I didn't say this was content from the marketing department. This was content that mattered. Content that people paid for. Content that the marketing department had to sell.
Not marketing materials.
Anything that reduced the number of potential customers was looked on with extreme disfavor by marketing. And it's marketings job to look out for the customer. The customer relationship is their job. From suspect to prospect to customer.
BTW, what scientific journals are you reading on the web, now?
All the ones I know have been extremely unwilling to put their content on the Web.
Let's see. Our marketing department is still insisting that we support IE4 and Netscape4. But somehow, they're going to suddenly start insisting that we target a fractional share of the market exclusively.
Right.
There are lots of things to worry about with DRM, Palladium, and Trusted Computing. Document interchange, for example, and proactive censorship.
Don't use silly examples, or it weakens the whole case against 'Trusted Computing'.
The quote near the end indicates that software developed for the government will have a GPL compatible license.
This may be different than software developed BY the government.
In any case, software developed with tax money ought to be available for EVERYONE. GPL software is not.
A BSD-style license might be more appropriate. That would allow inclusion of the code in a proprietary program. However, there is little reason to fear that the code would disappear from the commons. No one wants to maintain a private fork of public code, constantly reapplying their own patches. People and businesses tend to contribute back their patches so that they become part of the main distribution.
Good examples of this are Apache httpd and the BSD TCP/IP stack.
They don't get $3.00 share. If the deals go through they get $3.00 on half the shares they own. The others will be (apparently) converted into shares of the new merged company. Which is privately held. So the shares are not really worth much as investment.
Face it, if the company is worth 40% more broken up than as a going concern, management is providing a huge negative value.
I'll admit that this is one of the more slanted pieces of journalism I've seen come out of AP. It's almost completely one-sided.
On the side of the ANTI-spammers.
Almost every thing that might be construed as pro-spam is contained in a quote from one of the spammers. They are otherwise characterised as using 'cloak-and-dagger software', they 'deluge the planet', selling 'Products... sold by pitches that would make a sailor blush'.
Bash handles several filenames specially when they are used in redirections, as described in the following table:
/dev/fd/fd
If fd is a valid integer, file descriptor fd is dupliated. /dev/stdin
File descriptor 0 is duplicated. /dev/stdout
File descriptor 1 is duplicated. /dev/stderr
File descriptor 2 is duplicated. /dev/tcp/host/port
If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash
attempts to open a TCP connection to the corresponding socket. /dev/udp/host/port
If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash
attempts to open a UDP connection to the corresponding socket.
In short, this is a standard extension provided by Bash. If it doesn't work for you, you're doing something wrong.
If this is allowed to happen, Bill G could bundle all the GNU tools with his version of Linux windows as long as he forks over the source to the GNU parts.
Well, he doesn't bundle them with his version of Linux, but he does bundle them with his version of Unix for Windows.
Take a look at Windows Services for Unix. This was originally the Interix product. It's a really nice set of tools for integrating Unix and Windows environments. As I recall, at one point Interix was POSIX certified.
The GPL utility source code for Services for UNIX 3.0 contains the base utilities diff, sdiff, bc, dc, cpio, gzip, gunzip, gawk, patch, csplit, nl, strings, rpm, and SDK utilities/libraries ld.so, gcc, gdb, g++, g77, gasp, objcopy, ld, as, ar, nm, size, strip, ci, co, diff3 rcs, rlog, and ident.
It seems ad-supported software preys on people's urge to try to get something for nothing. Do these adware companies appeal to our lowest urges?
Yes. Anything that says "free," people want. But eventually people will realize there's not really such thing as "free" software. It comes with a price--in this case the annoyance of advertising, or possibly privacy violations
Sorry, there really is such a thing as free software. I run most of my business on it. Most of it is even free as in beer. But the important thing is that it's also free as in freedom.
The reason I can trust it, is because I can examine the source myself. I do for some of the software I use. I contribute bug fixes back for the software I know how to fix, and is important for me to have fix. The web of trust in the open source community gives me assurance that others are doing the same for software I don't personally check.
I don't suffer 'the annoyance of advertising, or possibly privacy violations.' All thanks to truly FREE software.
You are permitted to make an internal release, such as within a company, and are not forced to release any of the changes to anyone in public. The recipients of this internal release are entitled to the source code upon request and they can also release the source if they so wish thus making it public.
A company does not have to distribute the source with the program to people within the company. Nor can an employee of the company steal the code and distribute it. The employee doesn't have any rights to the code. Use internally is not 'distribution' within the meaning of the GPL.
The rule for a hobby is that you can write off your expenses up to the amount of any income produced by the hobby. You can't carry the losses over to other income, or carry it forward to other years.
So if you have $500 dollars revenue selling HerbaLife, but it costs you $2000 to generate those sales, you don't have to pay income tax on those $500. But you can't use the other $1500 in losses to offset the rest of your income.
In any case, even if you can write off the extra $1500, it's a suckers game. Face it, you are OUT OF POCKET that money. You spent it. The fact that the government will, in effect, pick up 30 to 40% of the check, still means you are out ~$1000.
Zealously persue deductions for stuff you would spend anyway. For example, computer books for computer professionals are a deductible expense. So is software, for a software developer. Keep itemized receipts for anything your employer doesn't pay for.
This is good for you, because you were going to spend the money anyway. Now you can spend less. Or get half as many again books.
But spending $1 that you wouldn't have spent otherwise, to get a $1 deduction, means that you are out roughly 50 cents.
Since the decision is EXPLICITLY grounded in the Colorado constitution's Article 2, rather than in the First Amendment, the US Supreme Court has no reason to review the case.
Judge Bender held that the Colorado Constitution granted wider free speach protections than the First Amendment.
The judges expressed empathy for communities that want to protect children from an aggressive commercial pornography industry intent on luring young customers. However, they also recognized the constitutional dangers of leaving censorship decisions to the local majority opinion.
The majority does NOT decide First Amendment issues.
Communities can decide to have a library, museum, etc. But once they decide to have one, they can not decide what goes into it or stays out of it. That is up to the library, museum, etc.
You're reinventing Lotus Notes. This is exactly how Notes stores it's email. Everything is really in a database, and the folders that are displayed are actually queries against the database.
In theory, this is great.
In practice, it's a disaster.
Of course, the Notes UI doesn't help. But the problems go deeper than that.
Re:But smart people won't ignore the topic...
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 1
How in hell did this idiot get modded up to insightful.
I can only hope that he's not employed by anyone who cares about the quality of the work done for them.
Apparently he'd prefer to waste their money reimplementing linked lists, mostly likely incorrectly.
The best developers steal shamelessly from people like Knuth, Sedgewick and Hoare. There's no need to reinvent bicycle wheels, especially when there are high performance race car wheels free for the taking.
Besides, the fundementals are HARD. There are thousands of ways of screwing up a linked list implementation. Most of them subtle. And that's supposed to be an easy one. String matching, hash tables, red-black trees, quicksort, etc, are even subtler.
Implementing them in college, in a CS course, is so you gain a deeper understanding of how they work. It's not so that you go out and reinvent them whenever you need one.
If someone is really hot and bothered by Shawn's position on his software, then pay him for it, take the source, and put it on SourceForge. GPL gives you the absolute right to do so.
This is the reason that the price of GPL software tends to zero.
The poster seems to be contemplating a system such as Linus used to use to manage the Linux kernel. People would submit patches to Linus, and he would attempt to integrate them into his source tree.
This is a dumb way to manage a project. It barely works for Linus. And he's a genius.
The right thing to do is to give your 12 developers access to the CVS repository. If they are geographically separated, use a VPN or ssh to connect to the repository. When they finish their work, they first update their local workspace, compile and test, and if it passes, commit their changes back to the repository. Other developers get the changes as soon as they are available.
Twelve developers is the leading edge of a small project. You can have a single team, and everyone can be aware of what everyone else is doing. The best process is the one with the minumum of overhead that suffices for the project at hand. Don't add process for the sake of process.
On the other hand, don't sacrifice the basics.
Version control is not 'Advanced', it's fundamental. You might as well say you're using advanced visual editors, such as vi. SCCS is from '75. RCS is from '82. CVS is from '86. This isn't new stuff.
The vote was to release the new Java Specification Participation Agreement for public review. Companies that voted Yes with negative comments are apparently hoping that the flaws are fixable, and should be done publically.
Or, they believe that the advantages of the changes made so far outweigh the disadvantage of staying with the current agreement.
Zeus demands the sacrifice of a goat once a month. Now, the evidence for Olympian Gods is highly disputed, I will admit. But isn't it a good idea to go ahead and sacrifice the goat, just in case? After all, if Zeus is real, we want to be on his good side, and if he isn't, it's only cost us a few goats.
You're wasting memory and such for the variable declaration and assignment, simply return $joe + 12345;.
Wasting memory. That's a good one. You probably worry about wasting CPU cycles, too.
function bob(varlist) {
log.trace(varlist)
int magicConstant = 12345;
//Adding the magicConstant allows for the
//framistan to properly frob the widgets
int var = $joe + $magicConstant;
assert($var > 0);
log.trace($var);
return $var;
}
The most important aspect of code is that it functions correctly. The second most important is that if it does not function correctly, it is simple to diagnose the problem, and apparent how to repair the problem.
'Performance' is much further down the list.
If it doesn't have to work correctly, I can make it a LOT faster.
Slashdot Mirror
Not marketing materials.
Anything that reduced the number of potential customers was looked on with extreme disfavor by marketing. And it's marketings job to look out for the customer. The customer relationship is their job. From suspect to prospect to customer.
BTW, what scientific journals are you reading on the web, now? All the ones I know have been extremely unwilling to put their content on the Web.
Right.
There are lots of things to worry about with DRM, Palladium, and Trusted Computing. Document interchange, for example, and proactive censorship.
Don't use silly examples, or it weakens the whole case against 'Trusted Computing'.
This may be different than software developed BY the government.
In any case, software developed with tax money ought to be available for EVERYONE. GPL software is not.
A BSD-style license might be more appropriate. That would allow inclusion of the code in a proprietary program. However, there is little reason to fear that the code would disappear from the commons. No one wants to maintain a private fork of public code, constantly reapplying their own patches. People and businesses tend to contribute back their patches so that they become part of the main distribution.
Good examples of this are Apache httpd and the BSD TCP/IP stack.
They don't get $3.00 share. If the deals go through they get $3.00 on half the shares they own. The others will be (apparently) converted into shares of the new merged company. Which is privately held. So the shares are not really worth much as investment.
Face it, if the company is worth 40% more broken up than as a going concern, management is providing a huge negative value.
On the side of the ANTI-spammers.
Almost every thing that might be construed as pro-spam is contained in a quote from one of the spammers. They are otherwise characterised as using 'cloak-and-dagger software', they 'deluge the planet', selling 'Products ... sold by pitches that would make a sailor blush'.
No one is going to feel sorry for Cowles.
And I doubt he's very happy with the article.
In short, this is a standard extension provided by Bash. If it doesn't work for you, you're doing something wrong.
Well, he doesn't bundle them with his version of Linux, but he does bundle them with his version of Unix for Windows.
Take a look at Windows Services for Unix. This was originally the Interix product. It's a really nice set of tools for integrating Unix and Windows environments. As I recall, at one point Interix was POSIX certified.
Now, in case you're about to start screaming about evil GPL violations: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/Interix/sfu30/
Unix REQUIRES /bin/sh.
It REQUIRES certain behavior from it.
If it's not there, or doesn't behave appropriately, it isn't Unix.
That said, if you want something bizzare as your login shell, go ahead. If it's OK by your sysadmin.
Sorry, there really is such a thing as free software. I run most of my business on it. Most of it is even free as in beer. But the important thing is that it's also free as in freedom.
The reason I can trust it, is because I can examine the source myself. I do for some of the software I use. I contribute bug fixes back for the software I know how to fix, and is important for me to have fix. The web of trust in the open source community gives me assurance that others are doing the same for software I don't personally check.
I don't suffer 'the annoyance of advertising, or possibly privacy violations.' All thanks to truly FREE software.
So if you have $500 dollars revenue selling HerbaLife, but it costs you $2000 to generate those sales, you don't have to pay income tax on those $500. But you can't use the other $1500 in losses to offset the rest of your income.
In any case, even if you can write off the extra $1500, it's a suckers game. Face it, you are OUT OF POCKET that money. You spent it. The fact that the government will, in effect, pick up 30 to 40% of the check, still means you are out ~$1000.
Zealously persue deductions for stuff you would spend anyway. For example, computer books for computer professionals are a deductible expense. So is software, for a software developer. Keep itemized receipts for anything your employer doesn't pay for.
This is good for you, because you were going to spend the money anyway. Now you can spend less. Or get half as many again books.
But spending $1 that you wouldn't have spent otherwise, to get a $1 deduction, means that you are out roughly 50 cents.
Since the decision is EXPLICITLY grounded in the Colorado constitution's Article 2, rather than in the First Amendment, the US Supreme Court has no reason to review the case.
Judge Bender held that the Colorado Constitution granted wider free speach protections than the First Amendment.
The majority does NOT decide First Amendment issues.
Communities can decide to have a library, museum, etc. But once they decide to have one, they can not decide what goes into it or stays out of it. That is up to the library, museum, etc.
In theory, this is great.
In practice, it's a disaster.
Of course, the Notes UI doesn't help. But the problems go deeper than that.
There are no FNORDS in the ads.
I can only hope that he's not employed by anyone who cares about the quality of the work done for them.
Apparently he'd prefer to waste their money reimplementing linked lists, mostly likely incorrectly.
The best developers steal shamelessly from people like Knuth, Sedgewick and Hoare. There's no need to reinvent bicycle wheels, especially when there are high performance race car wheels free for the taking.
Besides, the fundementals are HARD. There are thousands of ways of screwing up a linked list implementation. Most of them subtle. And that's supposed to be an easy one. String matching, hash tables, red-black trees, quicksort, etc, are even subtler.
Implementing them in college, in a CS course, is so you gain a deeper understanding of how they work. It's not so that you go out and reinvent them whenever you need one.
This is the reason that the price of GPL software tends to zero.
This is a dumb way to manage a project. It barely works for Linus. And he's a genius.
The right thing to do is to give your 12 developers access to the CVS repository. If they are geographically separated, use a VPN or ssh to connect to the repository. When they finish their work, they first update their local workspace, compile and test, and if it passes, commit their changes back to the repository. Other developers get the changes as soon as they are available.
Twelve developers is the leading edge of a small project. You can have a single team, and everyone can be aware of what everyone else is doing. The best process is the one with the minumum of overhead that suffices for the project at hand. Don't add process for the sake of process.
On the other hand, don't sacrifice the basics.
Version control is not 'Advanced', it's fundamental. You might as well say you're using advanced visual editors, such as vi. SCCS is from '75. RCS is from '82. CVS is from '86. This isn't new stuff.
Or, they believe that the advantages of the changes made so far outweigh the disadvantage of staying with the current agreement.
Great, so I use your services, get hit with a subpoena to produce old email, then go to jail for contempt of court.
Zeus demands the sacrifice of a goat once a month. Now, the evidence for Olympian Gods is highly disputed, I will admit. But isn't it a good idea to go ahead and sacrifice the goat, just in case? After all, if Zeus is real, we want to be on his good side, and if he isn't, it's only cost us a few goats.
Wasting memory. That's a good one. You probably worry about wasting CPU cycles, too.
function bob(varlist) {
log.trace(varlist)
int magicConstant = 12345;
int var = $joe + $magicConstant;
assert($var > 0);
log.trace($var);
return $var;
}
The most important aspect of code is that it functions correctly. The second most important is that if it does not function correctly, it is simple to diagnose the problem, and apparent how to repair the problem.
'Performance' is much further down the list.
If it doesn't have to work correctly, I can make it a LOT faster.
Must have been a different movie than the one I saw.
Continue to rely on the Polish manufacturer who bought the tube fabrication plant from the US and moved it to Poland when tubes became 'obsolete.'
No joke.
Making a tape for your friend is not fair use either.