When google was recuiting at Georiga Tech they stated that one of their founders had the 'vision' of having half of google female in the near future.
One of the thecnical female googerls mentioned how that was probably impossible, but by shooting for the impossible you acheive a lot more than you would have otherwise.
I honestly can't tell if you're being snide or funny:)
That said, I think developers themselves often underestimate the time they need to do something, they themselves don't factor in all the actual things requires, like documentation and simply bug tracking/fixing.
Though I think Scotty had a decent rule, just multiply all your estimates by 4, then you'll seem like a miracle worker when you get it done much quicker.
Ah that is good to hear, but it sounds like it gets clumped in with things like Software Engineering, Documentation, etc. Things not necessary to ship a product, but things which in the end can screw everyone over if they aren't there.
I think many companies have trouble deciding between what is more important: 1) getting a product out the door as fast as possible , or 2) being able to more accurately predict when a product will be ready.
I really believe that the things i mentioned above will assist in #1. Maybe not on the project that the better schedule methodologies are first applied, but down the line on projects dependant on it etc.
I'd be morelikely to conclude that this means the schedules are simply wrong. it's so difficult to plan a correct schedule, and asking developers how long they think XYZ will take doesn't really work well.
Have there been any advances in scheduling technology? Like profiling developers over the types of software they write, etc.. ?
Isn't GTA rated Mature? This is basically the same as an R rated movie. i don't see what the big deal is. kids shouldn't be allowed to by Mature rated games just as they can't buy R rated movies, after that it's up to their parents and little else.
If they didn't use a secure password before, with all the current issues of not having one, I doubt this will really push them to. Chances are they are of the sort that don't even realize their passwords are unsecure.
You make some goog points concerning the ephemeralness of music, but I think it's a little more clear cut. A company and artist invest money in creating things. It can either be through physical skill in turning a worthless piece of wood into a valuable figureene (sp?) or in other mental forms of skill like lyric writting and singing, and turning otherwise worthless words and instruments into something valuable. Not all physical objects worth exists just in the physical. Our money system is a perfect example of this, the paper is worthless, it has value otherwise because we have placed value in it.
So a company makes goods with the same potential money value as does musicians. A sculpture may spend more time-value in their creation than a musician. The clay is somewhat worthless otherwise. Companies produce items without knowing anyone has bought it. If someone doesn't buy their product they can't necessarily do anything with it, most of the time it just goes in the trash, so It's just as worthless. The materials have very little value.
As for concerts/albums. Different people get different monies in each case. The label gets little money in the concert situation, the artist gets 'little' money in the album case. The artist probably wouldn't be touring if the label hadn't put money into the artist and their albums. So in a way, not buying albums potentially means no tours. I'm not saying either situation is fair for the artista and label, but they have implications. If people never bought the albums, then the artist would have never toured, The albums wouldn't have been made known or available without the label....
How not? You are claiming that paying a lot for a concert ticket in some way legitimizes not paying for the music that comes on an album. It seemed you were basing it on the price difference, the concert costing more, maybe I was wrong.
Does paying to see one concert legitimize you sneaking into the next performance of that artist?
How is piracy not stealing exactly? Don't give me answers that involve there being no physical item that was created, cause that's crap if you do.
Sure, if it's legal for you in your country go ahead. Though I think the implication that you are in fact not promoting the artist is a good one to know. Maybe this is good though in the case of some artists ( eg a Ms. Spears ). I think we all agree that, in general, artists should be rewarded for good music.
Hint: all songs by The Beatles are public domain in Russia.
The meat of this is this. Is it public domain to anyone in Russia, or to Russians? I don't know. I don't know what the USA's or russias laws say so i dunno. It's assuredly not public domain in the US, so it's probably not legal unless you are somehow connecting from within Russia. Just my thoughts on that.
You have no responsibility to buy music only from American stores
No, but it is known that it IS illegal to use this service in the US, therefor you have a legal responsibility to not use it, or risk prosecution. I am not claiming the risk is not worth undertaking.
Please explain to me why that was wrong
You are in fact denying Vanessa Mae some revenue from the music pirating. Maybe not as much, but money non the less. As well you are denying recognition based on cd sales ( eg gold album, other awards based on cd sales). A concert is a one time shot, you are paying for more than the music otherwise you wouldn't actually be going when you could get just the music for less. The CDs are so you can enjoy the music over a long period. In a way it's like saying that buying a car for $20k legitimizes stealing the extras ( say ultra cool trimming) which may only amount to $500.
If you had recorded the concert, even if it was not allowed by Mae or the venue, would that be ok anyway?
I have often thought that when I want a cd, I should copy a friends and then send the artist specifically $10. I'm not sure they're are technically allowed to accept it, due to horrible contract. While the label may be responsible for me knowing about an artist, advertising etc, I think their cut is hugely overkill. It lets them finance acts that don't always work out? So what I say, stop financing crap, which would probably amount to the Big 4 dropping all their artists...
I give Eddie From Ohio props. 10 albums under an indie label, and it's great music.
From what I've read, the laws they are justifying with are meant to apply only to citizens of that country, and no one else, so they are offereing an international service based on their countries laws alone. The real issue is that they don't even try to prevent people from known countries where it's illegal to use the service from using it.
Their disclaimer of, it's your responsibility, is a bit irresponsible, when it's known this is not legal in the places they most likely get all their money.
Aside from that. I do believe in ethical piracy, based on objective analysis of the item and the ability to pay. I used to pirate songs because the only way to legal purchase them was to by a bunch of crap with it too. If I was unable to pirate the song I wouldn't have paid $15 for the whole album just to get it. $15/song is not worth it for any song. Now that itunes exists, I pirate for sampling purposes, which I believe should be available legally. How is it legal to make someone buy something without really knowing what you're getting? 30s samples are not a good solution, or even a solution period in my opinion.
The problem with allofmp3 is that the artists are getting absolutely no money from it. It's no better than piracy; It is just higher quality piracy. It is still illegal to use in most non Russian countries including the US, which is what the recent law suite was all about.
I used allofmp3 for about $10 worth before realizing this and vowing to only use it to sample music I'm interested in actually buying in a method that gives the artists some amount of money.
I'm not saying 'you' should stop using it, just that you should realize what you are actually doing.
I dunno if they are ludicrous, but yea, some stupid stuff gets patented.
I often wonder what the line is for software patents. We agree that non software patents are good right? So, it can't be that all software patents are bad, but what's the correct analog between the two sets.
The article really could have made things clearer. I guess prior art should be easy to cite, though expensive with N different suits that may arise. Hopefully they can counter sue for fees etc.
So, they are knowingly violating patents and don't like legislation that might help companies uphold suits against those known violations? Seems like they just shouldn't have violated those patents in the first place.
NOT the research and development that is needed to come up with a truly innovative search technology
The problem is that MSR(eseach), who would do the research for this type of thing, is under a completely different umbrella than the MSN product group itself, so it's hard to say how much money has been put into the research effort for this.
That's one of the nice things about Bill, he doesn't try to speak marketese. At the intern dinners at his house I've been too he was always very frank with his responses. He curses and has no issue saying something is really stupid or really good.
So 'we' say Opera, FF etc are all secure and IE isn't. How true is this? I'm seriously asking, not trying to flame.
It seems to me that some are defining 'secure' as 'doesn't have the same security issues as IE'. IE is the biggest browser and obviously should be the target of a hackers energy, but is there anyway of putting a finger on the exploits that will come when Opera, FF etc are big enough to warrent hacker time?
Is there a way to evaluate this? It seems like simply something you have to wait and see. That the security is only available to the minority, by partial fact that it is the minority.
I got my BS CS in Dec 2000, went to work for a DoD company for 2.5 years then went to graduate school. I'm currently in my last semester of the 2 year program I choose so I'll share the pit falls.
Money
Your Own You gotta watch this. I saved a lot of money before going back and it's all gone, even the money I made off my tax returns, since I stopped working mid way through, is gone. It's really hard to step back your spending habits, especially when it comes to things like food, and not eating out a lot as I did. So save as much as you can before hand and make a budget and stick to it!
As an aside, for americans. The FAFSA which denotes how much you get in student loans, as well how much is subsidized will kill you because the form assumes that since you worked the previous tax season you will be working this tax season and therefor you will get probably nothing in loans. What you need to do is petition the financial aid office at your school to manually evaluate your income based on the actual condition for the year ( basically adjust your gross income), that is how much you will be making during the school year. For my first year this was $0 so my loans were then able to cover my tuition etc for a decent part.
Funding
If you are going just for a Masters program do not expect to get an Assistanceship, expect to have to pay tuition, fees and all living costs out of pocket, and via student loans. GaTech, my school, is like this and the TAs and RAs are very hard to come by, they ever fired all the MS TAs two semesters ago due to budget issues. Some schools I think are able to more definitively offer funding of some sort, but be aware.
Time
Going back to school is pretty much turning your life over to academics. Do not plan on having much free time, no more 9-5 then stop working. This was and has continued to be the hardest thing for me. It's compounded by the fact that not everything will be scheduled for you, eg independant work, or working assistanceships that pay you. It's easy to let all that get lost in the mix and set to the side simply because you are getting your course work done.
So accept up front that you will be working most of the time and deal with it and be happy when you do have time.
Etc
I would advise not getting cable for a couple months after you start. First live without it then if you think you can manage having it just get basic:o)
Slashdot Mirror
When google was recuiting at Georiga Tech they stated that one of their founders had the 'vision' of having half of google female in the near future.
One of the thecnical female googerls mentioned how that was probably impossible, but by shooting for the impossible you acheive a lot more than you would have otherwise.
I honestly can't tell if you're being snide or funny :)
That said, I think developers themselves often underestimate the time they need to do something, they themselves don't factor in all the actual things requires, like documentation and simply bug tracking/fixing.
Though I think Scotty had a decent rule, just multiply all your estimates by 4, then you'll seem like a miracle worker when you get it done much quicker.
Ah that is good to hear, but it sounds like it gets clumped in with things like Software Engineering, Documentation, etc. Things not necessary to ship a product, but things which in the end can screw everyone over if they aren't there.
I think many companies have trouble deciding between what is more important: 1) getting a product out the door as fast as possible , or 2) being able to more accurately predict when a product will be ready.
I really believe that the things i mentioned above will assist in #1. Maybe not on the project that the better schedule methodologies are first applied, but down the line on projects dependant on it etc.
I'd be morelikely to conclude that this means the schedules are simply wrong. it's so difficult to plan a correct schedule, and asking developers how long they think XYZ will take doesn't really work well.
Have there been any advances in scheduling technology? Like profiling developers over the types of software they write, etc.. ?
Isn't GTA rated Mature? This is basically the same as an R rated movie. i don't see what the big deal is. kids shouldn't be allowed to by Mature rated games just as they can't buy R rated movies, after that it's up to their parents and little else.
If they didn't use a secure password before, with all the current issues of not having one, I doubt this will really push them to. Chances are they are of the sort that don't even realize their passwords are unsecure.
You might as well just use gmail then and get the nicer interface too.
"pr0n": An anagram of "porn," possibly indicating the use of pornography.
man, I wonder who they needed the second part of that for.
'oh good, it's just porn, little jimmy isn't getting into anything wrong. Let me check the Microsoft dictionary just in case... Pornography!!!'
What's better is that it's Federal Money :) Thank you everyone who will never use the new road ways.
Sadly I left boston just before they opened the first stretch, ah well.
You make some goog points concerning the ephemeralness of music, but I think it's a little more clear cut. A company and artist invest money in creating things. It can either be through physical skill in turning a worthless piece of wood into a valuable figureene (sp?) or in other mental forms of skill like lyric writting and singing, and turning otherwise worthless words and instruments into something valuable. Not all physical objects worth exists just in the physical. Our money system is a perfect example of this, the paper is worthless, it has value otherwise because we have placed value in it.
So a company makes goods with the same potential money value as does musicians. A sculpture may spend more time-value in their creation than a musician. The clay is somewhat worthless otherwise. Companies produce items without knowing anyone has bought it. If someone doesn't buy their product they can't necessarily do anything with it, most of the time it just goes in the trash, so It's just as worthless. The materials have very little value.
As for concerts/albums. Different people get different monies in each case. The label gets little money in the concert situation, the artist gets 'little' money in the album case. The artist probably wouldn't be touring if the label hadn't put money into the artist and their albums. So in a way, not buying albums potentially means no tours. I'm not saying either situation is fair for the artista and label, but they have implications. If people never bought the albums, then the artist would have never toured, The albums wouldn't have been made known or available without the label....
It isn't.
How not? You are claiming that paying a lot for a concert ticket in some way legitimizes not paying for the music that comes on an album. It seemed you were basing it on the price difference, the concert costing more, maybe I was wrong.
Does paying to see one concert legitimize you sneaking into the next performance of that artist?
How is piracy not stealing exactly? Don't give me answers that involve there being no physical item that was created, cause that's crap if you do.
Sure, if it's legal for you in your country go ahead. Though I think the implication that you are in fact not promoting the artist is a good one to know. Maybe this is good though in the case of some artists ( eg a Ms. Spears ). I think we all agree that, in general, artists should be rewarded for good music.
Hint: all songs by The Beatles are public domain in Russia.
The meat of this is this. Is it public domain to anyone in Russia, or to Russians? I don't know. I don't know what the USA's or russias laws say so i dunno. It's assuredly not public domain in the US, so it's probably not legal unless you are somehow connecting from within Russia. Just my thoughts on that.
You have no responsibility to buy music only from American stores
No, but it is known that it IS illegal to use this service in the US, therefor you have a legal responsibility to not use it, or risk prosecution. I am not claiming the risk is not worth undertaking.
Please explain to me why that was wrong
You are in fact denying Vanessa Mae some revenue from the music pirating. Maybe not as much, but money non the less. As well you are denying recognition based on cd sales ( eg gold album, other awards based on cd sales). A concert is a one time shot, you are paying for more than the music otherwise you wouldn't actually be going when you could get just the music for less. The CDs are so you can enjoy the music over a long period. In a way it's like saying that buying a car for $20k legitimizes stealing the extras ( say ultra cool trimming) which may only amount to $500.
If you had recorded the concert, even if it was not allowed by Mae or the venue, would that be ok anyway?
I have often thought that when I want a cd, I should copy a friends and then send the artist specifically $10. I'm not sure they're are technically allowed to accept it, due to horrible contract. While the label may be responsible for me knowing about an artist, advertising etc, I think their cut is hugely overkill. It lets them finance acts that don't always work out? So what I say, stop financing crap, which would probably amount to the Big 4 dropping all their artists...
I give Eddie From Ohio props. 10 albums under an indie label, and it's great music.
From what I've read, the laws they are justifying with are meant to apply only to citizens of that country, and no one else, so they are offereing an international service based on their countries laws alone. The real issue is that they don't even try to prevent people from known countries where it's illegal to use the service from using it.
Their disclaimer of, it's your responsibility, is a bit irresponsible, when it's known this is not legal in the places they most likely get all their money.
Aside from that. I do believe in ethical piracy, based on objective analysis of the item and the ability to pay. I used to pirate songs because the only way to legal purchase them was to by a bunch of crap with it too. If I was unable to pirate the song I wouldn't have paid $15 for the whole album just to get it. $15/song is not worth it for any song. Now that itunes exists, I pirate for sampling purposes, which I believe should be available legally. How is it legal to make someone buy something without really knowing what you're getting? 30s samples are not a good solution, or even a solution period in my opinion.
The problem with allofmp3 is that the artists are getting absolutely no money from it. It's no better than piracy; It is just higher quality piracy. It is still illegal to use in most non Russian countries including the US, which is what the recent law suite was all about.
I used allofmp3 for about $10 worth before realizing this and vowing to only use it to sample music I'm interested in actually buying in a method that gives the artists some amount of money.
I'm not saying 'you' should stop using it, just that you should realize what you are actually doing.
I dunno if they are ludicrous, but yea, some stupid stuff gets patented.
I often wonder what the line is for software patents. We agree that non software patents are good right? So, it can't be that all software patents are bad, but what's the correct analog between the two sets.
Ah ok, that makes some sense.
The article really could have made things clearer. I guess prior art should be easy to cite, though expensive with N different suits that may arise. Hopefully they can counter sue for fees etc.
So, they are knowingly violating patents and don't like legislation that might help companies uphold suits against those known violations? Seems like they just shouldn't have violated those patents in the first place.
For the local drive in it only picks out (2nd listing) the first movie for each screen that night.
NOT the research and development that is needed to come up with a truly innovative search technology
The problem is that MSR(eseach), who would do the research for this type of thing, is under a completely different umbrella than the MSN product group itself, so it's hard to say how much money has been put into the research effort for this.
Yea. I've had a copy of it since 1995 actually that I found online somewhere.
That's one of the nice things about Bill, he doesn't try to speak marketese. At the intern dinners at his house I've been too he was always very frank with his responses. He curses and has no issue saying something is really stupid or really good.
By definition of the monopoly ruling hasn't Netscape been out of the picture for a long time as far as the net is considered?
As for opera etc., we can just compare them to Mozilla and see that they don't seem to have many more vulnerabilities than it.
Compare how though, if no one is actively targetting it with hacks et al. then how do you know?
So 'we' say Opera, FF etc are all secure and IE isn't. How true is this? I'm seriously asking, not trying to flame.
It seems to me that some are defining 'secure' as 'doesn't have the same security issues as IE'. IE is the biggest browser and obviously should be the target of a hackers energy, but is there anyway of putting a finger on the exploits that will come when Opera, FF etc are big enough to warrent hacker time?
Is there a way to evaluate this? It seems like simply something you have to wait and see. That the security is only available to the minority, by partial fact that it is the minority.
I'll address #3 since I think that's the killer
:o)
I got my BS CS in Dec 2000, went to work for a DoD company for 2.5 years then went to graduate school. I'm currently in my last semester of the 2 year program I choose so I'll share the pit falls.
Money
Your Own
You gotta watch this. I saved a lot of money before going back and it's all gone, even the money I made off my tax returns, since I stopped working mid way through, is gone. It's really hard to step back your spending habits, especially when it comes to things like food, and not eating out a lot as I did. So save as much as you can before hand and make a budget and stick to it!
As an aside, for americans. The FAFSA which denotes how much you get in student loans, as well how much is subsidized will kill you because the form assumes that since you worked the previous tax season you will be working this tax season and therefor you will get probably nothing in loans. What you need to do is petition the financial aid office at your school to manually evaluate your income based on the actual condition for the year ( basically adjust your gross income), that is how much you will be making during the school year. For my first year this was $0 so my loans were then able to cover my tuition etc for a decent part.
Funding
If you are going just for a Masters program do not expect to get an Assistanceship, expect to have to pay tuition, fees and all living costs out of pocket, and via student loans. GaTech, my school, is like this and the TAs and RAs are very hard to come by, they ever fired all the MS TAs two semesters ago due to budget issues. Some schools I think are able to more definitively offer funding of some sort, but be aware.
Time
Going back to school is pretty much turning your life over to academics. Do not plan on having much free time, no more 9-5 then stop working. This was and has continued to be the hardest thing for me. It's compounded by the fact that not everything will be scheduled for you, eg independant work, or working assistanceships that pay you. It's easy to let all that get lost in the mix and set to the side simply because you are getting your course work done.
So accept up front that you will be working most of the time and deal with it and be happy when you do have time.
Etc
I would advise not getting cable for a couple months after you start. First live without it then if you think you can manage having it just get basic