EMusic can sell unencumbered MP3s because it deals mainly in artists that would benefit from more casual sharing of their material. They are still in (or stuck in) that stage of popularity where they need to gain more fans--who will go to the shows, buy new music.
Hmmm... These artists don't seem stuck to me: Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong.
The problem is that these days we get interrupted a lot more than in past. Think how intrusive the phone, cell-phone or IM are. Email is not nearly as bad, since it can be ignored.
Tom DeMarco has a nice book about this called Slack.
By being busy we fool ourselves into thinking that we are being more efficient.
CNN is just re-writing a press release from a pro-guest worker group: The Association of Computer Manufacturers.
Huh!?!? ACM == Association for Computing Machinery. It's an organization of computer professionals. I've been a member for over 25 years and trust me ACM does not represent computer manufacturers.
The fact that it's a startup complicates things. Startups can fail at any time, and one day you may wake up and find yourself on the street. You need to do your homework and take a very close look at the startup: are they just a dot-bomb wannabe, or do they have a solid business plan, a marketable product, and a firm roadplan? The answers to these questions will guide you to making the call here.
On the other hand a startup has a potential for much bigger upside.
I've worked for two startups. One did well the other went belly-up in less than 2 years. Both provided me with invaluable experience.
I worked for a large company that layed off bulk of developers - for mostly political reasons (one of two development locations was closed).
Job security comes from what you know and what you can do. Having only VB development on my resume would not make me feel secure in any job.
BTW, I've been a software developer for 28 years....
It depends how large a paycut we are talking about. 10%, 20% or 50%? For 10-20% you should seriously consider changing jobs.
Unless you are close to retirement (like within 5 years), you need to make sure that your skills remain marketable. It seems to me that there are a lot of VB programmers, especially more in India and China. Your job is more likely to be outsourced, if there are many other people capable of doing it for less. What are you doing that is worth so much money?
Where do you want to be in 10 years from now? Still doing VB? Unless you learn new stuff you'll wind up like all those programmers who only knew COBOL and MVS when Java came along.
Being too comfortable is a warning sign - you are not growing.
Yes, he designed a system. He invented a device for delivering it.
Do you have a reference with a clear explanation? I'm just curious for more details. I tried to read the patents, but I can't make head or tail from what it is they are saying.
Absolutely - and some smaller guy just got squashed by RIM. They went through all of the trouble of inventing something, having it patented and then having their technology stolen by RIM with no compensation.
What exactly did the little guy invent? Delivery of email via radio waves? Was a protocol designed? Distribution system designed?
What does this have to do with anything? "The creation of a specialized cell, such as our nerve cells" does not include COPYING of a cell, which is what the development of an embryo is. The code was there to begin with. We have never seen the CREATION of a specialized cell from NOTHINGNESS.
The embryo is not a specialized cell at all. It will produce some neurons only under certain conditions. If you take out of the womb it will not develop.
An embryo turns into a human in about 9 months. I presume you agree that this is a purely natural process (no intervention by any supernatural forces).
Given this, why is it so unlikely that strands of replicating molecules can evolve into cells over several billions of years?
Is it, though? How many years did it take Einstein to finally convince other scientists? Many "scientists" rejected his theories, despite them being correct
Who rejected his theories? First time I heard about that. His theory was widely accepted and demonstrated via observation before 1930.
But we have NEVER seen, in the laboratory or otherwise, the creation of a specialized cell, such as our nerve cells.
You should observe an embryo develop...:)
In any case do you believe in electrons? Have you ever seen one?
You are claiming exactly that! I am saying that evolution explains PART of how humans came from simple molecules, i.e. natural selection. Yet you claim it explains EVERYTHING, including how eyeball cells were formed, when it clearly does NOT!
No I'm not. I'm making statements about how organisms could have arisen . Natural selection can explain how an eye ball came about. It says nothing about composition of stars...
In any case, I think that any explanation based on natural laws is better than one based on a super-natural invisible being.
And how exactly do you "measure" that science is the best way to understand how the world works? Sure, chemistry and physics do that just fine. But how does evolution help us understand how the world works, when it's riddled with unanswered questions?
Science is riddled with unanswered questions. Chemistry is no different from evolution in this case. Evolution certainly explains more than any other theory of the origin of organisms.
Evolution is not truly science - it's just another religion, another attempt to explain why we exist without having any hard evidence
No it's not a religion. What do you call all the fossils, what do you call the computed age of the earth, what do you call the presence of DNA in every living organism?
If all this evidence is wrong, then you can't be possibly reading this, as so much physics and chemistry would be wrong so that computers and networks would be impossible.
And when this happens, when there are things that not even science can explain, the hardcore scientists, fanatacists like the hard core religious folks, try to fill in the void with invalid theories.
The difference between science and dogma is that science is falsifiable, so other scientists can correct invalid theories.
This can be seen with evolution. Evolution explains one thing and one thing ONLY - how one organism may beat out another organism, and thus survive and proliferate. It does NOT, however, explain how things are first formed.
And why not? If approriate chemicals accidently formed into a molecule that could replicate then evolution would take off. There were number of experiments that showed how the building blocks for DNA can be formed in a test tube that replicated conditions on early Earth.
Earth existed for several BILLION years before any organisms appeared. The probability of accidental creation of a self-replicating molecule over that period of time is close to 100%.
What evolution does NOT explain is how, for example, an organ such as the eyeball was formed. No form of evolution can explain this, and trying to is just as bad as a ID or creationism believer.
Not that old thing again. Just because you cannot imagine, does not mean that it is impossible. Frankly any explanation that is not super-natural is better. Look here
for example.
i.e. to think that science explains EVERYTHING. It doesn't.
No scientist would ever claim that science explains everything. Where did you get this idea? Science is a collective, self-corrective enterprise engaged in by humans. It is not perfect, but it's the best way we have to understand how the world works.
But you seem to imply that because there are problems in the Theory of Evolution, evolution is false. As you pointed out there are problems with Theory of Gravity too. This does not make show that there is no gravity.
Which is exactly what scientists have done with our solar systems and celestial mapping. Then together with all the other evidence, you have a theory of how the Solar system works, which is proven by other supporting data. That's when it becomes a theory.
Did the Sun rise 10,000 years ago, according to this theory? 5,000,000 years?
Evolution is the same. We observe stuff, do experiments when possible and provide a theory.
Evolution explains things like this very well:
Why are all organisms on Earth based on DNA?
Why are there mamals?
Why are there ten species of zebra in Africa and none in Australia?
Sarcasm noted. But exactly what I mean - now regardless of what I believe about continental drift and whatnot, an experiment that shows continental drift does not PROVE that all of the land was once gathered in the same mass. The problem with it is that you do not know what occurred in the past unless you have an observable experiment.
Let me see. Did you observe a sunrise 200 years ago? According to you, I cannot conclude that the Sun rose 200 years ago, just because it rose for the past couple of years when I was able to observe it.
I guess... If you held it to be true enough to act upon it.
I thought of better way of explaining atheism. Basically the concept of God is meaningless. Asking an atheist if he believes in it just does not make sense.
God is like division by zero. The answer is not defined, it does not make sense, it does not exist. Asking me if I believe that 1/0 is 42 is a meaningless question.
I guess I would define free will as the ability to choose to attempt to do anything. It seems to me that for a person to be able to do this he or she would have to somehow control some variable in the laws of nature.
Of course I believe that I can control some variables in my environment. I can choose to type this text in, instead of not doing it.
What you should be asking me is what is the "I" that I'm talking about. And once you remove the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, this becomes a really deep and interesting question.
Really? It seems to be illegal to attempt to show that evolution could be invalid.
Huh? How do you get that? I can imagine plenty of evidence that could be produced to put evolution in doubt. Show me some life forms that are not based on DNA or give me physical proof that Earth is 10,000 years old. I'm sure there are plenty of others.
Re: Atheism as belief. In your definition any statement I can make is a belief - like "The sky is not green". Is this a "belief"?
Do you believe in free will?
Hmmm... Define please.
But intuitively yes. "free will" is not a super-natural thing. Just not a materialistic idea. I "believe" in number 42 as well.
Agreed. Take for example a popular religion that includes weekly canibalistic consumption of the body and drinking of the blood of the human/god savior. Is that better than believing that aliens are going to come and rescue us?
Just like not all scientific theories are equally valid
Not really. Scientific theories are based on observable evidence that anyone can observe. Scientific theories are also constructed so that that, at least in principle, they can be shown to be invalid. Not so for religions.
because really, atheism and agnosticism are also beliefs
Not really. Lack of belief is not a belief. I am an atheist. I don't believe in supernatural things.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... These artists don't seem stuck to me: Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong.
Tom DeMarco has a nice book about this called Slack.
By being busy we fool ourselves into thinking that we are being more efficient.
Huh!?!? ACM == Association for Computing Machinery. It's an organization of computer professionals. I've been a member for over 25 years and trust me ACM does not represent computer manufacturers.
Works for drugs. Doesn't it?
Apple IIe was my first home computer. Fully loaded with 64K of memory, dual floppies and a 1200bps modem. Wahoo!
On the other hand a startup has a potential for much bigger upside.
I've worked for two startups. One did well the other went belly-up in less than 2 years. Both provided me with invaluable experience.
I worked for a large company that layed off bulk of developers - for mostly political reasons (one of two development locations was closed).
Job security comes from what you know and what you can do. Having only VB development on my resume would not make me feel secure in any job.
BTW, I've been a software developer for 28 years....
Unless you are close to retirement (like within 5 years), you need to make sure that your skills remain marketable. It seems to me that there are a lot of VB programmers, especially more in India and China. Your job is more likely to be outsourced, if there are many other people capable of doing it for less. What are you doing that is worth so much money?
Where do you want to be in 10 years from now? Still doing VB? Unless you learn new stuff you'll wind up like all those programmers who only knew COBOL and MVS when Java came along.
Being too comfortable is a warning sign - you are not growing.
Do you have a reference with a clear explanation? I'm just curious for more details. I tried to read the patents, but I can't make head or tail from what it is they are saying.
What exactly did the little guy invent? Delivery of email via radio waves? Was a protocol designed? Distribution system designed?
But isn't RNA built from the same basic amino acids as DNA?
The embryo is not a specialized cell at all. It will produce some neurons only under certain conditions. If you take out of the womb it will not develop.
An embryo turns into a human in about 9 months. I presume you agree that this is a purely natural process (no intervention by any supernatural forces).
Given this, why is it so unlikely that strands of replicating molecules can evolve into cells over several billions of years?
Who rejected his theories? First time I heard about that. His theory was widely accepted and demonstrated via observation before 1930.
But we have NEVER seen, in the laboratory or otherwise, the creation of a specialized cell, such as our nerve cells.
You should observe an embryo develop... :)
In any case do you believe in electrons? Have you ever seen one?
You are claiming exactly that! I am saying that evolution explains PART of how humans came from simple molecules, i.e. natural selection. Yet you claim it explains EVERYTHING, including how eyeball cells were formed, when it clearly does NOT!
No I'm not. I'm making statements about how organisms could have arisen . Natural selection can explain how an eye ball came about. It says nothing about composition of stars...
In any case, I think that any explanation based on natural laws is better than one based on a super-natural invisible being.
And how exactly do you "measure" that science is the best way to understand how the world works? Sure, chemistry and physics do that just fine. But how does evolution help us understand how the world works, when it's riddled with unanswered questions?
Science is riddled with unanswered questions. Chemistry is no different from evolution in this case. Evolution certainly explains more than any other theory of the origin of organisms.
Evolution is not truly science - it's just another religion, another attempt to explain why we exist without having any hard evidence
No it's not a religion. What do you call all the fossils, what do you call the computed age of the earth, what do you call the presence of DNA in every living organism?
If all this evidence is wrong, then you can't be possibly reading this, as so much physics and chemistry would be wrong so that computers and networks would be impossible.
The difference between science and dogma is that science is falsifiable, so other scientists can correct invalid theories.
This can be seen with evolution. Evolution explains one thing and one thing ONLY - how one organism may beat out another organism, and thus survive and proliferate. It does NOT, however, explain how things are first formed.
And why not? If approriate chemicals accidently formed into a molecule that could replicate then evolution would take off. There were number of experiments that showed how the building blocks for DNA can be formed in a test tube that replicated conditions on early Earth.
Earth existed for several BILLION years before any organisms appeared. The probability of accidental creation of a self-replicating molecule over that period of time is close to 100%.
What evolution does NOT explain is how, for example, an organ such as the eyeball was formed. No form of evolution can explain this, and trying to is just as bad as a ID or creationism believer.
Not that old thing again. Just because you cannot imagine, does not mean that it is impossible. Frankly any explanation that is not super-natural is better. Look here for example.
i.e. to think that science explains EVERYTHING. It doesn't.
No scientist would ever claim that science explains everything. Where did you get this idea? Science is a collective, self-corrective enterprise engaged in by humans. It is not perfect, but it's the best way we have to understand how the world works.
But you seem to imply that because there are problems in the Theory of Evolution, evolution is false. As you pointed out there are problems with Theory of Gravity too. This does not make show that there is no gravity.
Sorry!
Did the Sun rise 10,000 years ago, according to this theory? 5,000,000 years?
Evolution is the same. We observe stuff, do experiments when possible and provide a theory.
Evolution explains things like this very well:
That's funny. You are a living organism (I presume :)) and you've changed over time. In fact you started as a single cell...
That's true. But are you denying that gravity exists?
Let me see. Did you observe a sunrise 200 years ago? According to you, I cannot conclude that the Sun rose 200 years ago, just because it rose for the past couple of years when I was able to observe it.
Right?
I thought of better way of explaining atheism. Basically the concept of God is meaningless. Asking an atheist if he believes in it just does not make sense.
God is like division by zero. The answer is not defined, it does not make sense, it does not exist. Asking me if I believe that 1/0 is 42 is a meaningless question.
I guess I would define free will as the ability to choose to attempt to do anything. It seems to me that for a person to be able to do this he or she would have to somehow control some variable in the laws of nature.
Of course I believe that I can control some variables in my environment. I can choose to type this text in, instead of not doing it.
What you should be asking me is what is the "I" that I'm talking about. And once you remove the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, this becomes a really deep and interesting question.
Huh? How do you get that? I can imagine plenty of evidence that could be produced to put evolution in doubt. Show me some life forms that are not based on DNA or give me physical proof that Earth is 10,000 years old. I'm sure there are plenty of others.
Re: Atheism as belief. In your definition any statement I can make is a belief - like "The sky is not green". Is this a "belief"?
Do you believe in free will?
Hmmm... Define please.
But intuitively yes. "free will" is not a super-natural thing. Just not a materialistic idea. I "believe" in number 42 as well.
Agreed. Take for example a popular religion that includes weekly canibalistic consumption of the body and drinking of the blood of the human/god savior. Is that better than believing that aliens are going to come and rescue us?
Just like not all scientific theories are equally valid
Not really. Scientific theories are based on observable evidence that anyone can observe. Scientific theories are also constructed so that that, at least in principle, they can be shown to be invalid. Not so for religions.
because really, atheism and agnosticism are also beliefs
Not really. Lack of belief is not a belief. I am an atheist. I don't believe in supernatural things.