>And how do you find people -- beyond just using job boards?
I think primarily there are two ideas to consider: (A) We seekers of knowledge find the jobsource before they find us because the most qualified of us have both leadership potential and skills. (B) The supplyside outlines a niche, we fill it, then both get paid for work without either side going ad-hoc.
In Sf.net's case I can think of about a dozen things I could help them out with both on a temporary basis and in the long term. The problem today is more one of finding a good protocol for success which is why you have to avoid the ad-hoc situations. As a competent programmer the last I want to do is have to explain everything I do first *without actually performing the real work*. In a demand-based economy, identity is sacrosanct. I want an exchange. Some L.L.C. or partnership I want to work with wants an exchange. That there I think we can all agree on.
The real challenge is forming non ad-hoc alliances where the brightest of us who are held up to public scrutiny stand out and are appropriately recognized for what we do best: our jobs. The more proactive among us have already repeatedly demonstrated we can do this by architecting and designing better Open Source software for a pittance and in our spare times. We do the work because we enjoy it. We like what we do and we want more. We want to make technological improvements and improve conditions for our fellow earth dwellers.
''..help up to public scrutiny'' is a device we could all make use of by functionalizing the steps to make it so. A ratings system must take the form of a decentral independent ratings board which both private profits and private-public & public-private profit enterprises can submit opinions to about how well we do our jobs and more importantly what we do. This is no easy task. It requires commissioning the criteria by which we're judged and our alliances certainly cannot take part in assessing our own work that's a conflict of interest.
We have the power to positively program for improved change and social network for a better world at the same time.
"Blizzard, the company that used the unconstitutional DMCA against individuals committing no property crime, is still in business." To me this is the fascinating part of argument -- that they cut off users for property offense reasons.
real-money trading, which is the practice of selling in-game currency for cash in the real world. Concerns over real-money trading
because this is real value: creating games that use pricing vis-à-vis with real world activities with dollars-to-tokens exchanges and vice versa. I think Blizzard, et al. want a monopoly here or are planning something for action in the future that the "property violating" gamers are doing now; creating and hedging their own markets within the virtual marketplace. Blizzard is pissed off because they're not making revenue on these transactions.
Talk about taking one from the Microsoft playbook..
Discussions here about open source software seem to focus on licensing and commercial examples.. That's good but what else?
I think there is not enough focus on the protocols and prerequisite definitions for open source to work on PCs, PPCs and suns/SPARCs. Anyone ever try to build an operating system from scratch? The classic answer is ''you have to know what you are doing'' and is valid. I think the nouveau, modern cool answer is ''give me a translation for what I need ( line-item specifics ) and I can do this or that''.
I am in the pacific northwest. We are working on a game model and are in the design documents stage. We demand transparency and use plain language when possible.
Is it enough to write about 5 lines of code and say that this code snippet has exactly 50 machine-readable ones and zeros? No. Why? This is not enough information. First of all we don't know what the code does, what language it's in or if it's compiled natively.
The " ones and zeros " information about the " 5 lines of code " information is what intrigues coders and hackers. Everything else can be translated to plain language. Licensing models should be drafted to partner with developers' iterative changes to code which occur at periodic and non-predictable frequencies.
To summarize, the Practice is what we interpret of others code and the Ways & Means is what we interpret or/and translate from code an individual or a defined collaboration of people create.
If Hasbro was smart they'd create a marketing division just for this guy's work and contact him about setting up a new element to the game with licensing.
But no.. They can't completely control this type of endeavor anymore so it's all or nothing.
Without checking out claims or code made by cherryOS, apple or the comments of the yes-men I can say this is plain silly.
I think it's nice that coders live for the day but sometimes they take this notion much too seriously and don't look at what the future can bring.
Maybe cherryOS is proprietary with only slivers of open source here and there. Maybe they're going to release another version soon. Maybe it's a logistics thing and they're waiting for apple or somebody else to release certain code to juxtapose their own which performs new or different functions for graphics / etc library routines, I/O stacks (interlaced UDP or some better transmission protocol than TCP) or a nifty cutting edge thing nobody's thought of. Let's show a little vision & planning for a better UI / filesystem / spectrum, shall we?
Ok, so if they follow the gpl, so what? A license is a credible method to grant agreements by which to use and exchange some thing and promulgate memorandums of understanding between all involved parties. I think we need a better form & delivery of licensing, not to mention what the license reads.
Bloggers input is commensurate to their political / personal involvement. Aside from propagandists, why would anyone spiel on the Web for no reason?
No ifs, ands or buts. Blogging is individuals staying at the forefront of *.gov reform. Anything else is BULLSHIT because that's the def. of a spoken and written revolution.
This is the second time slashdot has been fooled big time. The other time was with the motorcycle woman in Chernobyl who may have actually been driven under escort through the nuke site and photoshopped the rest.
Slashdot needs RATINGS. A rating is work by an independent party who verifies claims stated or written by a party. All the individuals in the independent party cannot have any connection whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to the party whose veracity is in question. Forget six degrees of separation to Kevin Bacon, we're talking mono y mono.
Ratings are done all the time in scientific circles but they need some way of being defined, evaluated and engaged quickly in normal settings. Once an evaluation/assessment is done by a rating group the rating is published. Ratings are standards and should be sanctioned by non-profit boards for what they are (what do they say about actions of other people) and how they work (What does each rating mark or star signify? 1 to 4 stars? 1 to 6?).
Case in point: if some party gets a reputation for defrauding others they get a low rating from independent parties. You can apply mathematics to this but it is by and large a trust network. Ratings groups are essentially in effect on message boards and newsgroups when registered users comment other users positively or negatively.
Reference:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=109249&cid=928 1878 Re:Without IT... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Slashdot should come up with a scale or ratings system with a moon as an icon signifying the quantity + quality of tech topics in crescent, half, three quarters and full moon chunks. Topics represent either the light or dark side, open code and hidden code respectively. To expound on software architecture differences there can be a series of moons each with a classification."
To heck with CSI:*, watch NYPD Blue (esp. older seasons) to watch how they tie evidence, confessions and eye witnesses to crime in a big city, high anxiety environment.
"the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner"
Ratings are pretty straightforward: excellent, good, fair and poor. Some people's scale includes a fifth indicator. Four is good because it's quadratic.
This is the part where the story begins to make sense: "But even Mr. Draper appreciates that he is skating close to the outer boundaries of common sense by erecting a virtual billboard on the Internet and inviting the world to compete for 10 minutes of his time." That's what ratings is all about: competition. If using a registered user-only, forum format you jot down what should be sold then you can definitely ask, refine, expound upon etc. what should be bought, by method of ratings. See my previous post on ratings formats.
This recent trend of increasingly blaming foreigners for rapid outsourcing is exaggerated. Blame the corporations who will sell out anyone to streamline profits for CEOs.
I've noticed a conspicuous absence in people mentioning open source here, strange given Linux server use is up about 30% this quarter. It seems a lot of slashdotters have fingers in proprietary programming and open programming pies. Not that this is a bad thing.
Slashdot should come up with a scale or ratings system with a moon as an icon signifying the quantity + quality of tech topics in crescent, half, three quarters and full moon chunks. Topics represent either the light or dark side, open code and hidden code respectively. To expound on software architecture differences there can be a series of moons each with a classification.
People who write virii and trojans for Wintel boxes/routers should be getting money, recognition and babes ( or hunks if it's a female hacker ). These hackers expose flaws in flawed networking architectures that mainstream industries are very reluctant to expose. Who's committing the crime again?
Covering your ass by denying an insecurity or vulnerability exists while blaming hackers wastes everyones time. Even black hats should get credit. Give them a screamin' P4, a fractional T1 and new problems to tackle, not jail time. Some of these hackers just want to play. Let them. No one corporate entity, operating system or hacker group can destabilize or monopolize all of North America's IT infrastructure.
I think it's three things that must be considered: process ( the code ), parliamentary procedure ( codification between people ) and defining standards. If someone makes a point of order about the kernel and this motion is "filed" online in a routine manner then it should be received in open format. I think these things in part will determine how far a paper trail can go.
I agree with the semantics part but I think also future standards must incorporate the 3D element that the game engine designers and SIMmers are championing now. In the *exciting* future you're connected to other people's machines i.e. their desktops are mirrored to yours cached or real-time however you and your pod of developers collaborate information you want to trade/share and keep everything else firewalled out.
To make seemingly insecure and nutty ideas like this into reality tomorrow, open standards need to be embraced today. Standards are most important when they're defined, accepted and deployed by open commission and 100% separately introduced by private enterprises. Microsuck's Longhorn will never go in that direction let alone release more than a quarter of their source code. Opensource frameworks with proprietary frontends ( to keep the Wintels happily trolling ) are the key. Here we've got computing that's safe to run in every home and enterprise. Until then it's 7 out of 10 computers infected with spyware, netbios cruft, virus factories and Word documents that can't be read.
Don't you guys/gals get tired of this Q&A about tech jobs repeating over and over? It's time to check corporate personhood I'm all for respecting boss/employee ratios and using existing economic indicators as the standard bearers but damn there's more to this recession then simply unemployment and getting enough medical coverage.
If the 1998-2000 tech boom and bust taught us anything where you're either a driver or a passenger it's that we need drivers. Translation: new business models that make money in the short and long haul. "Nickel and Dimed" author Barbara Ehrenreich recently spoke at my school, saying: "You can't blame the poor economy on character defects alone. There's not enough money."
In short, let's help the financial representation incorporate some good biz models (capitalism + sustainability + socialism = something short of outright greed) that bring in more money for everyone, not just CEOs, management and sys admins on a lofty perch.
Hmm from the lack of posts (25 in 24 hours) it seems not enough people are doing their part to shine the light on frequent use of cross site scripting and its abuses. Perhaps that's because still too many coders employ privacy invasive methods in their server-side scripting.
Security is a parallel, interlocking issue if asking, "where does the data come from and where does the data go to?" (props to an old school EE guru and physicist for this saying) because you can have very secure client- and server-side apps but if the methodology of data retention is flawed you could have a password-less system and the privacy would still be just as bad.
I've always disliked heavy use of ECMAScript and cookies while debatable as to whether they're XSS or no they're easy to make as gateways to such things.
"..hierarchies, group members assume an authority will decide and they are only to enact the decision."
Ah, it *is* about culture whether east/west, poor communities or class conflict-oblivious communities like parts of Silicon Valley. Wherever tech & culture collimate it's ultimately about code.
So question what that authority is and how it delivers. In the case of Microshit culture, "will decide" really means "deciding for shrinkwrapped license users", initially omitting details about software products and withholding source code.
"enact the decision". In a truly collaborative and competitive network of communities several people may engage or enact the project at hand provided tiers of centralized control exist and are independently accountable. At present software development is still pretty much a monopoly; a series of shell games with the hubris "start your own business" while nearly everyone, even most geeks, are too poor to do this or are looking for more innovative ways to get paid besides by way of self-employment.
America and most of the world hasn't made it to the stage of collaborative enterprise yet because there's still too much corrupted code and corrupted due diligence. Hey, *I'm* optimistic. At least *I'm* realistic and don't try to sell or write crapcode like public class-only C#/.Net.
What about distributed scopes or arrays of telescopes across many miles? Scopes, especially radio telescopes, don't all have to be in the same physical location.
It seems there are proprietary astronomers who like proprietary programmers always think bigger is better when in fact smaller, more spread out is the best choice.
In principle the resolving power of a telescope depends on its diameter -- a bigger one can see finer detail -- but in practice atmospheric turbulence, the same effect that makes stars appear to twinkle, blurs the stars and erases fine detail. This is why the Hubble, even though it is not large, only about 2.4 meters (96 inches), compared with the new giants on the ground, can do breathtaking work.
The proposals sport Brobdingnagian names like the California Extremely Large Telescope, or CELT; Giant Magellan; or the Overwhelming Large Telescope, OWL, a 100-meter-diameter behemoth being contemplated by a collaboration of European nations. And their proponents promise appropriately outsized scientific results.
Data mining: lifting or extracting data like answers people give in response to questions like the one/. asks here. This has gone as far as it can go, what with all the spam and back channel selling of private data. Any new successful Internet-operated business model will have to abandon data mining principles. Client information belongs to clients. They must choose what to divulge, not the other way around.
Ownership models will definitely have to be different. Anyone notable who denies this is a corporate shill or ignorant of the times. This means trust metrics will have to significantly evolve beyond the "all or nothing" premise. For example, instead of single shot, shrinkwrap licensing a different kind of licensing which gives due if not always equal consideration to both suppliers and demanders.
Anything to do with Microshit or their hard and soft affiliates.
There's positively no need for it, except for migration and translations.
Worse is the people in denial about all the change taking place. A proprietary OS will not be the tablet/notebook/PDA/desktop leader beyond 2005. Even worse still are those who say they're open source but take inveiglers "shortcuts" whenever an opportunity in coding arises to cut corners and sell out the user's privacy and security for a profit.
To all those wintel pundits who say things aren't going to change anytime soon: get a clue and get a life. You had your day and your time is done.
Anything to do with Microshit or their hard and soft affiliates.
There's positively no need for it, except for migration and translations.
Worse is the people in denial about all the change taking place. A proprietary OS will not be the tablet/notebook/PDA/desktop leader beyond 2005. Even worse still are those who say they're open source but take inveiglers "shortcuts" whenever an opportunity in coding arises to cut corners and sell out the user's privacy and security for a profit.
To all those wintel pundits who say things aren't going to change anytime soon: get a clue and get a life. You had your day and your time is done.
So where's the 235,396 figure coming from? 26% of 3.3 mil? We have two public reports (BLS, Fed) and one private report from Forrester keep in mind public and private methodologies for surveying and collecting data are different.
Well guess what, not all tech is strictly service-sector so that throws the results off.
Also, this one caught my eye: "require fewer skills, are automated or are highly portable." The observant reader will note whoever drafted the collection of different studies and whomever sponsored them might have an agenda of grouping as much data as can be believed (excluding independent verification of such data) into a single set of data for presentation -- misleading in the case of individual statistical surveys whose purpose is to identify specifics.
Think about what they were surveying if what's printed were the words used in questions to respondents/clients/etc. Most of our work in the tech field ends up being automated at some point. Portability is a compartmentalized issue and has many angles, product performance and ownership structure not the least of them.
" Since 2001, some 2.9 million private sector jobs have been lost, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Many of those jobs won't ever return, even as the economy recovers, say experts. What's more, this isn't just true for blue-collar workers...
Another estimate by Forester Research goes into more specifics. Forrester estimates that by 2015, some 3.3 million service-sector jobs will be shipped overseas or rendered obsolete by technology. Forester analyst John McCarthy says jobs that are most at risk require fewer skills, are automated or are highly portable.
Those include computer programming and software engineer jobs, that have long been leaving the country. By 2015, 26 percent of those jobs will be gone, says McCarthy. "
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=22379
the other,
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20
is a splash page, me thinks
>And how do you find people -- beyond just using job boards?
I think primarily there are two ideas to consider: (A) We seekers of knowledge find the jobsource before they find us because the most qualified of us have both leadership potential and skills. (B) The supplyside outlines a niche, we fill it, then both get paid for work without either side going ad-hoc.
In Sf.net's case I can think of about a dozen things I could help them out with both on a temporary basis and in the long term. The problem today is more one of finding a good protocol for success which is why you have to avoid the ad-hoc situations. As a competent programmer the last I want to do is have to explain everything I do first *without actually performing the real work*. In a demand-based economy, identity is sacrosanct. I want an exchange. Some L.L.C. or partnership I want to work with wants an exchange. That there I think we can all agree on.
The real challenge is forming non ad-hoc alliances where the brightest of us who are held up to public scrutiny stand out and are appropriately recognized for what we do best: our jobs. The more proactive among us have already repeatedly demonstrated we can do this by architecting and designing better Open Source software for a pittance and in our spare times. We do the work because we enjoy it. We like what we do and we want more. We want to make technological improvements and improve conditions for our fellow earth dwellers.
''..help up to public scrutiny'' is a device we could all make use of by functionalizing the steps to make it so. A ratings system must take the form of a decentral independent ratings board which both private profits and private-public & public-private profit enterprises can submit opinions to about how well we do our jobs and more importantly what we do. This is no easy task. It requires commissioning the criteria by which we're judged and our alliances certainly cannot take part in assessing our own work that's a conflict of interest.
We have the power to positively program for improved change and social network for a better world at the same time.
real-money trading, which is the practice of selling in-game currency for cash in the real world. Concerns over real-money trading
because this is real value: creating games that use pricing vis-à-vis with real world activities with dollars-to-tokens exchanges and vice versa. I think Blizzard, et al. want a monopoly here or are planning something for action in the future that the "property violating" gamers are doing now; creating and hedging their own markets within the virtual marketplace. Blizzard is pissed off because they're not making revenue on these transactions.
Talk about taking one from the Microsoft playbook..
Discussions here about open source software seem to focus on licensing and commercial examples .. That's good but what else?
I think there is not enough focus on the protocols and prerequisite definitions for open source to work on PCs, PPCs and suns/SPARCs. Anyone ever try to build an operating system from scratch? The classic answer is ''you have to know what you are doing'' and is valid. I think the nouveau, modern cool answer is ''give me a translation for what I need ( line-item specifics ) and I can do this or that''.
I am in the pacific northwest. We are working on a game model and are in the design documents stage. We demand transparency and use plain language when possible.
Is it enough to write about 5 lines of code and say that this code snippet has exactly 50 machine-readable ones and zeros? No. Why? This is not enough information. First of all we don't know what the code does, what language it's in or if it's compiled natively.
The " ones and zeros " information about the " 5 lines of code " information is what intrigues coders and hackers. Everything else can be translated to plain language. Licensing models should be drafted to partner with developers' iterative changes to code which occur at periodic and non-predictable frequencies.
To summarize, the Practice is what we interpret of others code and the Ways & Means is what we interpret or/and translate from code an individual or a defined collaboration of people create.
But no.. They can't completely control this type of endeavor anymore so it's all or nothing.
Without checking out claims or code made by cherryOS, apple or the comments of the yes-men I can say this is plain silly.
I think it's nice that coders live for the day but sometimes they take this notion much too seriously and don't look at what the future can bring.
Maybe cherryOS is proprietary with only slivers of open source here and there. Maybe they're going to release another version soon. Maybe it's a logistics thing and they're waiting for apple or somebody else to release certain code to juxtapose their own which performs new or different functions for graphics / etc library routines, I/O stacks (interlaced UDP or some better transmission protocol than TCP) or a nifty cutting edge thing nobody's thought of. Let's show a little vision & planning for a better UI / filesystem / spectrum, shall we?
Ok, so if they follow the gpl, so what? A license is a credible method to grant agreements by which to use and exchange some thing and promulgate memorandums of understanding between all involved parties. I think we need a better form & delivery of licensing, not to mention what the license reads.
Yes it definitely is ALL the time.
Bloggers input is commensurate to their political / personal involvement. Aside from propagandists, why would anyone spiel on the Web for no reason?
No ifs, ands or buts. Blogging is individuals staying at the forefront of *.gov reform. Anything else is BULLSHIT because that's the def. of a spoken and written revolution.
Peace
Slashdot needs RATINGS. A rating is work by an independent party who verifies claims stated or written by a party. All the individuals in the independent party cannot have any connection whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to the party whose veracity is in question. Forget six degrees of separation to Kevin Bacon, we're talking mono y mono.
Ratings are done all the time in scientific circles but they need some way of being defined, evaluated and engaged quickly in normal settings. Once an evaluation/assessment is done by a rating group the rating is published. Ratings are standards and should be sanctioned by non-profit boards for what they are (what do they say about actions of other people) and how they work (What does each rating mark or star signify? 1 to 4 stars? 1 to 6?).
Case in point: if some party gets a reputation for defrauding others they get a low rating from independent parties. You can apply mathematics to this but it is by and large a trust network. Ratings groups are essentially in effect on message boards and newsgroups when registered users comment other users positively or negatively.
Reference:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=109249&cid=928 1878
Re:Without IT... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Slashdot should come up with a scale or ratings system with a moon as an icon signifying the quantity + quality of tech topics in crescent, half, three quarters and full moon chunks. Topics represent either the light or dark side, open code and hidden code respectively. To expound on software architecture differences there can be a series of moons each with a classification."
Fix moved/broken links:
0 15 2-8C15-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=3&catI D=4 cites:o ns
/public/publications was not found on this server."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B
http://swig.stanford.edu/public/publicati
"Not Found
The requested URL
To heck with CSI:*, watch NYPD Blue (esp. older seasons) to watch how they tie evidence, confessions and eye witnesses to crime in a big city, high anxiety environment.
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/spa ce_is_for_peace.htm
"the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner"
Also check out space4peace.org
Ratings are pretty straightforward: excellent, good, fair and poor. Some people's scale includes a fifth indicator. Four is good because it's quadratic.
This is the part where the story begins to make sense: "But even Mr. Draper appreciates that he is skating close to the outer boundaries of common sense by erecting a virtual billboard on the Internet and inviting the world to compete for 10 minutes of his time." That's what ratings is all about: competition. If using a registered user-only, forum format you jot down what should be sold then you can definitely ask, refine, expound upon etc. what should be bought, by method of ratings. See my previous post on ratings formats.
Project page here.
FAQs:
here here here here here and here.
This recent trend of increasingly blaming foreigners for rapid outsourcing is exaggerated. Blame the corporations who will sell out anyone to streamline profits for CEOs.
I've noticed a conspicuous absence in people mentioning open source here, strange given Linux server use is up about 30% this quarter. It seems a lot of slashdotters have fingers in proprietary programming and open programming pies. Not that this is a bad thing.
Slashdot should come up with a scale or ratings system with a moon as an icon signifying the quantity + quality of tech topics in crescent, half, three quarters and full moon chunks. Topics represent either the light or dark side, open code and hidden code respectively. To expound on software architecture differences there can be a series of moons each with a classification.
People who write virii and trojans for Wintel boxes/routers should be getting money, recognition and babes ( or hunks if it's a female hacker ). These hackers expose flaws in flawed networking architectures that mainstream industries are very reluctant to expose. Who's committing the crime again?
Covering your ass by denying an insecurity or vulnerability exists while blaming hackers wastes everyones time. Even black hats should get credit. Give them a screamin' P4, a fractional T1 and new problems to tackle, not jail time. Some of these hackers just want to play. Let them. No one corporate entity, operating system or hacker group can destabilize or monopolize all of North America's IT infrastructure.
I think it's three things that must be considered: process ( the code ), parliamentary procedure ( codification between people ) and defining standards. If someone makes a point of order about the kernel and this motion is "filed" online in a routine manner then it should be received in open format. I think these things in part will determine how far a paper trail can go.
I agree with the semantics part but I think also future standards must incorporate the 3D element that the game engine designers and SIMmers are championing now. In the *exciting* future you're connected to other people's machines i.e. their desktops are mirrored to yours cached or real-time however you and your pod of developers collaborate information you want to trade/share and keep everything else firewalled out.
To make seemingly insecure and nutty ideas like this into reality tomorrow, open standards need to be embraced today. Standards are most important when they're defined, accepted and deployed by open commission and 100% separately introduced by private enterprises. Microsuck's Longhorn will never go in that direction let alone release more than a quarter of their source code. Opensource frameworks with proprietary frontends ( to keep the Wintels happily trolling ) are the key. Here we've got computing that's safe to run in every home and enterprise. Until then it's 7 out of 10 computers infected with spyware, netbios cruft, virus factories and Word documents that can't be read.
If the 1998-2000 tech boom and bust taught us anything where you're either a driver or a passenger it's that we need drivers. Translation: new business models that make money in the short and long haul. "Nickel and Dimed" author Barbara Ehrenreich recently spoke at my school, saying: "You can't blame the poor economy on character defects alone. There's not enough money." In short, let's help the financial representation incorporate some good biz models (capitalism + sustainability + socialism = something short of outright greed) that bring in more money for everyone, not just CEOs, management and sys admins on a lofty perch.
Hmm from the lack of posts (25 in 24 hours) it seems not enough people are doing their part to shine the light on frequent use of cross site scripting and its abuses. Perhaps that's because still too many coders employ privacy invasive methods in their server-side scripting.
Security is a parallel, interlocking issue if asking, "where does the data come from and where does the data go to?" (props to an old school EE guru and physicist for this saying) because you can have very secure client- and server-side apps but if the methodology of data retention is flawed you could have a password-less system and the privacy would still be just as bad.
I've always disliked heavy use of ECMAScript and cookies while debatable as to whether they're XSS or no they're easy to make as gateways to such things.
"..hierarchies, group members assume an authority will decide and they are only to enact the decision."
Ah, it *is* about culture whether east/west, poor communities or class conflict-oblivious communities like parts of Silicon Valley. Wherever tech & culture collimate it's ultimately about code.
So question what that authority is and how it delivers. In the case of Microshit culture, "will decide" really means "deciding for shrinkwrapped license users", initially omitting details about software products and withholding source code.
"enact the decision". In a truly collaborative and competitive network of communities several people may engage or enact the project at hand provided tiers of centralized control exist and are independently accountable. At present software development is still pretty much a monopoly; a series of shell games with the hubris "start your own business" while nearly everyone, even most geeks, are too poor to do this or are looking for more innovative ways to get paid besides by way of self-employment.
America and most of the world hasn't made it to the stage of collaborative enterprise yet because there's still too much corrupted code and corrupted due diligence. Hey, *I'm* optimistic. At least *I'm* realistic and don't try to sell or write crapcode like public class-only C#/.Net.
Here's a "close together" example:m m981104.html
http://www.estec.esa.nl/conferences/FPD/info/tos-
Here's a short paper minus images on telescope arrays:t /bthomas_ska_site.html
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/technology/future/2001oc
"The maximum extent of LOFAR is 350 km"
It seems there are proprietary astronomers who like proprietary programmers always think bigger is better when in fact smaller, more spread out is the best choice.
In principle the resolving power of a telescope depends on its diameter -- a bigger one can see finer detail -- but in practice atmospheric turbulence, the same effect that makes stars appear to twinkle, blurs the stars and erases fine detail. This is why the Hubble, even though it is not large, only about 2.4 meters (96 inches), compared with the new giants on the ground, can do breathtaking work.
The proposals sport Brobdingnagian names like the California Extremely Large Telescope, or CELT; Giant Magellan; or the Overwhelming Large Telescope, OWL, a 100-meter-diameter behemoth being contemplated by a collaboration of European nations. And their proponents promise appropriately outsized scientific results.
Ownership models will definitely have to be different. Anyone notable who denies this is a corporate shill or ignorant of the times. This means trust metrics will have to significantly evolve beyond the "all or nothing" premise. For example, instead of single shot, shrinkwrap licensing a different kind of licensing which gives due if not always equal consideration to both suppliers and demanders.
It's the demand economy, stupid!
Anything to do with Microshit or their hard and soft affiliates.
There's positively no need for it, except for migration and translations.
Worse is the people in denial about all the change taking place. A proprietary OS will not be the tablet/notebook/PDA/desktop leader beyond 2005. Even worse still are those who say they're open source but take inveiglers "shortcuts" whenever an opportunity in coding arises to cut corners and sell out the user's privacy and security for a profit.
To all those wintel pundits who say things aren't going to change anytime soon: get a clue and get a life. You had your day and your time is done.
Anything to do with Microshit or their hard and soft affiliates.
There's positively no need for it, except for migration and translations.
Worse is the people in denial about all the change taking place. A proprietary OS will not be the tablet/notebook/PDA/desktop leader beyond 2005. Even worse still are those who say they're open source but take inveiglers "shortcuts" whenever an opportunity in coding arises to cut corners and sell out the user's privacy and security for a profit.
To all those wintel pundits who say things aren't going to change anytime soon: get a clue and get a life. You had your day and your time is done.
So where's the 235,396 figure coming from? 26% of 3.3 mil? We have two public reports (BLS, Fed) and one private report from Forrester keep in mind public and private methodologies for surveying and collecting data are different.
...
Well guess what, not all tech is strictly service-sector so that throws the results off.
Also, this one caught my eye:
"require fewer skills, are automated or are highly portable." The observant reader will note whoever drafted the collection of different studies and whomever sponsored them might have an agenda of grouping as much data as can be believed (excluding independent verification of such data) into a single set of data for presentation -- misleading in the case of individual statistical surveys whose purpose is to identify specifics.
Think about what they were surveying if what's printed were the words used in questions to respondents/clients/etc. Most of our work in the tech field ends up being automated at some point. Portability is a compartmentalized issue and has many angles, product performance and ownership structure not the least of them.
"
Since 2001, some 2.9 million private sector jobs have been lost, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Many of those jobs won't ever return, even as the economy recovers, say experts. What's more, this isn't just true for blue-collar workers
Another estimate by Forester Research goes into more specifics. Forrester estimates that by 2015, some 3.3 million service-sector jobs will be shipped overseas or rendered obsolete by technology. Forester analyst John McCarthy says jobs that are most at risk require fewer skills, are automated or are highly portable.
Those include computer programming and software engineer jobs, that have long been leaving the country. By 2015, 26 percent of those jobs will be gone, says McCarthy.
"