Sell your assests, fire your engineers, use the money to buy back stock...yeah, that will increase shareholder value (if you sell off at the right point.) Seems like this sort of obvious pressure to direct a companies actions to the benefit of a few should be illegal, doesn't it? Finance shouldn't be about the gutting of infrastructure for the pillage of a few.
This is being argued in a few of my classes as the primary weakness of capitalism. Is there anyone anywhere addressing this in a manner that could bear fruit? R&D has become just D, and the D needs to "bear immediate, marketable fruit." Hence, Toyota's 10 years developing hybrid cars vs. GM's...what? I'm not trolling, I really would like to see suggestions. The US won't ever (I don't think) adopt japan's state directed industry model ("government intervention = market inefficency"). Nor does the european mixed socialist model sit well (despite increased standards of living.) What then is the answer? A strong military and IP laws that "grant" us a slice of all worldwide production? No, but really...
Re:the C. P. Snow Divide of Sciences and Humanitie
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't actually know anyone who is "happy with the products." I know people who think that "all computers suck." I know people who look at it like going to the dentist. I don't think there actually are microsoft fanboys who are users. I know mac fanboys who are users. Then again, I don't know of *any* linux or bsd users who are just users...
I am thinking you mean Quantity_Demanded (a point of the Demand curve) rather than Demand (which is the set of points which make up said curve.) But I might be mistaken.
In terms of an actual change in the Demand curve, the poor estimation would *act* like a shift in Demand (while really being a surplus or shortage based on the real Demand and Supply functions.) But it seems that you are suggesting that Demand curves are more konstant than I was aware. Increased demand would move the equillibrium point. If the increased price means increased profit, and current producers are already "satisfied with their capacity utilization", then it seems others would be looking at this as an oppurtunity. I'd believe an arguement based on the barriers to entry of capital investment to get into the game. I don't *want* to believe a company is "satisfied" and that quanity supplied is independent of quantity demanded. I'm new at this, though:-)
It seemed that the idea was that, where it is possible to enter a market, a huge demand will attract entrants. The new entrants will be competing for marketshare, which will for the established firms to also compete. Thus, it appeared to me it was suggested, an increased demand *will* cause prices to go up, which results in increased in competition and increased supply, which will cause prices to go down. No conflict with "charge all the traffic will bear", just not as applicable today as it was in the simpler days of a Free Market Economy;-)
Isn't VBA being depreciated for.NET? You can put a wrapper around the COM, but it isn't really "managed" code, right? So all those VBA and COM man-hours are going out the window anyway...
It may cause gnashing of teeth on/. but in the real business world people who base their business decisions on some kind of moral philosophy they subscribe to don't do very well - and consequently don't make particularly good customers.
Actually there is this thing called a Mission Statement. It relates to the "Vision" thing. Most companies have both written and unwritten requirements of their corporate culture. The interesting thing is, at least to quote my Financial Strategy Prof and the textbook, there is a correlation between percieved ethical behavior and doing well as a business. At a certain point it all comes down to trust. If you can't trust a corporations business culture, then you don't want to do business with them. This does hurt the bottomline.
My suggestion that the.NET CLR functions as a virtual CPU for a.NET program executing MSIL code was simplistic. MSIL is "compiled" into Portable Executable (PE) which is a collection of (MSIL) and Metadata. This is what I thought you were refering to. The CLR is designed to only produce machine code for what is actually going to run, for efficency. It is indeed possible to "bypass" the.NET framework by compiling everything to machine code (install-time code generation.)
Code that targets the runtime is known as managed code. Apparently a single bit is set in machine code to indicate it once originated as managed code. Doesn't all verification occur prior to generating said machine code? If you generate machine code, then tweak it by hand, wouldn't you have (effectively)unmanaged code that would run as managed code? Seems like allowing "pre-verification" could be worrisome unless you could confirm that it hasn't changed since it was verified. Is it possible to set the enviornment so that precompiled executables would be trapped, and prevented from running?
"is lightyears ahead of anything python simply because it gets compiled into machine code"
Actually,
.NET introduced a new programming language environment that compiles all source code into an intermediate language..NET languages are compiled into the Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL), which is executed by the Common Language Runtime (CLR) software in the Windows computer. The MSIL is similar to Java's bytecode, except that whereas Java is one language,.NET supports multiple programming languages...
But banks have safes that are locked. Likewise, there are guards, and doors that are locked (with alarm systems.) There is also a difference between taking something physical (which deprives the owner, and is theft,) and installing an instant messenger on a laptop that has been assigned to you.
Even if the bank had left its doors wide open, with the combination to the safe posted on a sign in the front window, this wouldn't be the same sort of case.
The archtypal attractive nuisance case is the home owner whose outdoor swimming pool doesn't have a fence around it. A swimming pool is attractive enough to kids, that it is considered negligent (which is a form of intent under the law) not to block them from the danger of swimming alone. If they drown, the home owner is in serious trouble.
My point is that the school should be held responsible for the attractive nuisance of posting the root password to the back of the laptops. Of course kids are going to use it. But there should be ballance. What damage does a felony conviction do to kids? The school needs to pony up exactly that much cash to the parents of each child. Fair is fair.
Well not all distributions are the same, of course. I run Debian, so I use apt-get, so it is easy: type "apt-get update", then type "apt-get upgrade". The first brings your database of available packages up to date. The second upgrades all of your packages.
I've run Windows since 1.0, and have WinXP as a dualboot option now. Installing and uninstalling and upgrading software is much easier under Debian than windows, no doubt. Especially troubling, under windows, is if you try to install the 2005 beta series of development tools. Be aware that not only is the order of installation important, so is the order you uninstall. In Debian I'd just "apt-get remove" with a list of things to get rid of. In windows, if you uninstall with the wrong order, there is a utility to try to fix your registry (but the disclaimer suggests it isn't expected to work in every permutation of uninstalling.)
Methinks you've confused reinstalling (which takes time) to upgrading (which is quick and painless.) You can easily be running your distro's current version without ever having done a reinstall. Or rebooting;-)
But if your a BSD person, you wouldn't be looking at adding any CDDL code to your BSD kernel. You couldn't, without adopting the CDDL. In that regard, the CDDL is *exactly* as viral as the GPL. In the case of the GPL I know what is being innoculated against. In the case of the CDDL, no level of trust has been established as of yet.
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property".
Gotta call bullshit. With a 4 digit number, I'd expect you to know better...so, are you trolling? Regardless:
Non-Free Software Licenses
The following licenses do not qualify as free software licenses. A non-free license is automatically incompatible with the GNU GPL.
Of course, we urge you to avoid using non-free software licenses, and to avoid non-free software in general.
(alphabetical list of non-free licenses...)
Sun Solaris Source Code (Foundation Release) License, Version 1.1
This is not a free software license. The license prohibits redistribution, prohibits commercial use of the software, and can be revoked.
I'm suppose what I'm really wondering is why artists aren't using the GPL-ed engine to showcase their work (which wouldn't be Q3A, necessarily, but a whole different universe, say, just using the engine.) Seems like this could erupt into zillions of games. Or not.
But still, why not? Take 3 or 5 or 7 graphics design majors at your medium sized college. How hard would it be for them to release? Do they still programming support? How much? Can this be automated?
I ran MS Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and it wasn't until 3.1 that MS could pretend to have anything close to even looking a little bit like what Apple had when they released. To suggest that it came from the same source, and they were working together, and MS beat apple to market is total revision of history. Almost as bad as the statement, "even if MS did invent most or all of the tech behind the iPod", when no one is claiming they invented any of it. Just patented it.
"I won't even swear on a stack of bibles that the "new" TCP/IP now shipping in NT/2000/XP and Windows 95/98/Me is completely free of the old code from Spider."
Then, "And implying that the TCP/IP stack uses BSD code is also false. As I said above there may be small vestiges of it in there, although I doubt it. Anyway the FreeBSD programmers who reported all this to the Wall Street Journal can't see the NT TCP/IP source either, so they can't have been referring to that."
But, in terms of the stack's source code being hidden away, so who can tell anymore:
First, anyone can "fingerprint" a TCP/IP stack, without having access to the source itself. There are a variety of algorithms, but they mostly seem to depend on testing behaviour under a variety of nonsensical condtions.
Because no two people are likely to implement -EXACTLY- the same behaviour under conditions that will never arise under normal usage, those behaviours are pretty good indicators of what software is being used, where.
*Behaviour in this context may refer to a number of things, depending on the exact fingerprinting technique used. I believe nmap uses a mix of error codes and other responses. However, that is not the only method, or even necessarily the best. (There is at least one article linked to, from nmap's own webpages, which takes nmap to task for using older fingerprinting techniques.)
I don't see why it is so unlikely. It seems like a natural progression. so why hasn't this been done already, and a lot? Is it a matter of lack of organization? If you put together the content, how likely is it to be bought out from under you by a closed, professional company? (Which could be part of your business model, actually...)
Actually it was about if text was sufficent, or if a word processor was necessary. The move from text to notepad or wordpad (which isn't even text, but RTF) was missing (what I consider to be) the relevant point. Emacs would work as a front end to whatever database system they are using.
Well but perhaps by "simple text" editor they meant text as opposed to a word processor. I'm sure that the "simple text" editors Emacs and GVim both would be excellent for this purpose. Now notepad is a little too simple for my taste.
Slashdot Mirror
Sell your assests, fire your engineers, use the money to buy back stock...yeah, that will increase shareholder value (if you sell off at the right point.) Seems like this sort of obvious pressure to direct a companies actions to the benefit of a few should be illegal, doesn't it? Finance shouldn't be about the gutting of infrastructure for the pillage of a few.
This is being argued in a few of my classes as the primary weakness of capitalism. Is there anyone anywhere addressing this in a manner that could bear fruit? R&D has become just D, and the D needs to "bear immediate, marketable fruit." Hence, Toyota's 10 years developing hybrid cars vs. GM's...what? I'm not trolling, I really would like to see suggestions. The US won't ever (I don't think) adopt japan's state directed industry model ("government intervention = market inefficency"). Nor does the european mixed socialist model sit well (despite increased standards of living.) What then is the answer? A strong military and IP laws that "grant" us a slice of all worldwide production? No, but really...
I don't actually know anyone who is "happy with the products." I know people who think that "all computers suck." I know people who look at it like going to the dentist. I don't think there actually are microsoft fanboys who are users. I know mac fanboys who are users. Then again, I don't know of *any* linux or bsd users who are just users...
Thanks! Better you and now than later this semester on a submitted paper. :-)
I am thinking you mean Quantity_Demanded (a point of the Demand curve) rather than Demand (which is the set of points which make up said curve.) But I might be mistaken.
:-)
In terms of an actual change in the Demand curve, the poor estimation would *act* like a shift in Demand (while really being a surplus or shortage based on the real Demand and Supply functions.) But it seems that you are suggesting that Demand curves are more konstant than I was aware. Increased demand would move the equillibrium point. If the increased price means increased profit, and current producers are already "satisfied with their capacity utilization", then it seems others would be looking at this as an oppurtunity. I'd believe an arguement based on the barriers to entry of capital investment to get into the game. I don't *want* to believe a company is "satisfied" and that quanity supplied is independent of quantity demanded. I'm new at this, though
If one bag will hold 2 apples, how many bags do we need to hold 32 apples? 16 bags? So then (2GB)(16)=32GB
It seemed that the idea was that, where it is possible to enter a market, a huge demand will attract entrants. The new entrants will be competing for marketshare, which will for the established firms to also compete. Thus, it appeared to me it was suggested, an increased demand *will* cause prices to go up, which results in increased in competition and increased supply, which will cause prices to go down. No conflict with "charge all the traffic will bear", just not as applicable today as it was in the simpler days of a Free Market Economy ;-)
Isn't VBA being depreciated for .NET? You can put a wrapper around the COM, but it isn't really "managed" code, right? So all those VBA and COM man-hours are going out the window anyway...
It may cause gnashing of teeth on /. but in the real business world people who base their business decisions on some kind of moral philosophy they subscribe to don't do very well - and consequently don't make particularly good customers.
Actually there is this thing called a Mission Statement. It relates to the "Vision" thing. Most companies have both written and unwritten requirements of their corporate culture. The interesting thing is, at least to quote my Financial Strategy Prof and the textbook, there is a correlation between percieved ethical behavior and doing well as a business. At a certain point it all comes down to trust. If you can't trust a corporations business culture, then you don't want to do business with them. This does hurt the bottomline.
My suggestion that the .NET CLR functions as a virtual CPU for a .NET program executing MSIL code was simplistic. MSIL is "compiled" into Portable Executable (PE) which is a collection of (MSIL) and Metadata. This is what I thought you were refering to. The CLR is designed to only produce machine code for what is actually going to run, for efficency. It is indeed possible to "bypass" the .NET framework by compiling everything to machine code (install-time code generation.)
Code that targets the runtime is known as managed code. Apparently a single bit is set in machine code to indicate it once originated as managed code. Doesn't all verification occur prior to generating said machine code? If you generate machine code, then tweak it by hand, wouldn't you have (effectively)unmanaged code that would run as managed code? Seems like allowing "pre-verification" could be worrisome unless you could confirm that it hasn't changed since it was verified. Is it possible to set the enviornment so that precompiled executables would be trapped, and prevented from running?
"They will be open, but in a slow way and only if your server can be trusted! "
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Actually, Now that is also not quite true, because people have written various JVM bytecode compilers for their languages, or implemented their languages in Java. (See Jython for the latter, or The Tcl/Java Project, or The scheme package for Java based scheme. lists some 200 languages that have been ported to the JVM.)
"A bank would be a VERY attractive target."
But banks have safes that are locked. Likewise, there are guards, and doors that are locked (with alarm systems.) There is also a difference between taking something physical (which deprives the owner, and is theft,) and installing an instant messenger on a laptop that has been assigned to you.
Even if the bank had left its doors wide open, with the combination to the safe posted on a sign in the front window, this wouldn't be the same sort of case.
The archtypal attractive nuisance case is the home owner whose outdoor swimming pool doesn't have a fence around it. A swimming pool is attractive enough to kids, that it is considered negligent (which is a form of intent under the law) not to block them from the danger of swimming alone. If they drown, the home owner is in serious trouble.
My point is that the school should be held responsible for the attractive nuisance of posting the root password to the back of the laptops. Of course kids are going to use it. But there should be ballance. What damage does a felony conviction do to kids? The school needs to pony up exactly that much cash to the parents of each child. Fair is fair.
Well not all distributions are the same, of course. I run Debian, so I use apt-get, so it is easy: type "apt-get update", then type "apt-get upgrade". The first brings your database of available packages up to date. The second upgrades all of your packages.
I've run Windows since 1.0, and have WinXP as a dualboot option now. Installing and uninstalling and upgrading software is much easier under Debian than windows, no doubt. Especially troubling, under windows, is if you try to install the 2005 beta series of development tools. Be aware that not only is the order of installation important, so is the order you uninstall. In Debian I'd just "apt-get remove" with a list of things to get rid of. In windows, if you uninstall with the wrong order, there is a utility to try to fix your registry (but the disclaimer suggests it isn't expected to work in every permutation of uninstalling.)
Agreed. Can you say "attractive nuisance?" I knew you could.
Methinks you've confused reinstalling (which takes time) to upgrading (which is quick and painless.) You can easily be running your distro's current version without ever having done a reinstall. Or rebooting ;-)
But if your a BSD person, you wouldn't be looking at adding any CDDL code to your BSD kernel. You couldn't, without adopting the CDDL. In that regard, the CDDL is *exactly* as viral as the GPL. In the case of the GPL I know what is being innoculated against. In the case of the CDDL, no level of trust has been established as of yet.
Ok...my mistake:
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property".
Regardless:
I'm suppose what I'm really wondering is why artists aren't using the GPL-ed engine to showcase their work (which wouldn't be Q3A, necessarily, but a whole different universe, say, just using the engine.) Seems like this could erupt into zillions of games. Or not.
But still, why not? Take 3 or 5 or 7 graphics design majors at your medium sized college. How hard would it be for them to release? Do they still programming support? How much? Can this be automated?
I ran MS Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and it wasn't until 3.1 that MS could pretend to have anything close to even looking a little bit like what Apple had when they released. To suggest that it came from the same source, and they were working together, and MS beat apple to market is total revision of history. Almost as bad as the statement, "even if MS did invent most or all of the tech behind the iPod", when no one is claiming they invented any of it. Just patented it.
Then, "And implying that the TCP/IP stack uses BSD code is also false. As I said above there may be small vestiges of it in there, although I doubt it. Anyway the FreeBSD programmers who reported all this to the Wall Street Journal can't see the NT TCP/IP source either, so they can't have been referring to that."
But, in terms of the stack's source code being hidden away, so who can tell anymore:
I don't see why it is so unlikely. It seems like a natural progression. so why hasn't this been done already, and a lot? Is it a matter of lack of organization? If you put together the content, how likely is it to be bought out from under you by a closed, professional company? (Which could be part of your business model, actually...)
Actually it was about if text was sufficent, or if a word processor was necessary. The move from text to notepad or wordpad (which isn't even text, but RTF) was missing (what I consider to be) the relevant point. Emacs would work as a front end to whatever database system they are using.
Well but perhaps by "simple text" editor they meant text as opposed to a word processor. I'm sure that the "simple text" editors Emacs and GVim both would be excellent for this purpose. Now notepad is a little too simple for my taste.