And most realize it. Find a project that interests you. Start using it. Download the source and play with it. Subscribe to the mailing-lists/forums etc. Once you are comfortable and think you know what is going on start filing bug reports, submitting patches, and participating in discussions. Concentrate initially on the boring stuff nobody likes to do such as sorting through old bugs and cleaning up documentation. Eventually you'll be offered commit provileges.
...of the probability of an event and a firm prediction you might be better off keeping your money in your mattress. Let's see how they do on average over the next hundred or so World Cups.
But then, "predicting financial markets" is not what I use banks for anyway. YMMV.
> I know I'd hate to have to debug an app on an OS that randomized the memory > addresses each time I ran my code. Much better to be able to enable this > sort of thing in the release builds.
You can turn randomization off on your development machine when you need to. You still should write code that will run with it on as it should be on production machines.
Right. Far better that millions have no access to such a test at all than that people be given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they can handle it.
...can I sell it for most of what I'd pay for it? Otherwise I'm better of going to America's Best and getting an exam plus two pairs of glasses for $70.
This might actually be interesting if it worked on a computers other than "smartphones" and required no special device.
> I fail to see how it would be of any benefit to us for IBM to take that > stance.
Most of IBM's suppliers probably contract out their Web site. The more often such contractors hear "Our site is broken. It doesn't work with Firefox. Fix it. Now." the better.
Better yet, of course, would be an IBM boycott of all-Flash sites.
> The fact that a company employed wrong web designers/programmers doesn't > mean it's not good in what *it* does
One of the things that a company does is support its products. These days that usually involves their Web site. If that's broken so is their support. Now, maybe your company's products and/or prices are so much better than those of your competition that you can afford to inconvenience your customers. Most companies, however, have competitors that are pretty damn close to them in all objective measures. If you make it hard for IBM to use your Web site while they make it easy...
> I hope this means that if IBM can't navigate a vendor's site with Firefox, > they'll just look elsewhere.
I hope this means that if IBM can't navigate a vendor's site with Firefox they'll tell the vendor why he is losing the sale.
Buyer: "I tried to check on your Web site as you suggested but it doesn't seem to work with Firefox." Salesman: "Oh, yes. We only support IE." Buyer: "Get back to me when you've fixed your site."
> They win doing either one. But I argue until they fall into #2 they're with > the intent to obscure.
Their intent is not to obscure the content of the transmissions from third parties: the FCC (or anyone else with the cash) can buy the equipment and listen in. That is what the rule is about.
Slashdot Mirror
And most realize it. Find a project that interests you. Start using it. Download the source and play with it. Subscribe to the mailing-lists/forums etc. Once you are comfortable and think you know what is going on start filing bug reports, submitting patches, and participating in discussions. Concentrate initially on the boring stuff nobody likes to do such as sorting through old bugs and cleaning up documentation. Eventually you'll be offered commit provileges.
...of the probability of an event and a firm prediction you might be better off keeping your money in your mattress. Let's see how they do on average over the next hundred or so World Cups.
But then, "predicting financial markets" is not what I use banks for anyway. YMMV.
> I know I'd hate to have to debug an app on an OS that randomized the memory
> addresses each time I ran my code. Much better to be able to enable this
> sort of thing in the release builds.
You can turn randomization off on your development machine when you need to. You still should write code that will run with it on as it should be on production machines.
> Unfortunately here in the US this would require a change to the law the
> healthcare industry bought...
The industry would love to be able to sell you glasses over the counter (or over the Web). You wanted "regulation" and "oversight". You got it.
Last time I needed new glasses I went to America's Best and got two pairs plus an exam for $70.
That's an excellent idea.
Yes. Buggy ones.
Right. Far better that millions have no access to such a test at all than that people be given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they can handle it.
Too bad he doesn't provide source.
...can I sell it for most of what I'd pay for it? Otherwise I'm better of going to America's Best and getting an exam plus two pairs of glasses for $70.
This might actually be interesting if it worked on a computers other than "smartphones" and required no special device.
> More importantly, what are the trend lines?
Because as we all know, nothing is more important than being trendy.
Surely that would create lots of jobs.
...if they don't fight "piracy" will come later.
> I don't even use the damn thing...
If you did you would not have been so fast to "spot the hoax" (self-parody, actually).
> As annoying as Apple's various lockdowns are, at least they've managed to
> maintain control of their hardware.
And I'n sure things would be just peachy had IBM done likewise.
> I fail to see how it would be of any benefit to us for IBM to take that
> stance.
Most of IBM's suppliers probably contract out their Web site. The more often such contractors hear "Our site is broken. It doesn't work with Firefox. Fix it. Now." the better.
Better yet, of course, would be an IBM boycott of all-Flash sites.
> The fact that a company employed wrong web designers/programmers doesn't
> mean it's not good in what *it* does
One of the things that a company does is support its products. These days that usually involves their Web site. If that's broken so is their support. Now, maybe your company's products and/or prices are so much better than those of your competition that you can afford to inconvenience your customers. Most companies, however, have competitors that are pretty damn close to them in all objective measures. If you make it hard for IBM to use your Web site while they make it easy...
> I hope this means that if IBM can't navigate a vendor's site with Firefox,
> they'll just look elsewhere.
I hope this means that if IBM can't navigate a vendor's site with Firefox they'll tell the vendor why he is losing the sale.
Buyer: "I tried to check on your Web site as you suggested but it doesn't seem to work with Firefox." Salesman: "Oh, yes. We only support IE." Buyer: "Get back to me when you've fixed your site."
He said earthshaking, not Earth-destroying. Sad to see that he is going to waste more time on typesetting, though.
Yes it is dishonest, but it isn't plagiarism when, as in this case, you have the author's permission to pass it off as your work.
...but I find that I cannot express my opinion of Mr. Wells without resorting to obscenity.
They promise at least a B, but with grade inflation isn't a B now equivalent to a D in my day?
Academic fraud, yes. Unethical, yes. But where's the plagiarism? As far as I can tell the papers are original.
> what about stripclubs or porn shops? Those are unethical...
Not by my ethics.
...and get a raise.
> They win doing either one. But I argue until they fall into #2 they're with
> the intent to obscure.
Their intent is not to obscure the content of the transmissions from third parties: the FCC (or anyone else with the cash) can buy the equipment and listen in. That is what the rule is about.
> There is no 'it must be commercial' clause.
True, but there is also no 'statutory damages' clause. You are not going to be sued in US Federal court for $2.00.