Hobbies can and do become obscure and even die out. The certainly can become inaccessible due to rising costs, falling availability of requirements of the hobby, or due to legislation. Skills required for the hobby can die too. The harder and more it is to get into something, the rarer it becomes and therefore the more expensive it becomes...and that's a vicious cycle.
You use the example of a coin collector. You couldn't collect coins if there weren't any coins to collect (eg. if they were made illegal and destroyed).
How many people do you know that restore steam trains today? How many people who can spin their own yarn? How easy is it to take up fencing in your area? Gun clubs are all but gone here in Australia since new tougher gun laws.
Model rocketry is going the way of the dinosaur thanks to the whole terrorist hoopla, and rising insurance costs. Model aircraft flying costs a lot more now than it use to, so fewer people do that.
Imagine a world where taking photographs (and I'm not talking about anything lewd) could get you sued or thrown in jail. Oh wait, that's already possible, but if it were common photography would be dead.
Imagine a world where you need a $10,000 license to release software or face 25 years in prison. Some companies pushing DRM would like that to be the case, and if few enough people care enough to argue against it, it's certainly a possibility. Too extreme? Imagine a world where you need to buy a rare, expensive, specialized non-DRM computer to run Linux. How accessible would the OS be then.
If you don't think the web could be killed off I'd say you're wrong there too.
And the pay cut isn't a problem, it's just a matter of understanding what's important in life, and leaving the world of silly consumerism behind. If the job pays the bills and leaves enough do have disposable income for the usual pleasures in life, and not worry about next month, that's quite enough for me at this point in my life.
All nice and good but wait till you fall seriously ill or have children or others depending on you.
Re:How does that differ from commercial or in-hous
on
The Future of Firefox
·
· Score: 1
But at least OSS failures are ones generally based on technical merits, and not so much based on a company running out of money or a project being killed for political reasons eeven though it's quite good.
You seem to be arguing that politics does not play a part in Open Source. Need I remind you of the recent spat between Andrew Tridgel and Linus where Linus was effectively pressuring Andrew to drop his project to appease a 3rd party (so that Linus could keep bitkeeper)?
Wherever a group of 2 or more people collaborate there will be politics of one form or another involved. It doesn't matter what your development philosophy is.
All developers in closed-source companies that I've known would *like* to take pride in their code, but they always have to respect tight schedules
That's true of all code. There's always time pressure and deadlines to deal with if you ever want to do anything relevant or collaborate with others.
Also, there are good open source projects and there are bad ones. There are good open source developers and there are bad ones. Same for closed. All this bunk about whether its open source or not is pointless and devisive.
As for me, I was a developer, so I should know what I'm talking about.
Yes, you should...
in my new line of job, I can tell the customer to get lost until I'm sure everything's done just right, and he's usually happy with that, because my products cost well over $10k a pop and he prefers waiting than having a botched-up result:-)
You're confusing the nature of your customer and your market with the nature of your development philosophy.
Publishing an open-source project is _never_ a bad idea. The more code and collaboration out there the stronger the community is. I never wanted to be the best at making program X... I just wanted to be helpful.
A lot of people operate under this assumption. Sadly they're just plain wrong, and here's why: If you have 1000 pieces of software that all claim to do roughly the same sort of thing, and 999 are hacks, finding that 1 good program is going to be an excercise in frustration.
End users are likely to come across one or more of the hacks, curse about open source rubbish and go back to using close rubbish that at least works a little better. More sophisticated users will go and find out what other people are happy with, but it still makes the process much more complex.
It's the same reason having thousands of distros,f ew of which work well, is a bad bad thing. Some diversity is a good thing, but too much diversity is almost as bad as none.
If open source wants to survive, we need more focus on a narrower range of products as well as solid lobbying of politicians to keep open source legal.
To be fair the sorts of software you're talking about writing yourself sound more like code snippets than fully functional programs. That's not so bad since your target audience is generally other developers, and they can be expected to sort through software.
...yep the RIAA got it...poor bugger. Meanwhile it's parents have been sued and have declared themselves bankrupt. In an official statement RIAA a spokesperson said "Being 10 years old doesn't mean you're exempt from the law".
Eh? When I brought my Canon printer home, the print head came in a separate package. I installed it myself. Why would it take an agent to replace something I installed myself in the first place?
Anyone could install it. Unfortunately, Canon class the print head as a replacement part and don't sell it separately. (At least in Australia) you have to take it to a service agent who can order in the part. This was not their policy a few years ago, but this is certainly what they're doing now.
I have am MP730 multifunction.
Cost of print head AUD139. Labour AUD 59. Cost of new printer roughly AUD250 (various models) Cost of new multifunction roughly AUD500 (This is the MP760 I think. MP730 is discontinued).
Since I had a multifunction I begrudgingly went for the repair. I also bought a second printer to take some of the strain off the multifunction which sees quite a bit of use as a scanner and photocopier.
No more teaching to the test! BAN IT. Don't tell the teachers what is on the test or when it is. The test will be given at random points testing what the students should know up to that point (and then some as described above). That way you can avoid that who "For the next two months we will be focusing on the basic things you'll have to know how to do for the CAT tests so we can get more funding." nonsense.
Just how do you propose to not define what's on the test but magically test what "students should know up to that point". Guess what you have to define what they should know. Otherwise tests end up like a Who wants to be a millionaire game show.
MANDITORY CIVIL SERVICE
So parents who already have to work 2 jobs each now have to make their kids work for fee. Fine for children who'd otherwise have nothing else to do. Some kids go on to actually help support their families.
THE PADDLE. Excellent. Teach them that punishment through violence is acceptable but punish them if they're violent.
Same sex schools Yes, lets not teach them the skills they need to deal with their own hormones or the opposite sex, then dump them into society where they have to deal with learning these things in college or on the job. Then lets wonder why girls discover boys and vice versa and end up dropping out of college.
Do us all a favour. Take your old fashioned views and silver bullet solutions and get an education yourself. If you had a decent one you'd realise that roughshod solutions like this tend to make the problem much much worse.
I think you're confusing children with monkies. You expect them to mimic what they see on TV. (If that were a problem the grim fairy tales have been around for much longer than tv. Do you see children turned into cannibals when Hansel and Gretel is read to them??)
Perhaps if they have no other role models or aren't taught that TV is about storytelling and not usually about reality...oh wait that requires guidance and parenting. Too hard, lets blame technology instead.
Anyway you complain about people being F'ing rude. Well guess what you're a hypocrite to use that word and complain about rudeness and arrogance. (You're even advocating that your solution should be forced on everyone to fix the problem for goodness sake).
Speaking of hypocrisy if you're so switched off and tuned out from society what are you doing reading and posting on/. or holding down a job. You've just made a decision not to participate in mainstream media. You haven't "switched off" from society.
The box is not the problem. Arrogance is, and you're part of the problem.
Canon has a printhead that is seperate from the ink carts, but also replaceable if it gets fouled up, thus allowing you to replace only the parts that need it.
Except that the print head is considered a spare part. You have to have it installed by a Canon service agent, and it costs as much as the printer itself to have it done (unless you're a fool like me and buy their multifunction in which case the cost to replace the whole thing is too much so you spend 2/5 of the cost on just the head).
If a child isn't curious enough to want to know how long division works, you've obviously failed to interest them. You've sat them in front of a book and said here you must learn this. You've given them no reason to want to know it more than they want to know how to use a calculator.
Try this technological approach. Ask a child to write a step by step set of instructions for dividing one number by another. Present it as a real world problem and tell them to ask themselves how it was done before the calculator. (Make it fun for goodness sake. Maybe put a story around it, or offer a reward). Let them know there's a benefit to knowing how it was done before calculators. It's the EDUCATOR who is responsible for fostering and nurturing curiousity and it's the educator who's failing if he or she doesn't do so.
By your argument unless he's done his research what makes him qualified to tell us how to best teach his own kids either.
I agree with him. That's the beauty of having an informed opinion. Anyone can do it...really...and without the research degree. You should try it some time.
Just in case you think I'm a highschool dropout since paper qualifications seem important to you I have a B.Sc. in Computer Science and a Masters in astronomy.
By the way, try hand calculating astrophysics problems some time before you open your mouth about technology. If you want to do it in weeks, do it by hand. If you want each problem to take you hours, use a calculator. If you want to be able to vary parameters and do what if calculations you better use a computer, or have years to spare. Perhaps you don't think kids should be doing these sorts of problems. I however think some basic physics would go a long way.
Yeah, can't have kids feeling good about themselves. Can't teach them through positive experiences when we could be using the cane! (Why stop at that. Put them on the rack if they get it wrong. They'll learn their times tables much better if they're in pain if they get it wrong). Can't let them have a childhood before allowing them to discover the world is a harsh unforgiving place, because there's no place in today's society for having a childhood.
Brilliant MA Ed Eintein.
You sir should not be an educator at all. You're an extremist and a hater of technology. Though you don't like it technology is an important part of our society as it exists today and a necessary thing for children to be taught about.
Reading, writing and arithemetic need to be supplemented with Acrobat, MS Word and Excel/Mathematica. Real world problems in science and math CANNOT be solved without the use of computers within a human life time!
I'll also say the same thing I said to the parent:
Oh yeah. In a society that increasingly relies on computers and technology what we need to do is teach our children "the basics" and leave the as technologically iliterate as possible.
People like you are missing the point altogether. There's a vast difference between teaching children not to rely on technology and to understand the concepts behind what technology they're using, and teaching children that anything technological is evil and taboo.
We need to teach both the basics and the technology. They can in fact co-exist. Tests where you don't get to use a calculator and tests where you do for example. (Actually I loath the use of desktop calculators. Excel is a better way to go).
Otherwise when those children get to college age their technological learning is retarded!
Oh yeah. In a society that increasingly relies on computers and technology what we need to do is teach our children "the basics" and leave the as technologically iliterate as possible.
People like you are missing the point altogether. There's a vast difference between teaching children not to rely on technology and to understand the concepts behind what technology they're using, and teaching children that anything technological is evil and taboo.
We need to teach both the basics and the technology. They can in fact co-exist. Tests where you don't get to use a calculator and tests where you do for example. (Actually I loath the use of desktop calculators. Excel is a better way to go).
Otherwise when those children get to college age their technological learning is retarded!
Remember too that an upgrade to a dynamically linked function means that proper testing must include all software that uses that function.
Wrong. Totally wrong way to go about it. If you're building with a library the library should be treated as a black box. If you can't trust it to work as a black box, don't use it.
The habbit of doing this kind fo regression testing is a bad habbit brought about by people relying on bad libraries. Think about it. If a mechanic replaces an air or oil filter, he may test the car to make sure it runs but he sure as hell isn't going to go through the rigorous checks the engine went through at the factory. If mechanics worked that way they'd be out of business. So too with coders.
. In that case, the early-adopter and the wait-for-the-price-to-drop users have gotten equal value out of the consoles.
No, because the early adopter will dump the console at the end of the 4 year period and move on to the next thing. The wait-for-the-price-to-drop users will keep their consoles LONGER. So while the early adopter pays $400 and gets 3-4 years use, the late adopter pays $300 and gets at least the same time out of it, if not more (perhaps 5-6 years before games start drying up or parts die).
The early adopter is paying for the latest and greatest. That's fine and good, but don't pretend he's getting better value out of it just to justify the behaviour of continually buying the next big thing. It's actually a very costly and dangerous habbit and if not kept in check a gadget addiction can be just as harmful as a gambling addiction.
Furthermore if you do have the disposable income but you're not constantly upgrading your gadgets you can afford to play with more different types of gadgets. This is the category I fall into. I like to keep my gadget buying in check so that it doesn't destroy my life, and I like to play with lots of different types of gadgets. Bought a mapping GPS this year for AUD297. If I'd done that a few years ago I'd be looking at much more.
I've never ever been happy after buying the latest and greatest because I know the value I've gotten for my money is awful, so I just plain don't do it anymore. If you wait you get the benefit of early adopter's experience, and reduced costs.
The patent system works. Yes, even for software patent. What the world needs however is patent reviewers that aren't orang-utang
So you're saying that relying on underpaid, overworked public servants in every country to do a specialist job correctly to perfection every time in a situation where every case is a one off is not a flaw in the patent system? Good luck finding these magical non-orguntang public servants. Please go look under the magic mushrooms right beside the fairies.
Perhaps adding a "patent meta-moderation" system like that of Slashdot
Oh yeah that's what we need. A system where ANY monkey can "meta-moderate". Have you seen some of the things that rise to the top under/. moderation. I know you haven't seen a lot of worth while things that got scored -1. I'd rather the current system to what you're describing, and I hate the current system with a passion.
From the article: Morgan adds that GPS typically only locates things within a few hundred meters
Huh? I can get down to 6 meters and in AUS we don't have WAAS. This is just FUD.
And what happens if they move a wireless access point?
There are lots of applications that could do with indoors coverage, but this isn't a GPS killer.
I could see something like this being a complementary addition to a GPS. GPS+WPS or somethink like that. But the power of GPS is the ability to locate yourself anywhere on the planet that you can have line of site to enough sky. The WIFI coverage of the earth doesn't compare to the satelite coverage you get.
What I'd like to see is technology that could give position down to the centimeter (or at least down to the size of the unit). They you'd get some fantastic applications in the building industry for example.
And with an attitude like that, I guess that's why you work as a wage slave at some dump instead of at Google.
Actually quite the opposite. This is the type of attitude that I've seen get people promoted at a few places I've worked.
Of course, I'm not going to do much more than required at any company that doesn't offer me any reward for doing so
I think that's the key right there. You have to give AND get if you want any kind of fulfilment or recognition (or money to do other things outside of work for that matter). Doing the bare minimum is a losing strategy. Doing anything for nothing is a losing strategy. Working at a pace that won't burn you out and acheiving things for your employer, while they reward you for it is where you want to be.
The/. mod system only works as well as it does because/. is, as you say, a community and the "sane" outnumber the "jerks" by probably 100:1
Oh yeah, try making a perfectly valid criticism of Linux and see how far you get with the "sane" system./. readership has its biases just like everyone else.
I've seen a lot of good comments that should have been modded higher, but I bet I've missed a lot more. (I read at +4).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh brother. Come up with something original.
People with common interests, ideals and goals can and do organize into groups, and it is sometimes acceptable to refer to these groups collectively.
That's like saying "There are no capitalists. There are just people" or "There are no democrats/replublicans" etc.
Have you ever heard of the FSF?
I think it is safe to say that most people who use and write open source want to see open source software continue to be written and gain popularity.
Again I ask.. Survive what? Hobbies don't die.
Hobbies can and do become obscure and even die out. The certainly can become inaccessible due to rising costs, falling availability of requirements of the hobby, or due to legislation. Skills required for the hobby can die too. The harder and more it is to get into something, the rarer it becomes and therefore the more expensive it becomes...and that's a vicious cycle.
You use the example of a coin collector. You couldn't collect coins if there weren't any coins to collect (eg. if they were made illegal and destroyed).
How many people do you know that restore steam trains today? How many people who can spin their own yarn? How easy is it to take up fencing in your area? Gun clubs are all but gone here in Australia since new tougher gun laws.
Model rocketry is going the way of the dinosaur thanks to the whole terrorist hoopla, and rising insurance costs. Model aircraft flying costs a lot more now than it use to, so fewer people do that.
Imagine a world where taking photographs (and I'm not talking about anything lewd) could get you sued or thrown in jail. Oh wait, that's already possible, but if it were common photography would be dead.
Imagine a world where you need a $10,000 license to release software or face 25 years in prison. Some companies pushing DRM would like that to be the case, and if few enough people care enough to argue against it, it's certainly a possibility. Too extreme? Imagine a world where you need to buy a rare, expensive, specialized non-DRM computer to run Linux. How accessible would the OS be then.
If you don't think the web could be killed off I'd say you're wrong there too.
And the pay cut isn't a problem, it's just a matter of understanding what's important in life, and leaving the world of silly consumerism behind. If the job pays the bills and leaves enough do have disposable income for the usual pleasures in life, and not worry about next month, that's quite enough for me at this point in my life.
All nice and good but wait till you fall seriously ill or have children or others depending on you.
But at least OSS failures are ones generally based on technical merits, and not so much based on a company running out of money or a project being killed for political reasons eeven though it's quite good.
You seem to be arguing that politics does not play a part in Open Source. Need I remind you of the recent spat between Andrew Tridgel and Linus where Linus was effectively pressuring Andrew to drop his project to appease a 3rd party (so that Linus could keep bitkeeper)?
Wherever a group of 2 or more people collaborate there will be politics of one form or another involved. It doesn't matter what your development philosophy is.
All developers in closed-source companies that I've known would *like* to take pride in their code, but they always have to respect tight schedules
That's true of all code. There's always time pressure and deadlines to deal with if you ever want to do anything relevant or collaborate with others.
Also, there are good open source projects and there are bad ones. There are good open source developers and there are bad ones. Same for closed. All this bunk about whether its open source or not is pointless and devisive.
As for me, I was a developer, so I should know what I'm talking about.
Yes, you should...
in my new line of job, I can tell the customer to get lost until I'm sure everything's done just right, and he's usually happy with that, because my products cost well over $10k a pop and he prefers waiting than having a botched-up result
You're confusing the nature of your customer and your market with the nature of your development philosophy.
Publishing an open-source project is _never_ a bad idea. The more code and collaboration out there the stronger the community is. I never wanted to be the best at making program X... I just wanted to be helpful.
A lot of people operate under this assumption. Sadly they're just plain wrong, and here's why: If you have 1000 pieces of software that all claim to do roughly the same sort of thing, and 999 are hacks, finding that 1 good program is going to be an excercise in frustration.
End users are likely to come across one or more of the hacks, curse about open source rubbish and go back to using close rubbish that at least works a little better. More sophisticated users will go and find out what other people are happy with, but it still makes the process much more complex.
It's the same reason having thousands of distros,f ew of which work well, is a bad bad thing. Some diversity is a good thing, but too much diversity is almost as bad as none.
If open source wants to survive, we need more focus on a narrower range of products as well as solid lobbying of politicians to keep open source legal.
To be fair the sorts of software you're talking about writing yourself sound more like code snippets than fully functional programs. That's not so bad since your target audience is generally other developers, and they can be expected to sort through software.
This planet is like Tatooine like Jupiter is like Earth. It has the same number of suns in the star system but that's about it.
...yep the RIAA got it...poor bugger. Meanwhile it's parents have been sued and have declared themselves bankrupt. In an official statement RIAA a spokesperson said "Being 10 years old doesn't mean you're exempt from the law".
He dared to blasphemeth. He hath derided the holy OS on /. and he must be modded down -1 troll into oblivion!
Eh? When I brought my Canon printer home, the print head came in a separate package. I installed it myself. Why would it take an agent to replace something I installed myself in the first place?
Anyone could install it. Unfortunately, Canon class the print head as a replacement part and don't sell it separately. (At least in Australia) you have to take it to a service agent who can order in the part. This was not their policy a few years ago, but this is certainly what they're doing now.
I have am MP730 multifunction.
Cost of print head AUD139. Labour AUD 59.
Cost of new printer roughly AUD250 (various models)
Cost of new multifunction roughly AUD500 (This is the MP760 I think. MP730 is discontinued).
Since I had a multifunction I begrudgingly went for the repair. I also bought a second printer to take some of the strain off the multifunction which sees quite a bit of use as a scanner and photocopier.
You're talking out of your earhole!
No more teaching to the test! BAN IT. Don't tell the teachers what is on the test or when it is. The test will be given at random points testing what the students should know up to that point (and then some as described above). That way you can avoid that who "For the next two months we will be focusing on the basic things you'll have to know how to do for the CAT tests so we can get more funding." nonsense.
Just how do you propose to not define what's on the test but magically test what "students should know up to that point". Guess what you have to define what they should know. Otherwise tests end up like a Who wants to be a millionaire game show.
MANDITORY CIVIL SERVICE
So parents who already have to work 2 jobs each now have to make their kids work for fee. Fine for children who'd otherwise have nothing else to do. Some kids go on to actually help support their families.
THE PADDLE.
Excellent. Teach them that punishment through violence is acceptable but punish them if they're violent.
Same sex schools
Yes, lets not teach them the skills they need to deal with their own hormones or the opposite sex, then dump them into society where they have to deal with learning these things in college or on the job. Then lets wonder why girls discover boys and vice versa and end up dropping out of college.
Do us all a favour. Take your old fashioned views and silver bullet solutions and get an education yourself. If you had a decent one you'd realise that roughshod solutions like this tend to make the problem much much worse.
Another anti-technology piece of flamebait I see.
/. or holding down a job. You've just made a decision not to participate in mainstream media. You haven't "switched off" from society.
I think you're confusing children with monkies. You expect them to mimic what they see on TV. (If that were a problem the grim fairy tales have been around for much longer than tv. Do you see children turned into cannibals when Hansel and Gretel is read to them??)
Perhaps if they have no other role models or aren't taught that TV is about storytelling and not usually about reality...oh wait that requires guidance and parenting. Too hard, lets blame technology instead.
Anyway you complain about people being F'ing rude. Well guess what you're a hypocrite to use that word and complain about rudeness and arrogance. (You're even advocating that your solution should be forced on everyone to fix the problem for goodness sake).
Speaking of hypocrisy if you're so switched off and tuned out from society what are you doing reading and posting on
The box is not the problem. Arrogance is, and you're part of the problem.
Canon has a printhead that is seperate from the ink carts, but also replaceable if it gets fouled up, thus allowing you to replace only the parts that need it.
Except that the print head is considered a spare part. You have to have it installed by a Canon service agent, and it costs as much as the printer itself to have it done (unless you're a fool like me and buy their multifunction in which case the cost to replace the whole thing is too much so you spend 2/5 of the cost on just the head).
If a child isn't curious enough to want to know how long division works, you've obviously failed to interest them. You've sat them in front of a book and said here you must learn this. You've given them no reason to want to know it more than they want to know how to use a calculator.
Try this technological approach. Ask a child to write a step by step set of instructions for dividing one number by another. Present it as a real world problem and tell them to ask themselves how it was done before the calculator. (Make it fun for goodness sake. Maybe put a story around it, or offer a reward). Let them know there's a benefit to knowing how it was done before calculators. It's the EDUCATOR who is responsible for fostering and nurturing curiousity and it's the educator who's failing if he or she doesn't do so.
By your argument unless he's done his research what makes him qualified to tell us how to best teach his own kids either.
I agree with him. That's the beauty of having an informed opinion. Anyone can do it...really...and without the research degree. You should try it some time.
Just in case you think I'm a highschool dropout since paper qualifications seem important to you I have a B.Sc. in Computer Science and a Masters in astronomy.
By the way, try hand calculating astrophysics problems some time before you open your mouth about technology. If you want to do it in weeks, do it by hand. If you want each problem to take you hours, use a calculator. If you want to be able to vary parameters and do what if calculations you better use a computer, or have years to spare. Perhaps you don't think kids should be doing these sorts of problems. I however think some basic physics would go a long way.
I couldn't have put it better myself! I'm not a parent so your arguments also have more credibility. Thank you for posting.
Yeah, can't have kids feeling good about themselves. Can't teach them through positive experiences when we could be using the cane! (Why stop at that. Put them on the rack if they get it wrong. They'll learn their times tables much better if they're in pain if they get it wrong). Can't let them have a childhood before allowing them to discover the world is a harsh unforgiving place, because there's no place in today's society for having a childhood.
Brilliant MA Ed Eintein.
You sir should not be an educator at all. You're an extremist and a hater of technology. Though you don't like it technology is an important part of our society as it exists today and a necessary thing for children to be taught about.
Reading, writing and arithemetic need to be supplemented with Acrobat, MS Word and Excel/Mathematica. Real world problems in science and math CANNOT be solved without the use of computers within a human life time!
I'll also say the same thing I said to the parent:
Oh yeah. In a society that increasingly relies on computers and technology what we need to do is teach our children "the basics" and leave the as technologically iliterate as possible.
People like you are missing the point altogether. There's a vast difference between teaching children not to rely on technology and to understand the concepts behind what technology they're using, and teaching children that anything technological is evil and taboo.
We need to teach both the basics and the technology. They can in fact co-exist. Tests where you don't get to use a calculator and tests where you do for example. (Actually I loath the use of desktop calculators. Excel is a better way to go).
Otherwise when those children get to college age their technological learning is retarded!
Oh yeah. In a society that increasingly relies on computers and technology what we need to do is teach our children "the basics" and leave the as technologically iliterate as possible.
People like you are missing the point altogether. There's a vast difference between teaching children not to rely on technology and to understand the concepts behind what technology they're using, and teaching children that anything technological is evil and taboo.
We need to teach both the basics and the technology. They can in fact co-exist. Tests where you don't get to use a calculator and tests where you do for example. (Actually I loath the use of desktop calculators. Excel is a better way to go).
Otherwise when those children get to college age their technological learning is retarded!
Remember too that an upgrade to a dynamically linked function means that proper testing must include all software that uses that function.
Wrong. Totally wrong way to go about it. If you're building with a library the library should be treated as a black box. If you can't trust it to work as a black box, don't use it.
The habbit of doing this kind fo regression testing is a bad habbit brought about by people relying on bad libraries. Think about it. If a mechanic replaces an air or oil filter, he may test the car to make sure it runs but he sure as hell isn't going to go through the rigorous checks the engine went through at the factory. If mechanics worked that way they'd be out of business. So too with coders.
alias man='woman'
Happy now?
. In that case, the early-adopter and the wait-for-the-price-to-drop users have gotten equal value out of the consoles.
No, because the early adopter will dump the console at the end of the 4 year period and move on to the next thing. The wait-for-the-price-to-drop users will keep their consoles LONGER. So while the early adopter pays $400 and gets 3-4 years use, the late adopter pays $300 and gets at least the same time out of it, if not more (perhaps 5-6 years before games start drying up or parts die).
The early adopter is paying for the latest and greatest. That's fine and good, but don't pretend he's getting better value out of it just to justify the behaviour of continually buying the next big thing. It's actually a very costly and dangerous habbit and if not kept in check a gadget addiction can be just as harmful as a gambling addiction.
Furthermore if you do have the disposable income but you're not constantly upgrading your gadgets you can afford to play with more different types of gadgets. This is the category I fall into. I like to keep my gadget buying in check so that it doesn't destroy my life, and I like to play with lots of different types of gadgets. Bought a mapping GPS this year for AUD297. If I'd done that a few years ago I'd be looking at much more.
I've never ever been happy after buying the latest and greatest because I know the value I've gotten for my money is awful, so I just plain don't do it anymore. If you wait you get the benefit of early adopter's experience, and reduced costs.
....because as we know light and radio pollution just isn't enough of a challenge these days.
"Mummy, mummy tell me when you were young and yuou could look up and see stars. What was it like?"
The patent system works. Yes, even for software patent. What the world needs however is patent reviewers that aren't orang-utang
/. moderation. I know you haven't seen a lot of worth while things that got scored -1. I'd rather the current system to what you're describing, and I hate the current system with a passion.
So you're saying that relying on underpaid, overworked public servants in every country to do a specialist job correctly to perfection every time in a situation where every case is a one off is not a flaw in the patent system? Good luck finding these magical non-orguntang public servants. Please go look under the magic mushrooms right beside the fairies.
Perhaps adding a "patent meta-moderation" system like that of Slashdot
Oh yeah that's what we need. A system where ANY monkey can "meta-moderate". Have you seen some of the things that rise to the top under
From the article:
Morgan adds that GPS typically only locates things within a few hundred meters
Huh? I can get down to 6 meters and in AUS we don't have WAAS. This is just FUD.
And what happens if they move a wireless access point?
There are lots of applications that could do with indoors coverage, but this isn't a GPS killer.
I could see something like this being a complementary addition to a GPS. GPS+WPS or somethink like that. But the power of GPS is the ability to locate yourself anywhere on the planet that you can have line of site to enough sky. The WIFI coverage of the earth doesn't compare to the satelite coverage you get.
What I'd like to see is technology that could give position down to the centimeter (or at least down to the size of the unit). They you'd get some fantastic applications in the building industry for example.
And with an attitude like that, I guess that's why you work as a wage slave at some dump instead of at Google.
Actually quite the opposite. This is the type of attitude that I've seen get people promoted at a few places I've worked.
Of course, I'm not going to do much more than required at any company that doesn't offer me any reward for doing so
I think that's the key right there. You have to give AND get if you want any kind of fulfilment or recognition (or money to do other things outside of work for that matter). Doing the bare minimum is a losing strategy. Doing anything for nothing is a losing strategy. Working at a pace that won't burn you out and acheiving things for your employer, while they reward you for it is where you want to be.
The /. mod system only works as well as it does because /. is, as you say, a community and the "sane" outnumber the "jerks" by probably 100:1
/. readership has its biases just like everyone else.
Oh yeah, try making a perfectly valid criticism of Linux and see how far you get with the "sane" system.
I've seen a lot of good comments that should have been modded higher, but I bet I've missed a lot more. (I read at +4).