Actually, it has been estimated to get all of Mars with breathable atmosphere of sufficient pressure to enable to walking aournd without a pressure suit, that it would, in fact, take over a thousand years. However, several schemes have been proposed that would raise the over all atmospheric pressure only somewhat, but would raise the atmospheric pressure in some of the deeper canyons to a level sufficient that a human could walk around with just an oxygen mask. Such proposals estimate that it would "only" take 1-2 hundred years to accomplich something like that. Just some food for thought. I haven't seen the movie, and it sounds like they don't take any of this into account, but there is some intersting science on terraforming out there. It doesn't make it like earth, but it does make it "liveable".
Why do you deserve to steal the product of my labor for no cost. Whether idea or physical object, why should I have any obligation to "give" you the product of my labor.
If I am the only one to come up with an idea, build an implementation of that idea, and sell it at what I deem it is worth, how can you possibly defend stealing that idea (theft being much cheaper than creation) and competing against me? I agree, under those circumstances, I wouldn't release idea or product x, either.
At my current job, to weed out the "Senior Programmer" wannabes from those that could really code, they give a VERY simple coding test:
Three methods, one little purpose, all wrapped in a single class.
As we are a Java shop, the test is in Java. You would be surprised at the number of people we talk to that seem really good on paper, and the initial interview, but flub the test, or just get up and leave.
Just to give you an idea, the test took me about 15 minutes to complete, compile, and demonstrate. Some people take a few hours and never even get close.
The purpose of the test is to separate those who can from those who can't, and to give a very rudimentary idea of the person's coding style. I think the approach is great, and would now do the same if I start my own company.
In a society with less hierarchy and greater equality, intrinsic motivation and satisfaction would be the main returns from contributing to intellectual developments. This is quite compatible with everything that is known about human nature. [31] The system of ownership encourages groups to put special interests above general interests. Sharing information is undoubtedly the most efficient way to allocate productive resources. The less there is to gain from credit for ideas, the more likely people are to share ideas rather than worry about who deserves credit for them.
Didn't someone already try this? I mean, this is no more free than the system it critiques. Instead of system that can (forcefully) prevent people from obtaining information or idea that you have, this says that we should establish a system in which people can (forcefully) take ideas that you don't want to share, "for the sake of humanity."
If current ip law is theft from humanity, how is what this guy is proposing anything but theft from the individual?
While it is couched in a very academic tone and wording, this paper (propaganda?) is the most ridiculous(as in, deserving of ridicule) argument against current ip law I have ever seen.
Follow this argument to its logical conclusion:
First we abolish Ip law, and find that such a jolt destroys much of the economic structure of the Western world.
Suffering from such a jolt, the gov't decides to place workers where they can be of the most benefit, regardless of desire (Hey! It is for the greater good).
Finding that private ownership of tangible goods still has too much of an effect on the equality of outcomes all property becomes owned by the state.
No need for money, because the gov't chooses what you do and what you get based on the good of society.
What are you left with?
No money, no property, no freedom, NO FREE WILL.
I would say that was a much bigger damper on "artistic creativity" than the current system.
This guy sounds a lot like the people who chase off the prime movers in Atlas Shrugged.
I hope (and so should you) that I never have to live in a world as such as the one described by this "social scientist".
Has anyone noticed that this technology is coming from the same company that also invested heavily in Iridium, which was(is?) plagued by bulky and heavy handsets that have trouble sending a clear signal inside buildings?
Instead of just making the current devices run longer, this technology might also be slated to increase the viability of technology like Iridium gaining broader customer appeal.
After all, when you spend billions to launch a bunch of satellites, what is a few million more in fuel cell research to make the system viable?
This same technology might also make many technologies we don't currently think of as portable, portable. Try thinking of replacing the plug, not swapping to a different battery.
If all I could do was use MSOffice, I would not be toted by Microsoft as a Software executive. What does this term really mean? I thought it had something to do with understanding the process by which the software worked, or at least understanding the mechanism by which it is produced. Is an auto mechanic who uses an Access form to enter his time card a software executive? Is the checker at Walmart, who uses a computer all day (integrated into the cash register/scanner) a software executive? I think this kid does a great job at software USAGE. But by the definition in the article, thousands, no millions, of people fall into the same category.
If Microsoft was building OS's before Linux existed, and they were superior then, and they are superior now, as stated in the article,
Why does Linux exist today?
It seems unreasonable that so many smart people wasted so much time, working for free, to build an inferior product.
Why is an "inferior" OS growing in usage if Windows NT is such a clear choice?
Why does Microsoft feel the need to write an article that states that everyone should already know everything in the article they are writing? Do they simply love being redundant?
Fear.
That is the only thing I can reason that answers all of these questions. (They are definitely not doing it out of concern for the consumer.)
Is Sun going to release the source..?
on
HotSpot arrives
·
· Score: 1
Sun is going to release the source, but not under its Community Source License (it says this on Sun's site). The source will be available for a flat fee. See here check the third question.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it has been estimated to get all of Mars with breathable atmosphere of sufficient pressure to enable to walking aournd without a pressure suit, that it would, in fact, take over a thousand years. However, several schemes have been proposed that would raise the over all atmospheric pressure only somewhat, but would raise the atmospheric pressure in some of the deeper canyons to a level sufficient that a human could walk around with just an oxygen mask. Such proposals estimate that it would "only" take 1-2 hundred years to accomplich something like that. Just some food for thought. I haven't seen the movie, and it sounds like they don't take any of this into account, but there is some intersting science on terraforming out there. It doesn't make it like earth, but it does make it "liveable".
Why do you deserve to steal the product of my labor for no cost. Whether idea or physical object, why should I have any obligation to "give" you the product of my labor.
If I am the only one to come up with an idea, build an implementation of that idea, and sell it at what I deem it is worth, how can you possibly defend stealing that idea (theft being much cheaper than creation) and competing against me? I agree, under those circumstances, I wouldn't release idea or product x, either.
Go invent or build your own whatever.
At my current job, to weed out the "Senior Programmer" wannabes from those that could really code, they give a VERY simple coding test:
Three methods, one little purpose, all wrapped in a single class.
As we are a Java shop, the test is in Java. You would be surprised at the number of people we talk to that seem really good on paper, and the initial interview, but flub the test, or just get up and leave.
Just to give you an idea, the test took me about 15 minutes to complete, compile, and demonstrate. Some people take a few hours and never even get close.
The purpose of the test is to separate those who can from those who can't, and to give a very rudimentary idea of the person's coding style. I think the approach is great, and would now do the same if I start my own company.
In a society with less hierarchy and greater equality, intrinsic motivation and satisfaction would be the main returns from contributing to intellectual developments. This is quite compatible with everything that is known about human nature. [31] The system of ownership encourages groups to put special interests above general interests. Sharing information is undoubtedly the most efficient way to allocate productive resources. The less there is to gain from credit for ideas, the more likely people are to share ideas rather than worry about who deserves credit for them.
Didn't someone already try this? I mean, this is no more free than the system it critiques. Instead of system that can (forcefully) prevent people from obtaining information or idea that you have, this says that we should establish a system in which people can (forcefully) take ideas that you don't want to share, "for the sake of humanity."
If current ip law is theft from humanity, how is what this guy is proposing anything but theft from the individual?
While it is couched in a very academic tone and wording, this paper (propaganda?) is the most ridiculous(as in, deserving of ridicule) argument against current ip law I have ever seen.
Follow this argument to its logical conclusion:
First we abolish Ip law, and find that such a jolt destroys much of the economic structure of the Western world.
Suffering from such a jolt, the gov't decides to place workers where they can be of the most benefit, regardless of desire (Hey! It is for the greater good).
Finding that private ownership of tangible goods still has too much of an effect on the equality of outcomes all property becomes owned by the state.
No need for money, because the gov't chooses what you do and what you get based on the good of society.
What are you left with?
No money, no property, no freedom, NO FREE WILL.
I would say that was a much bigger damper on "artistic creativity" than the current system.
This guy sounds a lot like the people who chase off the prime movers in Atlas Shrugged.
I hope (and so should you) that I never have to live in a world as such as the one described by this "social scientist".
zor_prime
Has anyone noticed that this technology is coming from the same company that also invested heavily in Iridium, which was(is?) plagued by bulky and heavy handsets that have trouble sending a clear signal inside buildings?
Instead of just making the current devices run longer, this technology might also be slated to increase the viability of technology like Iridium gaining broader customer appeal.
After all, when you spend billions to launch a bunch of satellites, what is a few million more in fuel cell research to make the system viable?
This same technology might also make many technologies we don't currently think of as portable, portable. Try thinking of replacing the plug, not swapping to a different battery.
Zor
If all I could do was use MSOffice, I would not be toted by Microsoft as a Software executive. What does this term really mean? I thought it had something to do with understanding the process by which the software worked, or at least understanding the mechanism by which it is produced.
Is an auto mechanic who uses an Access form to enter his time card a software executive? Is the checker at Walmart, who uses a computer all day (integrated into the cash register/scanner) a software executive?
I think this kid does a great job at software USAGE. But by the definition in the article, thousands, no millions, of people fall into the same category.
The premise is that Linux is not any good.
Then answer these questions:
If Microsoft was building OS's before Linux existed, and they were superior then, and they are superior now, as stated in the article,
Why does Linux exist today?
It seems unreasonable that so many smart people wasted so much time, working for free, to build an inferior product.
Why is an "inferior" OS growing in usage if Windows NT is such a clear choice?
Why does Microsoft feel the need to write an article that states that everyone should already know everything in the article they are writing? Do they simply love being redundant?
Fear.
That is the only thing I can reason that answers all of these questions. (They are definitely not doing it out of concern for the consumer.)
Sun is going to release the source, but not under its Community Source License (it says this on Sun's site). The source will be available for a flat fee. See here check the third question.