Well, you're thinking along the correct lines: Culver has certain skills and knowledge, and that is of a certain value to Carnival. You can tell how much by looking at how much they offered him, which is not much.
(I would guess that they have made much more attractive offers to a few other employees; they don't need many in order to ensure that "knowledge of the existing infrastructure/software/practices/setup" is not lost.)
Either the UK will go through with Brexit or its political class will find a way around the majority decision; either way, there are turbulent times ahead. What does this have to do with technology? Why is this crap on Slashdot?
Why is Carnival entitled to offshore without consequences?
For the same reason you can choose your barber, your nanny, and your brand of TV: we live in a free society that respects private property and free association.
Remind them that the American (US) way of life is nonnegotiable.
It sounds to me that you need to be reminded of that, because you are advocating destroying it.
Why shouldn't they be charged a tariff to recoup the costs of benefiting from the US protection?
You're right: such special job protections are like an extra tariff. Now think about what happens with that money. Tax payers pay for the protection, but the benefits from that protection go to a small group of already highly paid employees. Thanks for illustrating government corruption and special interest lobbying so nicely.
You mean scientists got funding to do research, and after doing said research, they drew some conclusions based on the facts gathered.
No, I mean what I said: one part of the US government supports fossil fuel production and use, while another part hypes up fear about climate change, and yet another hands vast amount of money in subsidies to "alternative energy" companies. They have all been done at the same time by several administrations, including the Obama administration.
So, ooloorie, do you hand your two year old a Camel while dressing her in asbestos pajamas, before putting her to bed in her lead-painted crib? Just to stick it to those librul scientists with an agenda, before you give her a glass of arsenic-laden drinking water in the morning.
Being a "librul scientist" myself, no I don't, because I actually know better. You sound like you come from a progressive family, though, so there is a good chance that your parents did that to you, given that asbestos, lead paint, and city water supplies were the latest thing and fully approved by the government. Perhaps that explains some of your deficits.
If not, why not? What's the substantive difference between you and Jenny McCarthy?
She's a lot prettier than me. Oh, and I'm a scientist and don't believe vaccines cause autism. I'm also a liberal, however, which means that I respect her right to make her own choices even if I believe she is wrong. Liberalism, you should try it some time!
At least that (at least likely) won't happen with Google.
Perhaps not in your household, but there are lots of places in the US where "OK, go gal!" is still considered acceptable when talking to one's girlfriend/wife/daughter.
Apart from the fact that both Amazon Echo and Google Home are Internet-connected listening devices, they just don't work very well. Recognition is still quite imperfect, there is no notion of a dialog or context with these devices, and extensibility and interoperability is at the whim and business convenience of the companies making these devices.
Speech recognition and AI should function be local, not cloud-based; they shouldn't be tied to one or the other "ecosystem", and they should be locally extensible. And they need to work better than the overpriced, underperforming, bloated gadgets Google and Amazong are shipping. A company that delivers that may "own" voice. Right now, Amazon owns the voice market in the same way Chiapet owns the pet market: its product is related to the real market in name only.
Not if he fires all of them that have an idea about what the grant proposals are about.
Right now, we're spending about $10 billion on climate change. It's the job of the agencies wanting this money to make a compelling argument to the new administration for why we should continue spending it. Individual grant proposals have nothing to do with such cost/benefit analyses.
And we've dug through enough debate to hit crazy-town. Try to burn it all down. Good luck with that.
Yes, crazy talk! How could anybody even imagine getting rid of pointless federal bureaucracies, bureaucracies that the country was doing fine without for nearly 200 years! Obviously, the only possibility evaaaah is to increase federal spending and the federal bureaucracy!
Wu "says her extensive technical knowledge and experience fighting the alt-right and harassment and will be advantageous for a Congressional representative."
May she be as successful running as a Congresscritter as she has been as a game designer. And if, in a paroxysm of insanity, the good people of Massachusetts elect her to Congress, they get the representation they deserve.
invented peer-to-peer technology that moves the burden of data transfer from a centralized source to the crowd.
Modern P2P file sharing arguably started with Napster and eDonkey in 1999, not BitTorrent. But even those systems really just represented a mass market adoption of earlier methods that people had used to share files on the Internet and even on USENET.
Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here? What if I'm a real terr orist? I will either specify no social profile at all, or specify the one meant for fooling everyone.
Yes, you're missing something. They don't want to use social media accounts to discover ties to terrorism (although they may get lucky; terrorists aren't very smart), they want to use social media accounts to identify travelers that they don't need to spend resources on so that they can focus on those where they need to dig deeper. For example, someone who, according to both LinkedIn and Facebook, has been an Italian accountant for 20 years with lots of real, identifiable Italian connections is (1) likely to return to Italy, and (2) unlikely to blow people up; and such profiles are probably also difficult to fake. Presumably, they are also only starting to figure out how they want to use this data.
This it could actually help people from developing countries most, countries where police reports and other information on citizens isn't as reliable or complete as it is in Europe.
I still don't think this is going to work very well, but it's not quite as dumb an idea as you make it out to be.
As numerous failures from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google show, it takes more than tons of money, a lot of engineers, and a desire to enter a market in order to actually be competitive in it.
Paying for research that backs up your position is advocacy.
Correct, and that is something to keep in mind when the US government spends close to $10 billion on research related to climate change.
Complete dumbfuckery. The USG has an overwhelming bias towards fossil fuel production.
One part of the US government supports fossil fuel production and use, while another part hypes up fear about climate change, and yet another hands vast amount of money in subsidies to "alternative energy" companies. Those positions are contradictory as energy policy, but the goal of government isn't to have consistent and useful policies, it is to increase its own size and power.
And that's just under the tenure of the "liberal" President Obama.
You say that as if there were some contradiction; in fact, modern liberalism and crony capitalism go hand in hand.
I've already explained it. We're talking about what would have hypothetically happened if Google had did to.NET what they did to Java. It would have depended on what they actually did.
We know what Google got sued for by Oracle, and Microsoft could not have sued for the same things.
But I see you chose not to reply to that when I corrected your bullshit about Mono.
I didn't notice that you attempted to make a factual statement or a technical argument; try harder next time.
The government still needs to help alleviate the massive joblessness resulting from the loss of the buggy whip industry! Right now, those poor displaced workers are just barely getting by on thankless jobs like software development, movie script writing, game design, biotech, 3D printing, etc.!
What you haven't explained is how this makes.NET proprietary or how it is a threat to open source software.
Bull-fucking-shit. First off, C# wasn't "much better", it was a reasonable improvement of the Java platform
Well, I'm glad we agree that it was an improvement. Whether it was "minimal" depends on what your needs are.
they essentially copied
Yes, just like Java copied large parts of other platforms and systems; it's how software works.
Second, those guarantees were minimal for the time, as I've already argued.
You can try to "minimize" them, but the fact remains that Microsoft couldn't have sued Google for the things that Oracle sued Google for. And Oracle's lawsuit was foreseeable even a decade earlier.
We also need to remember that Trump lives in the umpteenth floor of a skyscraper. So even in the worst case he will remain good and dry.
Whereas the Democrats supporting action on climate change live in their government-insured multi-million dollar beach homes while their "green energy businesses" that do nothing to prevent climate change rake in billions in subsidies and "grants". Let's not forget that too.
ECMA, ISO, and ANSI require disclosure of all relevant patents, plus a commitment to RAND licensing. In addition, it would have created a set of header files and interface definitions against which Sun couldn't have asserted a copyright, like they did against Google. Sun pulled out of the standardization efforts because they did not want to make those legal commitments.
Is that all you have, or do you have something more? At this point we can conclude there is no particular difference in the strength of the legal protections provided by Oracle and Microsoft. Unless you can do a better job defending that assertion.
Well, you are free to "conclude" whatever you like. I consider Microsoft's patent covenant and the existence of open C# standards to be much better legal protection than Sun, which is offering essentially nothing.
But, as I was saying, at this point, the major issue is that Java is technically crap and isn't going anywhere, and C#'s reputation has been damaged beyond repair, whether fairly or unfairly doesn't matter. So, we need something new.
Let me spell it out in equation form so you can stop dodging what I'm saying. Two possibilities:
Your equations are wrong. The actual "equaltions" you should be looking at is the following:
your implementation = \cup anything else
where
conforming part = your implementation \cap open.NET spec anything else = your implementation - open.NET spec
Microsoft won't sue you over anything in "conforming part". If you use Microsoft patents for implementing "anything else", whether that is OK depends on whether you use Microsoft patents in that code or not.
I agree Oracle is a horrible corporation, on par with Microsoft, but what open source project did Sun attack (before they were bought by Oracle)?
Sun started out by making a proprietary version of BSD. Then they tried to kill X11, first with SunView, then with NeWS. There are more examples if you really care to dig.
Yeah, see, now you have to wind the clock back to 10 years ago, back to Mono, Miguel, and Tomboy. It was never just about the core language. They used and ported Microsoft-specific parts.
The same is true for C++, Python, Perl, and lots of other languages: many companies contributing to Linux versions of those compilers simultaneously made money by integrating with the Windows platform. Mono and Miguel's business model don't represent a legal threat to the FOSS community. Mono was (and is) a viable platform for pure FOSS development on Linux in the same way Python is: it has Windows APIs, and it has cross-platform APIs, but you can ignore both of those if you don't want/need them.
Java advocates were confused about this point because they viewed everything through the lens of Java's cross platform promise. That is, they thought that Mono's non-FOSS.Net libraries were an essential part of Mono and C# because they considered the equivalent libraries an essential part of Java. But cross platform support is not, and has never been, of much importance to Linux developers.
I'm not happy with Oracle and Java, but there's still OpenJDK, and you can always fork it.
What would be the point? Java simply isn't a viable platform for general purpose computing, and you can't fix it by forking the OpenJDK.
*snort* Because running away from Sun/Oracle into the arms of Microsoft would have been such a bright move.
Yes, it would have been. C# is technically a much better platform, and while you can't trust any big company, Microsoft's legal guarantees were (and still are) better than Sun's/Oracle's.
You haven't demonstrated that. The patent promise was specific to conforming implementations.
No, that is incorrect. The patent promise applies to all implementations, even partial, non-conforming implementations.
unlike that big meanie Oracle.
Oracle and Sun are utterly evil and have been for many years; they have attacked numerous open source projects over the years, and lied over and over again. And their technology is crap.
Meanwhile, the Microsoft fanboys pretend how everything is open and there is no danger because Microsoft is such a good boy
You aren't listening; we are just talking about C# and the core of.NET.
In any case, the ship has sailed for C# for open source software; Java fanbois like you managed to kill it and condemned the open source community to a decade of C++ programming and tying large parts of the modern web infrastructure to a platform controlled and owned by Larry Ellison. I hope you're proud of your accomplishment and the damage you have done.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you're thinking along the correct lines: Culver has certain skills and knowledge, and that is of a certain value to Carnival. You can tell how much by looking at how much they offered him, which is not much.
(I would guess that they have made much more attractive offers to a few other employees; they don't need many in order to ensure that "knowledge of the existing infrastructure/software/practices/setup" is not lost.)
Either the UK will go through with Brexit or its political class will find a way around the majority decision; either way, there are turbulent times ahead. What does this have to do with technology? Why is this crap on Slashdot?
For the same reason you can choose your barber, your nanny, and your brand of TV: we live in a free society that respects private property and free association.
It sounds to me that you need to be reminded of that, because you are advocating destroying it.
You're right: such special job protections are like an extra tariff. Now think about what happens with that money. Tax payers pay for the protection, but the benefits from that protection go to a small group of already highly paid employees. Thanks for illustrating government corruption and special interest lobbying so nicely.
That hasn't changed. If you have specialized skills that are important to a company, they'll keep you. IT services don't fall into that category.
No, I mean what I said: one part of the US government supports fossil fuel production and use, while another part hypes up fear about climate change, and yet another hands vast amount of money in subsidies to "alternative energy" companies. They have all been done at the same time by several administrations, including the Obama administration.
Being a "librul scientist" myself, no I don't, because I actually know better. You sound like you come from a progressive family, though, so there is a good chance that your parents did that to you, given that asbestos, lead paint, and city water supplies were the latest thing and fully approved by the government. Perhaps that explains some of your deficits.
She's a lot prettier than me. Oh, and I'm a scientist and don't believe vaccines cause autism. I'm also a liberal, however, which means that I respect her right to make her own choices even if I believe she is wrong. Liberalism, you should try it some time!
Carnival is a dual US/British company operating largely outside the US (being a cruise line). In what way is he entitled to this job?
Perhaps not in your household, but there are lots of places in the US where "OK, go gal!" is still considered acceptable when talking to one's girlfriend/wife/daughter.
Apart from the fact that both Amazon Echo and Google Home are Internet-connected listening devices, they just don't work very well. Recognition is still quite imperfect, there is no notion of a dialog or context with these devices, and extensibility and interoperability is at the whim and business convenience of the companies making these devices.
Speech recognition and AI should function be local, not cloud-based; they shouldn't be tied to one or the other "ecosystem", and they should be locally extensible. And they need to work better than the overpriced, underperforming, bloated gadgets Google and Amazong are shipping. A company that delivers that may "own" voice. Right now, Amazon owns the voice market in the same way Chiapet owns the pet market: its product is related to the real market in name only.
Kyoto Common Lisp and its descendants compile into C.
Have you played it? The game is awful. The pity reviews on iOS not withstanding, it was also badly received on Xbox and Steam.
Right now, we're spending about $10 billion on climate change. It's the job of the agencies wanting this money to make a compelling argument to the new administration for why we should continue spending it. Individual grant proposals have nothing to do with such cost/benefit analyses.
Yes, crazy talk! How could anybody even imagine getting rid of pointless federal bureaucracies, bureaucracies that the country was doing fine without for nearly 200 years! Obviously, the only possibility evaaaah is to increase federal spending and the federal bureaucracy!
May she be as successful running as a Congresscritter as she has been as a game designer. And if, in a paroxysm of insanity, the good people of Massachusetts elect her to Congress, they get the representation they deserve.
Modern P2P file sharing arguably started with Napster and eDonkey in 1999, not BitTorrent. But even those systems really just represented a mass market adoption of earlier methods that people had used to share files on the Internet and even on USENET.
Yes, you're missing something. They don't want to use social media accounts to discover ties to terrorism (although they may get lucky; terrorists aren't very smart), they want to use social media accounts to identify travelers that they don't need to spend resources on so that they can focus on those where they need to dig deeper. For example, someone who, according to both LinkedIn and Facebook, has been an Italian accountant for 20 years with lots of real, identifiable Italian connections is (1) likely to return to Italy, and (2) unlikely to blow people up; and such profiles are probably also difficult to fake. Presumably, they are also only starting to figure out how they want to use this data.
This it could actually help people from developing countries most, countries where police reports and other information on citizens isn't as reliable or complete as it is in Europe.
I still don't think this is going to work very well, but it's not quite as dumb an idea as you make it out to be.
As numerous failures from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google show, it takes more than tons of money, a lot of engineers, and a desire to enter a market in order to actually be competitive in it.
Correct, and that is something to keep in mind when the US government spends close to $10 billion on research related to climate change.
One part of the US government supports fossil fuel production and use, while another part hypes up fear about climate change, and yet another hands vast amount of money in subsidies to "alternative energy" companies. Those positions are contradictory as energy policy, but the goal of government isn't to have consistent and useful policies, it is to increase its own size and power.
You say that as if there were some contradiction; in fact, modern liberalism and crony capitalism go hand in hand.
We know what Google got sued for by Oracle, and Microsoft could not have sued for the same things.
I didn't notice that you attempted to make a factual statement or a technical argument; try harder next time.
The government still needs to help alleviate the massive joblessness resulting from the loss of the buggy whip industry! Right now, those poor displaced workers are just barely getting by on thankless jobs like software development, movie script writing, game design, biotech, 3D printing, etc.!
What you haven't explained is how this makes .NET proprietary or how it is a threat to open source software.
Well, I'm glad we agree that it was an improvement. Whether it was "minimal" depends on what your needs are.
Yes, just like Java copied large parts of other platforms and systems; it's how software works.
You can try to "minimize" them, but the fact remains that Microsoft couldn't have sued Google for the things that Oracle sued Google for. And Oracle's lawsuit was foreseeable even a decade earlier.
I see you're an Angel'o'sphere sock puppet.
Whereas the Democrats supporting action on climate change live in their government-insured multi-million dollar beach homes while their "green energy businesses" that do nothing to prevent climate change rake in billions in subsidies and "grants". Let's not forget that too.
ECMA, ISO, and ANSI require disclosure of all relevant patents, plus a commitment to RAND licensing. In addition, it would have created a set of header files and interface definitions against which Sun couldn't have asserted a copyright, like they did against Google. Sun pulled out of the standardization efforts because they did not want to make those legal commitments.
Well, you are free to "conclude" whatever you like. I consider Microsoft's patent covenant and the existence of open C# standards to be much better legal protection than Sun, which is offering essentially nothing.
But, as I was saying, at this point, the major issue is that Java is technically crap and isn't going anywhere, and C#'s reputation has been damaged beyond repair, whether fairly or unfairly doesn't matter. So, we need something new.
Your equations are wrong. The actual "equaltions" you should be looking at is the following:
your implementation = \cup anything else
where
conforming part = your implementation \cap open .NET spec .NET spec
anything else = your implementation - open
Microsoft won't sue you over anything in "conforming part". If you use Microsoft patents for implementing "anything else", whether that is OK depends on whether you use Microsoft patents in that code or not.
Sun started out by making a proprietary version of BSD. Then they tried to kill X11, first with SunView, then with NeWS. There are more examples if you really care to dig.
The same is true for C++, Python, Perl, and lots of other languages: many companies contributing to Linux versions of those compilers simultaneously made money by integrating with the Windows platform. Mono and Miguel's business model don't represent a legal threat to the FOSS community. Mono was (and is) a viable platform for pure FOSS development on Linux in the same way Python is: it has Windows APIs, and it has cross-platform APIs, but you can ignore both of those if you don't want/need them.
Java advocates were confused about this point because they viewed everything through the lens of Java's cross platform promise. That is, they thought that Mono's non-FOSS .Net libraries were an essential part of Mono and C# because they considered the equivalent libraries an essential part of Java. But cross platform support is not, and has never been, of much importance to Linux developers.
What would be the point? Java simply isn't a viable platform for general purpose computing, and you can't fix it by forking the OpenJDK.
Yes, it would have been. C# is technically a much better platform, and while you can't trust any big company, Microsoft's legal guarantees were (and still are) better than Sun's/Oracle's.
That's because they hardly ever get to see any Java GUI applications.
Yup, you're obviously part of the permanently befuddled.
No, that is incorrect. The patent promise applies to all implementations, even partial, non-conforming implementations.
Oracle and Sun are utterly evil and have been for many years; they have attacked numerous open source projects over the years, and lied over and over again. And their technology is crap.
You aren't listening; we are just talking about C# and the core of .NET.
In any case, the ship has sailed for C# for open source software; Java fanbois like you managed to kill it and condemned the open source community to a decade of C++ programming and tying large parts of the modern web infrastructure to a platform controlled and owned by Larry Ellison. I hope you're proud of your accomplishment and the damage you have done.