How many PC's ship with the GeForce 3 as the base configuration (unlike its cheaprer cousin the MX)? The trouble is that the GeForce 3 with its power and expense is an ideal after-market card for those who want it.
However, portables don't have that option. Assuming that the price for the NV17M is anything like the GeForce 3 (and nVidia will have real problems with its vendors if it doesn't), you're looking at adding a few hundred dollars to the price of every portable for power that only a fraction of the users will want.
I can't see many manufacturers choosing this chip. I wonder what nVidia was thinking?
They tend to think more of features, and what can the enable, rather than what shouldn't be permitted. Allowing a macro to be automatically run on opening of a document, which can then have full access to the system, is a classic example.
I will point out that this exactly how the vast majority of people think as well. In most ways, MS is giving the customer exactly what they want.
People are not trained to think about computer security (and would probably give up on computers if they had to). Thus, they only see security measures as a hindrance. I've certainly heard people complain that Java applet's can't really to anything useful since they can't do what an ActiveX program can...
Blaming MS for badly thought out security is like blaming Hostess for making fatty foods. They're both addressing what there markets wants, not what "is good for them".
This all brings up a good question: why haven't Macintosh's or GameCube's marketers come up with a bench mark to put next to the processor speed? Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen a Macintosh commercial saying "comes with a G4 800 MHz, comparable to a P4 1.5 MHz."
The problem is that you can compare processors in far too many ways. Apple likes to use Adobe Altivec-enabled applications when it compares speed (big suprise), but the reality is that comparing two processors is only marginally more useful than comparing two human beings. Computers are far too multi-purpose to be able to come up with a useful comparison.
Processors are even worse... It's like trying to compare two brains without letting education or experience skew the comparison.
In the end, manufacturers will choose from the dozens of possible benchmarks to make their processor look the best (or make up their own if none of the others will do).
It's pretty clear that providing decent support is a good way to bankrupt your company.
Assume about 5% of machines have a problem. Average support is perhaps $300. (Tech support on an hourly basis is *incredibly* expensive when you factor everything in. The tech guy is pretty much the cheapest thing. Add in the cost of part, shipping, paperwork, etc.)
Well, the profit margin on a computer might be (after all costs) $30. It comes down to the fact that as soon as you provide decent tech support, every call probably costs you the profit you earned on 10 machines!
If you never have the unhappy customers buy a machine again, you lose 5% of your customers. On the other hand, you're gaining from the 5% of people who bought from other companies and didn't get decent tech support.
You *might* gain an extra few percent from people who've heard that you have good support, but in all likelihood, many of them will require tech support, (which is why they want to use you) in which case you lose your shirt again.
If you raise your margins so that you can provide decent support, then you lose sales massively. The market is almost entirely price bound. There is no equivalent of BMW or other names that "mean quality" that people are willing to pay for (despite what Apple would desperately hope for).
Somebody claimed that Dell's support has gone through the floor. But killing decent support is what has enabled them to lower the price of their machines and kill the competition.
Of course, with razor margins they can't afford to replace a defective machine. Their only choices are to
(1) Raise their prices so they can afford to replace mechines with design defects (= backruptcy),
(2) Innovate only incredibly slowly so they can catch any possible design defects (= backruptcy), or
(3) stiff you.
The only way a company can afford to provide support is to make it a seperate chargeable item. That way the profits on the support contracts can pay for actually providing decent support.
Same with dealers. Any dealer that actually had a large enough margin to provide service or support went bankrupt 10 years ago.
Of course, the only thing that can reverse this is laws to avoid it. Unfortunately, local (i.e. state) laws don't work. Local shops go under as customers buy from states without the laws in order to get a better price.
In other words, don't expect decent support any time soon.
As I see it, the main problem with software quality control is that companies have to get product out by a certain deadline so that they can charge customers enough to stay in business. Remember, 99.9% of software houses are not raking in cash. Most make enough to stay in business, but there aren't a lot of Microsofts or Oracles out there.
If you are going to release bug free products, then you'll simply need to spend perhaps twice as much time, which means half us many new releases.
In other words, you've got to double the price.
Now, just how many CIO's aren't going to seriously consider switching vendors when a software house says they're doubling the price in order to get better quality control...
At least with subscription, the software house no longer has the desperate need to push a product out whether its ready or not.
Please explain to me why, for all of this research and data mining, these companies have not been able to divine the simplest of truths:
I don't want any of their crap, and I don't want to see any ads for their crap.
The following article assumes that you are claiming that (1) you are essentially impervious to any advertising and (2) you are annoyed about having to be exposed to the (useless) advertising.
Can you explain to my why, if it were possible, Slashdot shouldn't give you the boot?
As a user of Slashdot, you are using their resources. If there is no advertising that can reach you (which is different from saying that you haven't seen any ads on Slashdot that interest you), then they are simply wasting their money serving you. Why shouldn't they cut you off?
I'll admit, the tone of the above paragraph was in response to the "how dare they advertise to me!" tone of the parent article. If you want to use resources free of charge, expect to pay for them by being exposed to advertisements. If you don't like the exposure, stop using the resource!
Similarly, we may find that most Afghanis applaud us as we take out the Taliban, even if we go outside of 'ethics' to do it.
Um, I think the idea behind of the quote was that most Los Angeles inhabitants might not be too thrilled about air strikes in downtown L.A. and the ethics of killing many civilians in order to destroy a criminal is kind of questionable. It tends to smack of the "better 10 innocents die than a guilty man go free" mindset.
Likewise, I'm certain that many Afghani would be happy about a change in government, if it wasn't for the fact that the citizenry are going to take the brunt of the casualties in any attack.
Maybe, just maybe, they had criteria other than "must sound like 'eowulf' when they made a decision ?
Actually, in a lot of supercomputing fields, the decision is heavily based on "it must run Cray Fortran compiler in optimal fashion". There are simply huge amounts of Fortran code, much of which was written and optimized 20 years ago by brilliant graduate students who have taken maybe a single CS course, that would have to be rewritten moving to any other platform.
Rewriting all this code for a different system would make the Y2K update of all "that Cobol code where the source listing had been obsoleted because they'd modified the binaries because compilation took to long" seem like a walk in the park:-). Especially given that the new authors would likely be brilliant physics grad students who've taken (maybe) a single CS course.
(Cray may supply F90, but I'd bet Cray's spend most of their time running amazingly optimized F55 code:-))
We've long passed the stage where the government would be willing to pay for the internet. If business cannot make sufficient profit off the net, then they will abandon it.
People here seem to forget that the pre-corporate internet was a heck of a lot smaller and exclusive and had about 1/100th the information (okay about 1/10th the *useful* information) that the internet holds now. Sites like slashdot depend on corporate presence to keep themselves alive.
Obviously the article chose as inflammatory comments as possible (standard media trick), but the thesis is valid. If nobody can make money on the internet, it *will* go away.
Imagine: First go most of the ".com" destination sites that are the reaons that many users use the internet: Amazon, Napster, etc.
Second, Usage patterns drop across the board because lots of people don't have a reason to log on. Suddenly, all the barely viable high speed internet providers (or non-viable that were getting funding based on ever increasing user growth) die out. So much for sub-$500/month high speed access.
With the death of high speed access, a whole section of the rest of the corporate world disappears as funding based on a high speed future disappears.
Then the.yahoo's die. The on-line advertising market dies completely. Slashdot disappears.
Finally, we're back to the old days, except this time, the government isn't footing the bill. University funding isn't exactly what it used to be either, so many universities can't afford the cost. Soon, we have the priviledged few with internet access provided by their university visiting a few university web sites. Prices for everything internet related are many times higher as economies of scale have evaporated. Most companies won't touch the internet with a 20' pole in the usual way of business (it's the greatest thing since sliced bread or it's deadly poison!)
Doesn't sound like much fun.
It's a pretty apocalyptic vision, but it's not entirely out of line.
Anyway, trying to create a more business-friendly internet doesn't have to be completely at odds with the open nature of the internet. Even IBM's net (forget what it was called) hosted large numbers of mailing lists in its day.
Well, we use Jikes to compile the program, so it really is only the JRE that we need.
It's subpara (i) that you quoted that causes us grief (and is in a different form in the 1.1 license)
(i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs
We're not redistributing JRE to run our program, we're redistributing it to run the user's programs, ergo we're out of luck.
If you can come up with a different intrepretation, please email me at west@hsa.on.ca. (It's not like anybody at Sun is ever going to notice or care whether JRE ships with our product or not, but it's my responsibility to make certain we are completely compliant with any applicable licenses).
People might like to look at the JRE license agreement before they talk about free redistribution. The agreement *clearly* states that it's *only* allowed to be redistributed for the *sole* purpose of running the *accompanying* Java program. (JRE 1.2 and above)
In other words, you can't give JRE to somebody else to allow them to run their program.
How do I know this? I've been trying to get permission from somebody at Sun to redistribute the JRE with our educational Java IDE for months. So far, no go. Even worse, you can't even purchase a license to redistribute it because it's "freely redistributable" and there is no provision at Sun for licensing it:-(.
My sales guy at Sun has tried heroically, but the lawyers have the final say.
Now, we're just small (well, miniscule) fry compared to the manufacturers, but it certainly means prolonged negotiation with Sun before obtaining permission to put it on their machines.
If the company was smart, they would say "show me the warrant". Then when the cops show up with the warrant, let just the cops in, 'cause the BSA won't be listed on the warrant, only the cops.
Who will then have no choice but to confiscate every machine in the place for evidence. You *may*, depending on jurisdiction, get your machines back anywhere from 6 months to 2 years afterwards, unless, of course, investigation finds any pirated materials, in which case, you lose all the machines for the indefinite future.
The police use this to shutdown any number of small piracy joints. They never make it to court because the companies have ceased to exist in the meanwhile.
Of course, if you're really high profile and the police are complete idiots, you can sue, but it's unlikely you'll be in business long enough to do so.
Re:People don't normally know their history
on
Dial U for Union
·
· Score: 2
That's right -- I forgot about this particular point. Unions are the crutch of the left wing here in the US, and I sure as heck don't want a dime of my paycheck going to prop them up.
Luckily for you, there's pretty good odds that the company that you work for chooses to use its money to prop up a right wing party:-). Sort of evens out.
While Java is usually considered more suitable than C++ for CS1, Java has a number of deficiencies from an educational perspective.
Remember that in general, the only issues that matter are those that make it harder to teach the general CS1 concepts. Speed of Java execution is *not* an issue for most. (By the way, please note the word "in general" and "most". There are counter-examples, but one generalizations about the teaching of CS1 are, in my experience, fairly accurate.) For what its worth, my experience is 14 years of producing/selling resources for teaching computer science in universities/high schools.
(1) No simple I/O package. To read an integer from the keyboard takes multiple lines of code. Most programs are not pedagogically improved by adding mandatory error trapping. The solution, of course, is helper classes. My company produces its own, but many are available free over the net. Interestingly enough, while 2 years ago, most university teachers were not interested in helper classes, or in books using them ("I teach pure Java"), there has been a fundamental shift towards the use of them over the last year. The other alternatives are a lot of handwaving ("use this block of code, don't ask why") or using applets only or have all your examples carefully not every need integer input from the keyboard. Each of these techniques are used in different books.
(2) References are Hidden. The fact that many variables are references and can't be treated the same way as primitive data types. This is a personal gripe of mine. I'd say that about 50+% of students who've completed CS1 can't give a clear answer as to what happens when you say "a=b" when both are references. Java doesn't help the situation with the class that most students first encounter - String. Because String is immutable, you can say "a=b" and it works. Even worse, most of the time you can get away with "a==b" for a comparison (because Java efficiently caches identical strings). I spend an inordinate amount of the Java courses I teach (to teachers, mostly) on this problem.
(3) C++ Syntax. In other words, a misplaced semicolon can still waste many hours of student's time for little pedagogical gain. Of course, this was simply a marketing trade off in the creation of Java.
(4) Overly complex environments. Of course, development is focused where there's money, which means education gets (for very little money, mind), what's developed for business. For educators, you generally want an environment that has the basic features but can get students writing programs within about 15 minutes. There are a few educationally focused Java IDEs out there. We have our own (Ready to Program), but there a number of others suitable IDE's out there such as BlueJ.
(5) The Java class libraries. This is both a good and a bad thing. With C++ there was never any question about teaching the Windows API. It just wasn't done. But with Java, you *have* to use part of the class libraries, and from there, it's a slipperly slope to (HORROR!) graphics, applets and GUIs. These can add a lot to a course, however, what concepts get eliminated so that you the fun stuff?
Aside: I've noticed a distinct reluctance when people suggest what should be added to CS1 to also suggest what should be removed so that it can fit. You only have so much time.
Anyway, that's a mini-capsule of what we've found. I could go on for hours (and do, as a few people at NECC will find out:-)).
Another Aside: Does anyone know any web sites that cover this topic in depth? I've been amazed at the paucity of web sites about high school/university CS instruction in general (lots of good individuals posting content, but few general resource gathering sites).
My company has had some experience with the C++/Java debate. Its sole business is providing materials for CS instruction in high schools and universities.
For the vast majority of high schools, the AP determines the sole language of instruction.
For the vast majority of colleges and universities, the perception of industrial relevance by the students and non-CS administration mandates what language will be used, regardless of the suitability for pedagogical purposes. Otherwise they might be using Pascal, Python or Turing.
What this means is that most faculties can only realistically teach either C++ or, now, Java. C++ was not well liked for a huge variety of documented reasons. We were able to give out 600+ "C++ Sucks!" buttons to attendees at the SIG-CSE (Computer Science Education conference) mostly on the strength of educators being forced to use a language that they considered unsuitable for use as a first language. Or as one educator put it:
If we don't teach C++, nobody takes the course. If we do teach C++, nobody passes the course.
Sun's marketing of Java has allowed it to be perceived as industrially relevant by the student body, who generally get their information from newspapers, magazines and want-ads. This means that Java has become an acceptable choice for teaching first year computer science.
(Generally, AP follows the general trend of CS1 a few years later. The quick switch from C++ to Java indicates, in my mind, a lot of unhappiness of high school teachers teaching C++.)
When weighing Java vs C++, it's not too suprising the Java comes out ahead in the minds of most CS educators.
Remember that, in general, the only real goal is the efficacy of the language in teaching the concepts covered in CS1. Things like actual efficiency (as opposed to the order of algorithms) is not really a concern of CS1. Things like garbage collection vs explicit freeing are also beyond CS1's purview.
Hence they look at syntax issues, ease of expression of algorithms, etc.
The 5 cents mailing cost are just a *tad* optimistic.
International mailing of a CD from Europe is probably in the range of $1-$2. The actual shipping container is probably about another 50 cents to $1. This doesn't include handling on their end (anyone care to stick 100,00 customs stickers?). So your probably looking at about $350,000.
You can do better than this by transshipping to the US and then mailing, but overall, the cost of the goods is an insignificant part of the cost of the mailing.
Rather than considering it a "donation" which is encumered with the feeling of "diverting money from non-profits" and "helping companies with unsound business models", think of it simply as dynamic pricing, where the decision of how much to charge is based on the real data of how much the customer is willing to pay.
But did any one else feel that the voice overs for this trailer (and even more so the previous one) simply cry out to be spoken with an English accent?
The current accent is simply too... flat.
It needs that feel of a sage found in an ancient library.
I'm not a free-marketer in general, but it's certainly not a right to have advertisment free entertainment. If the placed ads begin to detract from the enjoyment of the show, then it will start to lose viewers. Obviously, there's a sweet spot somewhere that maximizes revenue.
Is there any reason why the people who own the rights to the shows shouldn't be allowed to attempt to maximize their revenue? I don't see how society would suffer as a whole if the practice became widespread. Obviously the viewers lose, but that's the perogative of a seller who has what a buyer wants: in this case, entertainment.
Of course, when advertising and (theoretically) objective news mix, that's a whole different matter.
This condition has caused an awakening on the part of the Internet community-at-large.
The thing is littered with phrases like this. Repeat after me: YOU ARE NOT THE COMMUNITY. You do not represent me. Presuming to speak for other people is height of self-righteousness. It reminds me of ESR's entry in the Jargon File saying that the usage of "hacker" as someone who breaks into computers is "deprecated". ESR does not have the right deprecate anything for anyone else, and neither do any of you.
If they want this to be half-way effective, then they need to stick to the facts and not whine about how it makes the "culture" mad. If spam creates more ill-will than profit, then back it up with facts.
Oh come on. A society where no-one is allowed to speak for others is going to be one where you can't even decide where the group is going for lunch:-). Generalizations, when not mistaken for absolute consensus, are a necessary time saver.
I think that for about 99% of the readers, what the community is, and its generally (not absolutely) held opinion about spam is pretty obvious. Its a waste of time trying to cleanse the document of self-evident generalizations that can more productively be used elsewhere.
The only people it's going to annoy are those AR types who can't stand any generalizations. (Geez, I think I'll compain about dictionaries that designate expressions that I commonly use as "archaic"!:-))
Slashdot Mirror
How many PC's ship with the GeForce 3 as the base configuration (unlike its cheaprer cousin the MX)? The trouble is that the GeForce 3 with its power and expense is an ideal after-market card for those who want it.
However, portables don't have that option. Assuming that the price for the NV17M is anything like the GeForce 3 (and nVidia will have real problems with its vendors if it doesn't), you're looking at adding a few hundred dollars to the price of every portable for power that only a fraction of the users will want.
I can't see many manufacturers choosing this chip. I wonder what nVidia was thinking?
They tend to think more of features, and what can the enable, rather than what shouldn't be permitted. Allowing a macro to be automatically run on opening of a document, which can then have full access to the system, is a classic example.
I will point out that this exactly how the vast majority of people think as well. In most ways, MS is giving the customer exactly what they want.
People are not trained to think about computer security (and would probably give up on computers if they had to). Thus, they only see security measures as a hindrance. I've certainly heard people complain that Java applet's can't really to anything useful since they can't do what an ActiveX program can...
Blaming MS for badly thought out security is like blaming Hostess for making fatty foods. They're both addressing what there markets wants, not what "is good for them".
This all brings up a good question: why haven't Macintosh's or GameCube's marketers come up with a bench mark to put next to the processor speed? Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen a Macintosh commercial saying "comes with a G4 800 MHz, comparable to a P4 1.5 MHz."
The problem is that you can compare processors in far too many ways. Apple likes to use Adobe Altivec-enabled applications when it compares speed (big suprise), but the reality is that comparing two processors is only marginally more useful than comparing two human beings. Computers are far too multi-purpose to be able to come up with a useful comparison.
Processors are even worse... It's like trying to compare two brains without letting education or experience skew the comparison.
In the end, manufacturers will choose from the dozens of possible benchmarks to make their processor look the best (or make up their own if none of the others will do).
It's pretty clear that providing decent support is a good way to bankrupt your company.
Assume about 5% of machines have a problem. Average support is perhaps $300. (Tech support on an hourly basis is *incredibly* expensive when you factor everything in. The tech guy is pretty much the cheapest thing. Add in the cost of part, shipping, paperwork, etc.)
Well, the profit margin on a computer might be (after all costs) $30. It comes down to the fact that as soon as you provide decent tech support, every call probably costs you the profit you earned on 10 machines!
If you never have the unhappy customers buy a machine again, you lose 5% of your customers. On the other hand, you're gaining from the 5% of people who bought from other companies and didn't get decent tech support.
You *might* gain an extra few percent from people who've heard that you have good support, but in all likelihood, many of them will require tech support, (which is why they want to use you) in which case you lose your shirt again.
If you raise your margins so that you can provide decent support, then you lose sales massively. The market is almost entirely price bound. There is no equivalent of BMW or other names that "mean quality" that people are willing to pay for (despite what Apple would desperately hope for).
Somebody claimed that Dell's support has gone through the floor. But killing decent support is what has enabled them to lower the price of their machines and kill the competition.
Of course, with razor margins they can't afford to replace a defective machine. Their only choices are to
(1) Raise their prices so they can afford to replace mechines with design defects (= backruptcy),
(2) Innovate only incredibly slowly so they can catch any possible design defects (= backruptcy), or
(3) stiff you.
The only way a company can afford to provide support is to make it a seperate chargeable item. That way the profits on the support contracts can pay for actually providing decent support.
Same with dealers. Any dealer that actually had a large enough margin to provide service or support went bankrupt 10 years ago.
Of course, the only thing that can reverse this is laws to avoid it. Unfortunately, local (i.e. state) laws don't work. Local shops go under as customers buy from states without the laws in order to get a better price.
In other words, don't expect decent support any time soon.
Waiting for Frodo
As I see it, the main problem with software quality control is that companies have to get product out by a certain deadline so that they can charge customers enough to stay in business. Remember, 99.9% of software houses are not raking in cash. Most make enough to stay in business, but there aren't a lot of Microsofts or Oracles out there.
If you are going to release bug free products, then you'll simply need to spend perhaps twice as much time, which means half us many new releases.
In other words, you've got to double the price.
Now, just how many CIO's aren't going to seriously consider switching vendors when a software house says they're doubling the price in order to get better quality control...
At least with subscription, the software house no longer has the desperate need to push a product out whether its ready or not.
The following article assumes that you are claiming that (1) you are essentially impervious to any advertising and (2) you are annoyed about having to be exposed to the (useless) advertising.
Can you explain to my why, if it were possible, Slashdot shouldn't give you the boot?
As a user of Slashdot, you are using their resources. If there is no advertising that can reach you (which is different from saying that you haven't seen any ads on Slashdot that interest you), then they are simply wasting their money serving you. Why shouldn't they cut you off?
I'll admit, the tone of the above paragraph was in response to the "how dare they advertise to me!" tone of the parent article. If you want to use resources free of charge, expect to pay for them by being exposed to advertisements. If you don't like the exposure, stop using the resource!
Similarly, we may find that most Afghanis applaud us as we take out the Taliban, even if we go outside of 'ethics' to do it.
Um, I think the idea behind of the quote was that most Los Angeles inhabitants might not be too thrilled about air strikes in downtown L.A. and the ethics of killing many civilians in order to destroy a criminal is kind of questionable. It tends to smack of the "better 10 innocents die than a guilty man go free" mindset.
Likewise, I'm certain that many Afghani would be happy about a change in government, if it wasn't for the fact that the citizenry are going to take the brunt of the casualties in any attack.
Maybe, just maybe, they had criteria other than "must sound like 'eowulf' when they made a decision ?
:-). Especially given that the new authors would likely be brilliant physics grad students who've taken (maybe) a single CS course.
:-))
Actually, in a lot of supercomputing fields, the decision is heavily based on "it must run Cray Fortran compiler in optimal fashion". There are simply huge amounts of Fortran code, much of which was written and optimized 20 years ago by brilliant graduate students who have taken maybe a single CS course, that would have to be rewritten moving to any other platform.
Rewriting all this code for a different system would make the Y2K update of all "that Cobol code where the source listing had been obsoleted because they'd modified the binaries because compilation took to long" seem like a walk in the park
(Cray may supply F90, but I'd bet Cray's spend most of their time running amazingly optimized F55 code
We've long passed the stage where the government would be willing to pay for the internet. If business cannot make sufficient profit off the net, then they will abandon it.
.yahoo's die. The on-line advertising market dies completely. Slashdot disappears.
People here seem to forget that the pre-corporate internet was a heck of a lot smaller and exclusive and had about 1/100th the information (okay about 1/10th the *useful* information) that the internet holds now. Sites like slashdot depend on corporate presence to keep themselves alive.
Obviously the article chose as inflammatory comments as possible (standard media trick), but the thesis is valid. If nobody can make money on the internet, it *will* go away.
Imagine: First go most of the ".com" destination sites that are the reaons that many users use the internet: Amazon, Napster, etc.
Second, Usage patterns drop across the board because lots of people don't have a reason to log on. Suddenly, all the barely viable high speed internet providers (or non-viable that were getting funding based on ever increasing user growth) die out. So much for sub-$500/month high speed access.
With the death of high speed access, a whole section of the rest of the corporate world disappears as funding based on a high speed future disappears.
Then the
Finally, we're back to the old days, except this time, the government isn't footing the bill. University funding isn't exactly what it used to be either, so many universities can't afford the cost. Soon, we have the priviledged few with internet access provided by their university visiting a few university web sites. Prices for everything internet related are many times higher as economies of scale have evaporated. Most companies won't touch the internet with a 20' pole in the usual way of business (it's the greatest thing since sliced bread or it's deadly poison!)
Doesn't sound like much fun.
It's a pretty apocalyptic vision, but it's not entirely out of line.
Anyway, trying to create a more business-friendly internet doesn't have to be completely at odds with the open nature of the internet. Even IBM's net (forget what it was called) hosted large numbers of mailing lists in its day.
Well, we use Jikes to compile the program, so it really is only the JRE that we need.
It's subpara (i) that you quoted that causes us grief (and is in a different form in the 1.1 license)
(i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs
We're not redistributing JRE to run our program, we're redistributing it to run the user's programs, ergo we're out of luck.
If you can come up with a different intrepretation, please email me at west@hsa.on.ca. (It's not like anybody at Sun is ever going to notice or care whether JRE ships with our product or not, but it's my responsibility to make certain we are completely compliant with any applicable licenses).
People might like to look at the JRE license agreement before they talk about free redistribution. The agreement *clearly* states that it's *only* allowed to be redistributed for the *sole* purpose of running the *accompanying* Java program. (JRE 1.2 and above)
:-(.
In other words, you can't give JRE to somebody else to allow them to run their program.
How do I know this? I've been trying to get permission from somebody at Sun to redistribute the JRE with our educational Java IDE for months. So far, no go. Even worse, you can't even purchase a license to redistribute it because it's "freely redistributable" and there is no provision at Sun for licensing it
My sales guy at Sun has tried heroically, but the lawyers have the final say.
Now, we're just small (well, miniscule) fry compared to the manufacturers, but it certainly means prolonged negotiation with Sun before obtaining permission to put it on their machines.
If the company was smart, they would say "show me the warrant". Then when the cops show up with the warrant, let just the cops in, 'cause the BSA won't be listed on the warrant, only the cops.
Who will then have no choice but to confiscate every machine in the place for evidence. You *may*, depending on jurisdiction, get your machines back anywhere from 6 months to 2 years afterwards, unless, of course, investigation finds any pirated materials, in which case, you lose all the machines for the indefinite future.
The police use this to shutdown any number of small piracy joints. They never make it to court because the companies have ceased to exist in the meanwhile.
Of course, if you're really high profile and the police are complete idiots, you can sue, but it's unlikely you'll be in business long enough to do so.
That's right -- I forgot about this particular point. Unions are the crutch of the left wing here in the US, and I sure as heck don't want a dime of my paycheck going to prop them up.
:-). Sort of evens out.
Luckily for you, there's pretty good odds that the company that you work for chooses to use its money to prop up a right wing party
While Java is usually considered more suitable than C++ for CS1, Java has a number of deficiencies from an educational perspective.
:-)).
Remember that in general, the only issues that matter are those that make it harder to teach the general CS1 concepts. Speed of Java execution is *not* an issue for most. (By the way, please note the word "in general" and "most". There are counter-examples, but one generalizations about the teaching of CS1 are, in my experience, fairly accurate.) For what its worth, my experience is 14 years of producing/selling resources for teaching computer science in universities/high schools.
(1) No simple I/O package. To read an integer from the keyboard takes multiple lines of code. Most programs are not pedagogically improved by adding mandatory error trapping. The solution, of course, is helper classes. My company produces its own, but many are available free over the net. Interestingly enough, while 2 years ago, most university teachers were not interested in helper classes, or in books using them ("I teach pure Java"), there has been a fundamental shift towards the use of them over the last year. The other alternatives are a lot of handwaving ("use this block of code, don't ask why") or using applets only or have all your examples carefully not every need integer input from the keyboard. Each of these techniques are used in different books.
(2) References are Hidden. The fact that many variables are references and can't be treated the same way as primitive data types. This is a personal gripe of mine. I'd say that about 50+% of students who've completed CS1 can't give a clear answer as to what happens when you say "a=b" when both are references. Java doesn't help the situation with the class that most students first encounter - String. Because String is immutable, you can say "a=b" and it works. Even worse, most of the time you can get away with "a==b" for a comparison (because Java efficiently caches identical strings). I spend an inordinate amount of the Java courses I teach (to teachers, mostly) on this problem.
(3) C++ Syntax. In other words, a misplaced semicolon can still waste many hours of student's time for little pedagogical gain. Of course, this was simply a marketing trade off in the creation of Java.
(4) Overly complex environments. Of course, development is focused where there's money, which means education gets (for very little money, mind), what's developed for business. For educators, you generally want an environment that has the basic features but can get students writing programs within about 15 minutes. There are a few educationally focused Java IDEs out there. We have our own (Ready to Program), but there a number of others suitable IDE's out there such as BlueJ.
(5) The Java class libraries. This is both a good and a bad thing. With C++ there was never any question about teaching the Windows API. It just wasn't done. But with Java, you *have* to use part of the class libraries, and from there, it's a slipperly slope to (HORROR!) graphics, applets and GUIs. These can add a lot to a course, however, what concepts get eliminated so that you the fun stuff?
Aside: I've noticed a distinct reluctance when people suggest what should be added to CS1 to also suggest what should be removed so that it can fit. You only have so much time.
Anyway, that's a mini-capsule of what we've found. I could go on for hours (and do, as a few people at NECC will find out
Another Aside: Does anyone know any web sites that cover this topic in depth? I've been amazed at the paucity of web sites about high school/university CS instruction in general (lots of good individuals posting content, but few general resource gathering sites).
My company has had some experience with the C++/Java debate. Its sole business is providing materials for CS instruction in high schools and universities.
For the vast majority of high schools, the AP determines the sole language of instruction.
For the vast majority of colleges and universities, the perception of industrial relevance by the students and non-CS administration mandates what language will be used, regardless of the suitability for pedagogical purposes. Otherwise they might be using Pascal, Python or Turing.
What this means is that most faculties can only realistically teach either C++ or, now, Java. C++ was not well liked for a huge variety of documented reasons. We were able to give out 600+ "C++ Sucks!" buttons to attendees at the SIG-CSE (Computer Science Education conference) mostly on the strength of educators being forced to use a language that they considered unsuitable for use as a first language. Or as one educator put it:
If we don't teach C++, nobody takes the course. If we do teach C++, nobody passes the course.
Sun's marketing of Java has allowed it to be perceived as industrially relevant by the student body, who generally get their information from newspapers, magazines and want-ads. This means that Java has become an acceptable choice for teaching first year computer science.
(Generally, AP follows the general trend of CS1 a few years later. The quick switch from C++ to Java indicates, in my mind, a lot of unhappiness of high school teachers teaching C++.)
When weighing Java vs C++, it's not too suprising the Java comes out ahead in the minds of most CS educators.
Remember that, in general, the only real goal is the efficacy of the language in teaching the concepts covered in CS1. Things like actual efficiency (as opposed to the order of algorithms) is not really a concern of CS1. Things like garbage collection vs explicit freeing are also beyond CS1's purview.
Hence they look at syntax issues, ease of expression of algorithms, etc.
All opinions are mine, not my company's.
and while your opinions won't be absolutely followed all the time like it was when she was 5
:-)
Heh. In my dreams. I'd be speechless if my 3 year old listened to my opinion
The 5 cents mailing cost are just a *tad* optimistic.
International mailing of a CD from Europe is probably in the range of $1-$2. The actual shipping container is probably about another 50 cents to $1. This doesn't include handling on their end (anyone care to stick 100,00 customs stickers?). So your probably looking at about $350,000.
You can do better than this by transshipping to the US and then mailing, but overall, the cost of the goods is an insignificant part of the cost of the mailing.
Seems pretty clever. I wonder how long it will be before somebody claims a patent violation.
Microsoft has indicated that it is intent on continued growth of 20% a year.
:-).
Has anyone calculated just how many years it will be before Microsoft corporate strategy requires that they own everything?
Rather than considering it a "donation" which is encumered with the feeling of "diverting money from non-profits" and "helping companies with unsound business models", think of it simply as dynamic pricing, where the decision of how much to charge is based on the real data of how much the customer is willing to pay.
Finally, dynamic pricing that works!
But did any one else feel that the voice overs for this trailer (and even more so the previous one) simply cry out to be spoken with an English accent?
The current accent is simply too... flat.
It needs that feel of a sage found in an ancient library.
I'm not a free-marketer in general, but it's certainly not a right to have advertisment free entertainment. If the placed ads begin to detract from the enjoyment of the show, then it will start to lose viewers. Obviously, there's a sweet spot somewhere that maximizes revenue.
Is there any reason why the people who own the rights to the shows shouldn't be allowed to attempt to maximize their revenue? I don't see how society would suffer as a whole if the practice became widespread. Obviously the viewers lose, but that's the perogative of a seller who has what a buyer wants: in this case, entertainment.
Of course, when advertising and (theoretically) objective news mix, that's a whole different matter.
This condition has caused an awakening on the part of the Internet community-at-large.
The thing is littered with phrases like this. Repeat after me: YOU ARE NOT THE COMMUNITY. You do not represent me. Presuming to speak for other people is height of self-righteousness. It reminds me of ESR's entry in the Jargon File saying that the usage of "hacker" as someone who breaks into computers is "deprecated". ESR does not have the right deprecate anything for anyone else, and neither do any of you.
If they want this to be half-way effective, then they need to stick to the facts and not whine about how it makes the "culture" mad. If spam creates more ill-will than profit, then back it up with facts.
Oh come on. A society where no-one is allowed to speak for others is going to be one where you can't even decide where the group is going for lunch
I think that for about 99% of the readers, what the community is, and its generally (not absolutely) held opinion about spam is pretty obvious. Its a waste of time trying to cleanse the document of self-evident generalizations that can more productively be used elsewhere.
The only people it's going to annoy are those AR types who can't stand any generalizations. (Geez, I think I'll compain about dictionaries that designate expressions that I commonly use as "archaic"!