REALLY big picture: welfare and government health care are socialist policies. Taking money from everyone and spreading it among large groups is not the way our country was intended to operate. Socialist policies, as well as those that put money at high value should be removed. I personally don't believe in taxing by percentage of income for a simple reason: some state that the more you earn from this country, the more you should have to give back; but if we are all equal, then we each have an equal responsiblity to financially support the government. No matter how much you earn, you owe the same support. However, I don't know how this can be accomplished, other than by completely removing income tax, cutting government spending (which should be done anyway), and getting money into government from other sources. There are too many fundamental issues that go ignored.
I'm contending that Bush's answer is not relavant, but not for not mentioning every religion on the planet. In 1999 (June I believe), ABC News asked Bush his opinion on allowing soldiers in the army to worship Wicca freely. He stated that "witchcraft" has no place in the military. He approves prayers for common religions, but does not approve free religion. Note that in 1984 Wicca was recognized by a federal judge as a religion just as any other. I do not believe in this religion. I'm simply using it as one example of Bush's lack of belief in our complete freedom.
I do not care that he didn't mention a specific religion. He missed the point of the question. FREEDOM of religion. Does he believe in a person's right to worship any religion they wish. Take a look at the book he published earlier this year and you should see that he doesn't. He wants to bring the christian religion into public schools. Public school is no place for worship.
Some of you people will never be satisfied with Bush no matter what he says or what his opinions on the issues are. We're not satisfied with Bush because of what he says and what his opinions are on issues. There's plenty of reason to bash a person who has beliefs such as his. His father had put him in charge of 3 oil companies in Texas. All 3 went under. Almost no oil companies go under in Texas! I don't bash Bush because others do it or because it feels good. I believe he is a piece of scum who should never be allowed to work as a public servant, because his goal is not to be a servant, but to be a ruler. Unfortunately that's also the goal of some of our other public servants.
The thought of either becoming president makes me sick. But more than likely one of them will. Bush scares me more than Gore. He believes in removing freedoms. His stance on religion, for example, is that the ten commandments should be placed in all public buildings, including schools. He also feels that some religions should have a right to practice freely in the military, while others shouldn't (specifically a past statement on Wicca). He has no right to say anything at all about governing religion.
I sincerely hope everyone who reads about the lies finds them very disturbing. I'm actually getting scared that Bush might get elected. I'm not even vote for who I want in office: I may vote for Gore just to make sure Bush isn't elected. I'm seriously scared of that happening.
Howard Stern was speaking about this in his morning show today. He said the problem isn't the drunk driving, it's any lying he's done since then. But Howard didn't know about these incidents. I'm going to try to send this to him. Hopefully word of the lies can spread quickly (and loud) by Tuesday.What about his statement is not intelligent? His view appears to come from much contemplation and thought. Are you stating this simply because it doesn't conform to your "standard" view of politics? Open your mind and study what many people have to say if you'd like to become more intelligent.
Are you at all familiar with the concept of democracy? Or did you just study your bible and not our constitution. STUDY the US Constitution and Declaration of Independance (not read) and figure out what it's about: FREEDOM. It is not at all relevant what religion a person is, or what proportion of the population that religion represents. Our government is not at all supposed to have anything to say regarding religions. Therefore the question is not rediculous because it applies to everyone of any or no religion. If Bush's religion was Wicca, then I bet you wouldn't have minded that question at all. And what survey have you read which states that 99+% of religious people in the US are from those "major" religions? And what of those who aren't religious? You don't think that non-religious people are influenced by our government's view on religion? Please study our form of government rather than just reading a little about it.
Bush "believes" the federal government should be smaller. At least he's stated that many times in the past, e.g. "more local control." He proposes to increase spending by billions of dollars, on defense, education, the so-called drug war, etc. He guarantees, along with billions in spending, billions in tax deductions. I'd like to know how that's economically possible. He states we should "give back" much of the money taken. Yet he states that the poorest in the country would be relieved of a tax burden at all. Well if you're already taxed, then years later you choose to return it, what good are you doing for the poor now? Permanently remove the poorest people's taxes and you're helping them.
With respect to the debt, I think he doesn't realize (or the people who really speak for him don't realize) that the interest on debt costs too much money. If we are the richest country in the world, with the best economy in history, why can't we pay off the debt. It's like saying that Bill Gates should keep maxing out his credit cards and never pay them off. Ah, it's only a few billion a year, so what's the difference. I imagine his 18 year old child has huge credit card bills that daddy won't pay off, if he runs his household like he wants to run the country.Because no one is perfect and right all of the time. It was his expert opinion, which in this case happened to be incorrect. That doesn't make all of his other ideas irrelevant.
Simple answer: because there aren't enough well-managed projects. I worked hard on a 9 month project with the best project manager I've ever met. We had a great team and I learned a lot, and was allowed to contribute quite a lot. I was very proud of our work. Then my vice president got involved and it all went downhill. He turned a highly successful project into a death march. But I still didn't leave until it was complete. I've found that you don't always know if your project is a death march before it begins.
Finally I find someone else who sees another of our major issues: the majority's vote doesn't win an election. Dismantle the electoral college. Lots of things can change then, but one very important thing: no more news stories of "Bush is in XX state today to sway the swing votes in his direction." Candidates don't just travel the country to spread what they believe in. They go to states where they don't get enough votes and spew their rhetoric over and over again. Do you know that most of the time they repeat the same exact speach hundreds of times? The concept of the electoral college is completely against our democracy.
The problem is not solved by letting more patents be written, but to prevent so many from being written in the first place. The government intentionally underfunds the patent office, as well as the FDA and some other agencies, so that basically in the end the wealthiest can have things the way they like it. The patent office is grossly understaffed, so even requests to repeal current patents take forever to process. We don't want to simplify the process. We need to be much more discreet in approvals. The patent office is also staffed by very non-technical people. Think about it: if someone wants to patent a gizmo in the medical field, shouldn't the patent approval officer chosen be well-versed in the medical field?