What would be even better is a setup where you have the 2 panes, but can edit in either one and see the results in the other. Code in the one pane, then decide you don't like the look of it, and drag an element somewhere else on the page and see the raw HTML update.
I do all of my HTML work by hand in a text editor. And I strongly believe that everyone who codes should have a good understanding of the underlying HTML and be able to use it. That said, I don't see any reason why people shouldn't be able to have a tool that complements that by allowing quick and dirty grab and move that element, resize this one, etc, etc. It's true that many WYSIWYG editors produce atrociously bad code, but there is no fundamental reason that they have to.
Another thing it does very effectively is block many legitimate users. I've seen a lot of devices that just can't seem to connect properly to "hidden" access points. As a result, I no longer recommend that practice to even the most security conscious, instead advising simple WPA2, and for those who want more security, MAC filtering.
You can get people to pay more for a real cure for cancer, than they ever would for a fake one.
But it's a whole lot easier to make the fake one...
Between the black box that people can't even look inside under an NDA, and the leveraging of the pseudoscience that cold fusion has become, and the lack of any independent verification of any sort. There are huge warning signs of a scam, and not a single indication pointing any other direction.
Do I think cold-fusion can never happen? no, I think it may be possible, I also think that if you are going to make such an extraordinary claim, you better be willing to back it up with something more than "because I say it works". If you don't want to publish how it works, that's ok, get some independent (and well known/reputable) people to look at it under NDA, get a prototype running for a long enough period of time, under proper observation, to prove you didn't just hide a bunch of batteries or a diesel generator in it.... but do SOMETHING to prove it. Until he's willing to do that, it's such an obvious scam that I can't believe anyone would fall for it... ok, actually, knowing what humans are capable of, I can believe they fall for it... but they really should know better!
Here it's also 48 hours per week, but instead of being per two week period, it's averaged per quarter.
Officially the contract I have with my employer does allow for mandatory overtime, in 12 years they have used it once... and anyone with half a made up excuse managed to get out of it, and there was still enough of a backlash to that one that I don't see them trying it again any time soon. Generally they call and offer overtime, and if you say no they call the next guy. If you say yes, you bill them a minimum of 2 hours of double-time pay.
As for email and other things, my blackberry from work gets turned off every day at the end of my shift. In an emergency my employer has my personal phone number, and know that if they use it they have to be willing to pay me that minimum of 2 hours of double-time pay.
If you are on salary, it is often hard to argue as the work day may have relatively loosely defined hours. However now that I get paid hourly I tun my work phone off at the end of my shift, and it doesn't turn back on again until the start of the next one.
I have to give my phone number to every customer, I asked my employer if they would pay me to answer it outside of work hours, they said no, so I turn it off to eliminate the problem. In an emergency, if my employer wants me to come in to work (with pay) they have my personal phone number and can call me. This has happened occasionally, and is always accompanied by a charge for a minimum of 2 hours of double-time pay.
There are actually at least 2 seperate providers on different constellations. Around here they are sold as iridium and globalstar. And while I know the history of iridium wasn't so bright, the fact that globalstar also exists tells me that this is a market that is not entirely without merit. And the number of people needing satellite internet is actually much higher than those needing phone service (many areas with basic phone service don't have any other internet alternatives, but do have a wired landline.)
I know it's expensive to launch the satellites, but each satellite is cheaper to launch than the geostationary ones, installation is easier, and it would enable much easier mobile applications, not to mention the HUGE reduction in ping times.
It WILL happen, the only question is when.
Actually I would think a LEO constellation would fix that. No longer would you have to aim a dish, you instead use a very simple antenna like they have on satellite phones which is basically omni-directional, the thing is only a couple inches square and sits on any horizontal surface... Why would a data antenna need to be significantly more complicated than a voice one used for the same purpose (transmitting digital signals between a surface station and a LEO satellite)
Actually, there IS something that can be done about it, only problem is that no satellite internet provider has actually done it yet.
Replace one geostationary satellite with a constellation of LEO satellites. This significantly reduces the path time of the signal. It's been done for voice services on satellite already, we just need the data services to catch up. There are of course other advantages to this idea too, it would allow omni-directional antennas that don't need to be aimed at any specific point in the sky which would be a huge help for mobile applications.
And yes, I know it's not cheap to do it, but it's been done by two different voice networks, I'm sure a data provider can figure it out too.
Please provide a list of these "civilized countries" of which you speak. You know, the mythical places where freedom exists, laws are fair, and the government works for the people.
The government is working hard to "fix" that... they are trying to remove our right to share without removing the levy. It remains to be seen if that will fly in the courts (considering that it would amount to a presumption of illegal activity)
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US, and my country appears to be ever so slightly saner than the US (though for how long no one can tell)
The problem here is that when I'm friendly and cooperative with the cops, they are much more likely to let me go with a warning, whereas if I make them do everything "by the book" I'm pretty much guaranteed the ticket. I know that this is not the right way to "guarantee our rights"... but it is certainly the right way to save hundreds of dollars, several demerit points, and get on your way quicker.
Ok, I'm the phone guy, not the cable guy, but in our world there's hardly any similarity to what the job was in the 80s and 90s.
In the 80s telephone techs hooked up telephones on copper phone lines. The things that could cause trouble were pretty major resistive or capacitive faults which could generally be tested for, or most often heard with your own ear.
Now "telephone techs" hook up phone, internet, and TV service on copper, fibre, and satellite, connecting customer's devices on wireless, twisted pair, coax, and powerline adapters. What can cause trouble now is very minor/insignificant resistive, capacitive, optical, RF, or IP faults which often don't show up on our best test equipment, and which can rarely be sensed without it.
I have a 2 year computer engineering technology diploma, plus a 4 year telecommunications technician apprenticeship, plus many months of in-house training on everything from IP networking to ADSL transmission to fibre optic theory, and many many more.
Anyone who thinks the job hasn't changed much has obviously not done the job in both time frames!
One who is supplied with equipment that doesn't handle WPA...
I use WEP all the time, not by choice, but I'm shocked how many customers still have devices lying around that can't connect to a WPA encrypted access point. I'd rather set it up as WEP then completely open. (additionally, up until 2 years ago, the wireless gateways that our company were using as standard were so underpowered that they couldn't handle both WPA encryption, and 2 concurrent multicast video streams, so at the time we had to switch to WEP or customer's TVs would pixelate...)
Problem is, YOUR setup may be perfect, but you can bet that for the technician that out of the last 50 setups he looked at, at least 40 of them turned out to be a problem in the customer's equipment.
The catch phrase among the technicians is "the closer you get to the customer, the closer you get to the problem" (amazingly enough, that's not entirely a slight against the customers, the equipment and wiring also tends to get less reliable the further away from the central office you get as the wire gauges get thinner and the equipment gets cheaper and less heavily monitored)
Thing is, a good technician will never blame "your equipment" they'll blame a specific piece of it after they figure out exactly what is causing the problem. I have many times figured out which virus-ridden computer is the problem, or which damaged patch cord, or which computer plugged in to a phone jack, etc.
Customers are often offended when I start my testing from inside their house, but I'll be damned if I'm going to start at the top of a telephone pole in a blizzard at -40 degrees when over 80% of troubles turn out to be inside the house. (On a side note, there is a definite inverse relation between how insistent a customer is that the problem is outside, and the likelyhood of it actually being so...)
What the "cable guy" needs to know now... well, I'm not the "cable guy" I'm the "phone guy" but it's increasingly the same job.
Hooking up equipment in the house is relatively simple... as long as all goes well. figuring out what went wrong and why isn't. Keep in mind that for a telecommunications technician, the network doesn't start in the house. The network starts at the CO, and runs on wiring often designed and installed before the internet existed, and that has been deteriorating in the elements for several decades. It then includes running wires through fully finished houses that were also built before the internet existed, and where the homeowners don't want to see any visible wiring when you're done. Which often includes creative wiring, or running high speed data signals on wiring that was never designed for it. And then connecting to it technology such as our TV service which simply doesn't tolerate any dropped packets, regardless of the weather outside. Additionally we've added in wireless technologies and all the inherent instability, interference, and spectrum management problems that are associated with it.
I have completed a 2 year college diploma in Computer Engineering Technology, and a 4 year apprenticeship as a Telecommunications Technician. I've also had many months of in house training through my company, including fairly in depth knowledge of IP networking, multicast video streaming, ADSL Network transmission, fibre optics, satellite transmission, and more.
I'm expected to install and repair phone, internet, and TV service running on copper, fibre optic, and satellite mediums, and connect to them a huge assortment of customer supplied equipment running any operating system and any software known to man, and it has to "just work" no matter what the end user has installed, tweaked, or clicked on that they shouldn't have, and generally when the customer has no idea of how their equipment works. The average home network these days is probably more complex than many office networks were 20 years ago, with everything from gaming systems, tablets, computers, phones, TVs, DVD players, SIP devices, and IPTV boxes connected through various technologies (ethernet on cat3, cat5, cat6, HPNA on phone lines, HCNA on coax, powerline adapters, and several wireless standards) And we have to figure it all out in the very short period of time we are in someone's house (an install is expected to take under 3 hours start to finish, and a repair under 2 hours)
What usually separates the "good" technicians from the rest is the ability to figure out weird computer problems, and even weirder network transmission problems (most problems with our TV service are caused by lost packets, figuring out if that's from a bad connection (and where), interference on the wiring (and from what), an overloaded network (and why) etc can be a real challenge.)
Not this person's point, but one situation that I still haven't had seen a reasonable replacement for is dimmable bulbs. Despite the advertising, I have yet to see a dimmable fluorescent bulb, I've seen several that claim to be, but none that either fit in a real light fixture, or actually dim. The only LED bulbs I've seen in the stores so far also do not dim. So for now the only way to have control over the amount of light put out by your light fixtures is to use incandescent bulbs.
Most of the utilities here refuse credit card payments, you can only pay electronically through online banking. The one exception is the phone company who accept credit cards as well as online banking.
The phone company claims that paperless billing saves over $1.50/bill/month (they don't give you a discount for going paperless, but they have been pushing it pretty hard)
That said, I both volunteer and have a paid job. the author of the article would deny developers that same ability.
I volunteer to help people who are not always worthy, but I do it not only for them, but for me as well. The volunteer work I do is rewarding, and fun. But if I was forced to be paid for it, I wouldn't be able to do it at all. Someone else would be doing it full time, denying me the ability to do it part time.
I am not saying that nobody should ever be paid. I'm saying that the developer should be able to choose. This is capitalism in action, people can set any price they want (including free) and others can choose whatever product suits their needs, whether that be a free or a paid piece. What you, and the author, are advocating is to meddle with capitalism, to the benefit of a select few, and the detriment of society at large.
Actually, I do work for free, I volunteer hundreds to thousands of hours a year to various causes and am quite happy to do so.
Why should software developers never do the same?
I understand that software developers should be allowed to ask money for their work. However the article implies we should prohibit others from volunteering their time to protect those unwilling to do so. I disagree. I should not be prohibited from volunteering my time just to protect someone who is unwilling to do the same.
Ford was also by no means the first car. There were many rich people running around in their horseless cariages long before Ford got in to the game, and without them, it's hard to say if Ford would have been able to do what he did.
To be perfectly honest, I'd abolish them altogether. I honestly do not believe they are necessary for innovation. I believe that people will still make the "better mousetrap" without being able to patent it simply so that they can make money selling it. First to market is often worth a lot.
As for the benefit of documenting your invention in the patent for when it becomes public domain, that pretty much vanished years ago anyway, and even if not, reverse engineering is often more reliable than reading the patent document anyway.
How about charging a higher application fee, but no registration fee. That way the patent office doesn't have any incentive either way as to whether to grant the patent or not, but still gets money to keep in operation. Might also help with people filling patents they know shouldn't be granted, because they'd know they have to pay the full cost even if it's rejected.
Slashdot Mirror
What would be even better is a setup where you have the 2 panes, but can edit in either one and see the results in the other. Code in the one pane, then decide you don't like the look of it, and drag an element somewhere else on the page and see the raw HTML update. I do all of my HTML work by hand in a text editor. And I strongly believe that everyone who codes should have a good understanding of the underlying HTML and be able to use it. That said, I don't see any reason why people shouldn't be able to have a tool that complements that by allowing quick and dirty grab and move that element, resize this one, etc, etc. It's true that many WYSIWYG editors produce atrociously bad code, but there is no fundamental reason that they have to.
Another thing it does very effectively is block many legitimate users. I've seen a lot of devices that just can't seem to connect properly to "hidden" access points. As a result, I no longer recommend that practice to even the most security conscious, instead advising simple WPA2, and for those who want more security, MAC filtering.
You can get people to pay more for a real cure for cancer, than they ever would for a fake one.
But it's a whole lot easier to make the fake one...
Between the black box that people can't even look inside under an NDA, and the leveraging of the pseudoscience that cold fusion has become, and the lack of any independent verification of any sort. There are huge warning signs of a scam, and not a single indication pointing any other direction.
Do I think cold-fusion can never happen? no, I think it may be possible, I also think that if you are going to make such an extraordinary claim, you better be willing to back it up with something more than "because I say it works". If you don't want to publish how it works, that's ok, get some independent (and well known/reputable) people to look at it under NDA, get a prototype running for a long enough period of time, under proper observation, to prove you didn't just hide a bunch of batteries or a diesel generator in it.... but do SOMETHING to prove it. Until he's willing to do that, it's such an obvious scam that I can't believe anyone would fall for it... ok, actually, knowing what humans are capable of, I can believe they fall for it... but they really should know better!
Here it's also 48 hours per week, but instead of being per two week period, it's averaged per quarter. Officially the contract I have with my employer does allow for mandatory overtime, in 12 years they have used it once... and anyone with half a made up excuse managed to get out of it, and there was still enough of a backlash to that one that I don't see them trying it again any time soon. Generally they call and offer overtime, and if you say no they call the next guy. If you say yes, you bill them a minimum of 2 hours of double-time pay. As for email and other things, my blackberry from work gets turned off every day at the end of my shift. In an emergency my employer has my personal phone number, and know that if they use it they have to be willing to pay me that minimum of 2 hours of double-time pay.
If you are on salary, it is often hard to argue as the work day may have relatively loosely defined hours. However now that I get paid hourly I tun my work phone off at the end of my shift, and it doesn't turn back on again until the start of the next one. I have to give my phone number to every customer, I asked my employer if they would pay me to answer it outside of work hours, they said no, so I turn it off to eliminate the problem. In an emergency, if my employer wants me to come in to work (with pay) they have my personal phone number and can call me. This has happened occasionally, and is always accompanied by a charge for a minimum of 2 hours of double-time pay.
There are actually at least 2 seperate providers on different constellations. Around here they are sold as iridium and globalstar. And while I know the history of iridium wasn't so bright, the fact that globalstar also exists tells me that this is a market that is not entirely without merit. And the number of people needing satellite internet is actually much higher than those needing phone service (many areas with basic phone service don't have any other internet alternatives, but do have a wired landline.) I know it's expensive to launch the satellites, but each satellite is cheaper to launch than the geostationary ones, installation is easier, and it would enable much easier mobile applications, not to mention the HUGE reduction in ping times. It WILL happen, the only question is when.
Why would it have to be more complicated than the magnetic patch antennas used with satellite phones? for example: https://www.satellitephonestore.com/1.5-meter-magnetic-mount-antenna
Actually I would think a LEO constellation would fix that. No longer would you have to aim a dish, you instead use a very simple antenna like they have on satellite phones which is basically omni-directional, the thing is only a couple inches square and sits on any horizontal surface... Why would a data antenna need to be significantly more complicated than a voice one used for the same purpose (transmitting digital signals between a surface station and a LEO satellite)
Actually, there IS something that can be done about it, only problem is that no satellite internet provider has actually done it yet.
Replace one geostationary satellite with a constellation of LEO satellites. This significantly reduces the path time of the signal. It's been done for voice services on satellite already, we just need the data services to catch up. There are of course other advantages to this idea too, it would allow omni-directional antennas that don't need to be aimed at any specific point in the sky which would be a huge help for mobile applications.
And yes, I know it's not cheap to do it, but it's been done by two different voice networks, I'm sure a data provider can figure it out too.
How about instead tacking another 20 years of pay on to the job I quit 20 or 30 years ago.
Funny how I get paid only while actually working, and "artists" are entitled to it for longer than they are even alive...
Please provide a list of these "civilized countries" of which you speak. You know, the mythical places where freedom exists, laws are fair, and the government works for the people.
The government is working hard to "fix" that... they are trying to remove our right to share without removing the levy. It remains to be seen if that will fly in the courts (considering that it would amount to a presumption of illegal activity)
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US, and my country appears to be ever so slightly saner than the US (though for how long no one can tell)
The problem here is that when I'm friendly and cooperative with the cops, they are much more likely to let me go with a warning, whereas if I make them do everything "by the book" I'm pretty much guaranteed the ticket. I know that this is not the right way to "guarantee our rights"... but it is certainly the right way to save hundreds of dollars, several demerit points, and get on your way quicker.
Ok, I'm the phone guy, not the cable guy, but in our world there's hardly any similarity to what the job was in the 80s and 90s.
In the 80s telephone techs hooked up telephones on copper phone lines. The things that could cause trouble were pretty major resistive or capacitive faults which could generally be tested for, or most often heard with your own ear.
Now "telephone techs" hook up phone, internet, and TV service on copper, fibre, and satellite, connecting customer's devices on wireless, twisted pair, coax, and powerline adapters. What can cause trouble now is very minor/insignificant resistive, capacitive, optical, RF, or IP faults which often don't show up on our best test equipment, and which can rarely be sensed without it.
I have a 2 year computer engineering technology diploma, plus a 4 year telecommunications technician apprenticeship, plus many months of in-house training on everything from IP networking to ADSL transmission to fibre optic theory, and many many more.
Anyone who thinks the job hasn't changed much has obviously not done the job in both time frames!
One who is supplied with equipment that doesn't handle WPA...
I use WEP all the time, not by choice, but I'm shocked how many customers still have devices lying around that can't connect to a WPA encrypted access point. I'd rather set it up as WEP then completely open. (additionally, up until 2 years ago, the wireless gateways that our company were using as standard were so underpowered that they couldn't handle both WPA encryption, and 2 concurrent multicast video streams, so at the time we had to switch to WEP or customer's TVs would pixelate...)
Problem is, YOUR setup may be perfect, but you can bet that for the technician that out of the last 50 setups he looked at, at least 40 of them turned out to be a problem in the customer's equipment.
The catch phrase among the technicians is "the closer you get to the customer, the closer you get to the problem" (amazingly enough, that's not entirely a slight against the customers, the equipment and wiring also tends to get less reliable the further away from the central office you get as the wire gauges get thinner and the equipment gets cheaper and less heavily monitored)
Thing is, a good technician will never blame "your equipment" they'll blame a specific piece of it after they figure out exactly what is causing the problem. I have many times figured out which virus-ridden computer is the problem, or which damaged patch cord, or which computer plugged in to a phone jack, etc.
Customers are often offended when I start my testing from inside their house, but I'll be damned if I'm going to start at the top of a telephone pole in a blizzard at -40 degrees when over 80% of troubles turn out to be inside the house. (On a side note, there is a definite inverse relation between how insistent a customer is that the problem is outside, and the likelyhood of it actually being so...)
What the "cable guy" needs to know now... well, I'm not the "cable guy" I'm the "phone guy" but it's increasingly the same job.
Hooking up equipment in the house is relatively simple... as long as all goes well. figuring out what went wrong and why isn't. Keep in mind that for a telecommunications technician, the network doesn't start in the house. The network starts at the CO, and runs on wiring often designed and installed before the internet existed, and that has been deteriorating in the elements for several decades. It then includes running wires through fully finished houses that were also built before the internet existed, and where the homeowners don't want to see any visible wiring when you're done. Which often includes creative wiring, or running high speed data signals on wiring that was never designed for it. And then connecting to it technology such as our TV service which simply doesn't tolerate any dropped packets, regardless of the weather outside. Additionally we've added in wireless technologies and all the inherent instability, interference, and spectrum management problems that are associated with it.
I have completed a 2 year college diploma in Computer Engineering Technology, and a 4 year apprenticeship as a Telecommunications Technician. I've also had many months of in house training through my company, including fairly in depth knowledge of IP networking, multicast video streaming, ADSL Network transmission, fibre optics, satellite transmission, and more.
I'm expected to install and repair phone, internet, and TV service running on copper, fibre optic, and satellite mediums, and connect to them a huge assortment of customer supplied equipment running any operating system and any software known to man, and it has to "just work" no matter what the end user has installed, tweaked, or clicked on that they shouldn't have, and generally when the customer has no idea of how their equipment works. The average home network these days is probably more complex than many office networks were 20 years ago, with everything from gaming systems, tablets, computers, phones, TVs, DVD players, SIP devices, and IPTV boxes connected through various technologies (ethernet on cat3, cat5, cat6, HPNA on phone lines, HCNA on coax, powerline adapters, and several wireless standards) And we have to figure it all out in the very short period of time we are in someone's house (an install is expected to take under 3 hours start to finish, and a repair under 2 hours)
What usually separates the "good" technicians from the rest is the ability to figure out weird computer problems, and even weirder network transmission problems (most problems with our TV service are caused by lost packets, figuring out if that's from a bad connection (and where), interference on the wiring (and from what), an overloaded network (and why) etc can be a real challenge.)
Not this person's point, but one situation that I still haven't had seen a reasonable replacement for is dimmable bulbs. Despite the advertising, I have yet to see a dimmable fluorescent bulb, I've seen several that claim to be, but none that either fit in a real light fixture, or actually dim. The only LED bulbs I've seen in the stores so far also do not dim. So for now the only way to have control over the amount of light put out by your light fixtures is to use incandescent bulbs.
Most of the utilities here refuse credit card payments, you can only pay electronically through online banking. The one exception is the phone company who accept credit cards as well as online banking.
The phone company claims that paperless billing saves over $1.50/bill/month (they don't give you a discount for going paperless, but they have been pushing it pretty hard)
Not all work days are 8 hours long...
That said, I both volunteer and have a paid job. the author of the article would deny developers that same ability.
I volunteer to help people who are not always worthy, but I do it not only for them, but for me as well. The volunteer work I do is rewarding, and fun. But if I was forced to be paid for it, I wouldn't be able to do it at all. Someone else would be doing it full time, denying me the ability to do it part time.
I am not saying that nobody should ever be paid. I'm saying that the developer should be able to choose. This is capitalism in action, people can set any price they want (including free) and others can choose whatever product suits their needs, whether that be a free or a paid piece. What you, and the author, are advocating is to meddle with capitalism, to the benefit of a select few, and the detriment of society at large.
Actually, I do work for free, I volunteer hundreds to thousands of hours a year to various causes and am quite happy to do so.
Why should software developers never do the same?
I understand that software developers should be allowed to ask money for their work. However the article implies we should prohibit others from volunteering their time to protect those unwilling to do so. I disagree. I should not be prohibited from volunteering my time just to protect someone who is unwilling to do the same.
Ford was also by no means the first car. There were many rich people running around in their horseless cariages long before Ford got in to the game, and without them, it's hard to say if Ford would have been able to do what he did.
The average family owns more than one car, and why do they need BOTH of them to be capable of satisfying the rare long highway trip?
To be perfectly honest, I'd abolish them altogether. I honestly do not believe they are necessary for innovation. I believe that people will still make the "better mousetrap" without being able to patent it simply so that they can make money selling it. First to market is often worth a lot.
As for the benefit of documenting your invention in the patent for when it becomes public domain, that pretty much vanished years ago anyway, and even if not, reverse engineering is often more reliable than reading the patent document anyway.
How about charging a higher application fee, but no registration fee. That way the patent office doesn't have any incentive either way as to whether to grant the patent or not, but still gets money to keep in operation. Might also help with people filling patents they know shouldn't be granted, because they'd know they have to pay the full cost even if it's rejected.