As someone already has said: It's a common misconception, but wrong. Very wrong. It's a common problem in traditional company structures: In order to advance your career you have to be promoted to management level (and hence stop programming). Make it possible for programmers to have a real career while still programming, and you're a good step closer to getting the 'superstars'.
They're probably a bit touchy at the moment... Even the UK government published parts of an old forgotten PhD thesis as their report on Saddam's WMD arsenal, mind you:-D
I use a normal bag, but with a sleeve from SFbag.com inside. They sell sleeves and bad sized especially for Macs. Never tried the bags, but if they are as good as the sleeves, go for it!
ACM and IEEE are just the places I would look for such papers. The proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM for example are a very good "filter" for the flood of papers on networking.
Well isn't this the french national holiday. Maybe somebody is angry because they didn't join the war against weapons of mass.. er, what was that war about again?
I once talked to someone who actually studies things like that and she told me that language does have an effect on whether you remember things or not. People tend to remember stuff better if they use the same language "remembering it", e.g. you can remember stuff experienced in a russian context better when you formulate it in russian. Language is then just another possible stimulus to activate memories.
I do have an OSX laptop and yes I enjoy it. However, the close source "topping" (ie. the Quartz-Aqua-Openstep combo) may be nice but suffers from the typical closed source diseases: - You can't look at the source to see how exactly something works. - You can't add missing functionality to your favourite app.
If the whole thing was free software I'd probably be totally enamoured..
Heh, about a month ago I actually met a suit&tie guy who was reading reading a Rexx book because they use it where he works. Rexx won't die that easily, obviously:)
They've had to concentrate on services and proprietary code to keep paying their bills,...
As long as it's the service that's perfectly ok. It's a well-known fact that at least 90% of the cost of software goes into maintenance, which mostly qualifies as service. So making money out of service makes a lot more sense than making money out of selling the software and giving (bad) service for free.
Try to reduce to "gold rush" effect
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
(This is only about patents)
The main reason why patents exist is (or should be) to give an incentive to innovate. This still works pretty well in traditional researched areas like industrial machine engineering. However, in new and rapidly progressing areas of research like IT and gentech there is a strong tendency to patent anything that's new, resembling the behaviour of prospectors during the gold rush. This behaviour effectively slows down the research. Example: The GIF format. Since there are patent issues with it the community was forced to develop alternatives instead of improving the original format.
Now, how to fix this? A proposal: Restrict or prohibit patents in new research areas until the development slows down. Then, introduce short-lived patents to give an incentive to innovation. Finally, switch to long-lived patents like the ones we have today.
GTK+ C++ wrappers, more experiences
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 1
I've been working on a Voice-over-IP research prototype during almost the whole last year. I had been using Qt up to then and decided to switch to GTK-- mainly because it doesn't need a meta compiler as Qt does.
Frankly, that decision was a mistake (I'm not speaking of GTK+ here, no flame intended). Gtk--'s documentation is far from being complete, or even up to date. I had massive problems with threading, too (Especially thread termination behaved very odd at times). Furthermore, some of the cooler widgets from GTK+ were missing, ie. you'd have to roll your own wrapper class for those..
If the choice is restricted to using Qt or GTK--, go for Qt.
I think I should state here why large companies can be a problem from the viewpoint of economic theory:
Most of (macro-)economic theory is based on the assumption of "atomic supply", meaning a large number of independent suppliers for a given good. In such a scenario the market can reach its equilibrium, which is the optimal state. It can even be shown that the economy as a whole is worse off with monopolies than without. Unfortunately, history has shown that free markets tend to be increasingly monopolized over time. That is why many countries have anti-monopolistic laws (see the Microsoft and AT&T cases).
IMO the problem here is not really the good old mom-and-pops we all liked so much (or not), but rather the loss of choice of both goods and prices.
To hear you guys whine, you would think that _we_ were the ones who invented colonialism.
Nobody said that (at least nobody who should be taken seriously:) ), but I think you did a great job adopting and modernizing it, really. So now, we can share the blame;)
And after all of that what's the big crime that the United States has committed? They got into the colonialism business too late, after it had already gone out of style.
But as I said, I believe they adapted it to modern times, mostly by not sending a governor but rather supporting a loyal local government. Which needn't be democratic or peaceful, just capitalistic. Examples: Iran (former Persia), Kuwait, Vietnam, Chile,...
You're missing an important distinction here: Bin Laden (or any other extremist leader) is not the same as the people following him.
As history teaches us, people show an increased tendency to follow extremists when times are bad. Your other example is actually a good one: Hitler the Germans. After WW1 Germany was forced to pay giant amounts of money to the allies, causing the effects of the world economic crisis to be felt much more intensely in Germany. Communists and fashists became very popular, and in the end Hitler gained domination.
Now compare to what happened after WW2. The Marshall plan helped Germany and other european countries to develop a stable economy, thus increasing welfare in those countries. Result: Stability for nearly 60 years and counting...
Back to the main topic. Doesn't it seem reasonable that economic growth and increased welfare in Afghanistan could have prevented Bin Laden's success? Unfortunately, globalization as organizations like the International Monetary Fund understand it won't help there (I'll show mercy and suppress my urge to write about economic theory here;)
Slashdot Mirror
"Hopefully not still programming."
As someone already has said: It's a common misconception, but wrong. Very wrong.
It's a common problem in traditional company structures: In order to advance your career you have to be promoted to management level (and hence stop programming).
Make it possible for programmers to have a real career while still programming, and you're a good step closer to getting the 'superstars'.
considering all the big english hits are at least 30 years old by now ]:)
The comments to this article really had me wish I could tag them "-1 Clueless" :-/
You forgot Zombies.
And the good thing is, you can reuse the plot without changes for Movies II, III, IV,...
Now, if I just could get my lazy-ass hamster to actually use the darn wheel! ;-)
make me a Linux CIO, then? I like old electronic music, and I like classical music... which may also simply mean I'm a strange old fart ;-)
They're probably a bit touchy at the moment... :-D
Even the UK government published parts of an old forgotten PhD thesis as their report on Saddam's WMD arsenal, mind you
I use a normal bag, but with a sleeve from SFbag.com inside. They sell sleeves and bad sized especially for Macs. Never tried the bags, but if they are as good as the sleeves, go for it!
ACM and IEEE are just the places I would look for such papers. The proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM for example are a very good "filter" for the flood of papers on networking.
Nooo the S-Wing is the coolest, especially with the LEGO package! :-))
But perhaps it's just me, the space cruiser was also my first lego set!
expiration date of July 14th
Well isn't this the french national holiday. Maybe somebody is angry because they didn't join the war against weapons of mass.. er, what was that war about again?
I've aced in carribean history courses since I played this game. Unfortunately, there are no carribean history courses here :-(
Yoho, yoho, I a pirates life's for me!
volunteer effort could oblige Microsoft to work with Linux...
:)
Well, "noblesse oblige". But is Microsoft really noble?
I once talked to someone who actually studies things like that and she told me that language does have an effect on whether you remember things or not. People tend to remember stuff better if they use the same language "remembering it", e.g. you can remember stuff experienced in a russian context better when you formulate it in russian. Language is then just another possible stimulus to activate memories.
I do have an OSX laptop and yes I enjoy it.
However, the close source "topping" (ie. the Quartz-Aqua-Openstep combo) may be nice but suffers from the typical closed source diseases:
- You can't look at the source to see how exactly something works.
- You can't add missing functionality to your favourite app.
If the whole thing was free software I'd probably be totally enamoured..
Right! ;)
Although Brutus certainly acted like a brute when Caesar supposedly said that sentence
Heh, about a month ago I actually met a suit&tie guy who was reading reading a Rexx book :)
because they use it where he works.
Rexx won't die that easily, obviously
They've had to concentrate on services and proprietary code to keep paying their bills, ...
As long as it's the service that's perfectly ok. It's a well-known fact that at least 90% of the cost of software goes into maintenance, which mostly qualifies as service. So making money out of service makes a lot more sense than making money out of selling the software and giving (bad) service for free.
(This is only about patents)
The main reason why patents exist is (or should be) to give an incentive to innovate. This still works pretty well in traditional researched areas like industrial machine engineering. However, in new and rapidly progressing areas of research like IT and gentech there is a strong tendency to patent anything that's new, resembling the behaviour of prospectors during the gold rush. This behaviour effectively slows down the research. Example: The GIF format. Since there are patent issues with it the community was forced to develop alternatives instead of improving the original format.
Now, how to fix this? A proposal:
Restrict or prohibit patents in new research areas until the development slows down. Then, introduce short-lived patents to give an incentive to innovation. Finally, switch to long-lived patents like the ones we have today.
I've been working on a Voice-over-IP research prototype during almost the whole last year. I had been using Qt up to then and decided to switch to GTK-- mainly because it doesn't need a meta compiler as Qt does.
Frankly, that decision was a mistake (I'm not speaking of GTK+ here, no flame intended). Gtk--'s documentation is far from being complete, or even up to date. I had massive problems with threading, too (Especially thread termination behaved very odd at times). Furthermore, some of the cooler widgets from GTK+ were missing, ie. you'd have to roll your own wrapper class for those..
If the choice is restricted to using Qt or GTK--, go for Qt.
I think I should state here why large companies can be a problem from the viewpoint of economic theory:
Most of (macro-)economic theory is based on the assumption of "atomic supply", meaning a large number of independent suppliers for a given good. In such a scenario the market can reach its equilibrium, which is the optimal state. It can even be shown that the economy as a whole is worse off with monopolies than without. Unfortunately, history has shown that free markets tend to be increasingly monopolized over time. That is why many countries have anti-monopolistic laws (see the Microsoft and AT&T cases).
IMO the problem here is not really the good old mom-and-pops we all liked so much (or not), but rather the loss of choice of both goods and prices.
To hear you guys whine, you would think that _we_ were the ones who invented colonialism.
:) ), but I think you did a great job adopting and modernizing it, really. So now, we can share the blame ;)
Nobody said that (at least nobody who should be taken seriously
And after all of that what's the big crime that the United States has committed? They got into the colonialism business too late, after it had already gone out of style.
But as I said, I believe they adapted it to modern times, mostly by not sending a governor but rather supporting a loyal local government. Which needn't be democratic or peaceful, just capitalistic. Examples: Iran (former Persia), Kuwait, Vietnam, Chile,...
You're missing an important distinction here: Bin Laden (or any other extremist leader) is not the same as the people following him.
;)
As history teaches us, people show an increased tendency to follow extremists when times are bad. Your other example is actually a good one: Hitler the Germans. After WW1 Germany was forced to pay giant amounts of money to the allies, causing the effects of the world economic crisis to be felt much more intensely in Germany. Communists and fashists became very popular, and in the end Hitler gained domination.
Now compare to what happened after WW2. The Marshall plan helped Germany and other european countries to develop a stable economy, thus increasing welfare in those countries. Result: Stability for nearly 60 years and counting...
Back to the main topic. Doesn't it seem reasonable that economic growth and increased welfare in Afghanistan could have prevented Bin Laden's success? Unfortunately, globalization as organizations like the International Monetary Fund understand it won't help there (I'll show mercy and suppress my urge to write about economic theory here