In this case the key is what is meant by "distribution". I can take GPL code, mix it up with some evil evil Nazi proprietary code, and run it with ZERO legal liability on my own machine. If I run my own network, I can probably use this solely on my own network. If I have company I can/probably/ still do this. If I have satellite offices I need to distribute it to,/maybe/ I can do this. If I am an international organization that I want to spread this code to...
At some point a line is drawn and what is happening is officially called "distribution". This is the fuzzy part, and probably will be left up to somebody filing a suit (like was recently done against some company that included GPLed code in a proprietary product - sorry I don't recall the company/product) and up to the courts to decide whether the defendent was actually "distributing".
(if you already have a decent amount of experience)
FOR CHRISSAKES CAN I SKIP THE INTRO COURSES?
be ready to provide documentation of prior experience. If you make the appeal to the dean and it is not some asshole college just after your money, this might work.
Uh, isn't the moon (and, well, all of space) considered international land, like the poles? So why does any one country think they can start *mining* there. We haven't even begun to do a thorough scientific investigation...and somebody wants to unilateraly MINE there??
Re:Everything you know is wrong
on
Review: U-571
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I still think it's funny that when the British first came to the Poles asking them how in the hell they cracked it - the Poles just stared blankly and told them the Germans used the (out of potentially millions) keypress-value mappings: a-a b-b c-c d-d
4. Give Blizzard an instant online community and pave way for larger acceptence of their game by the number of servers (which they don't have to run or maintain!) available.
This is what Valve has done with Half Life. Why is this such a hard concept? Sell the game, but make the server freely available.
"Saying that our best programmer is mediocre shows that you think that jerry-rigging and best-guessing is the way to get things done."
No, it's a conclusion drawn from your sweeping statement equating anybody who is self-taught with being an asshole and thus unhireable:
Self-taught people (especially those who learned alone, without a mentoring environment like school) tend to be very arrogant and difficult to work with. One brilliant person can ruin a whole organization if they have a bad attitude.
That indicates you are more concerned with credentials and pieces of paper than authentic legitimate experience, and are quiet frankly prejudiced. I sure would hate to have to sit down accross an interview table with somebody who has already knee-jerkingly prejudged me to be an arrogant asshole.
"Being able to write clearly, speak intelligently, coming up with new & unique solutions to problems and being willing to take a risk on a new idea are my idea of soft skills."
That is my idea of intelligence period. Tell me, do you really think that anybody who is self taught cannot "write clearly", "speak intelligently", "come up with new & unique solutions to problems" and "be willing to take a risk on a new idea"? I find that highly offensive, and think it is you who is arrogant and needs the attitude readjustment. Here's a clue for you - a few years out of college, the only learning (or should I say, the most valuable learning) your shiny new BS drone will be doing will be, wait for it, self-taught. In fact, if you do not require the ability to self-teach as an absolute prerequisite, I think you are in the wrong industry. The most that can be said of college is that it teaches persistence (to wade through 4 years of courses), which itself is a valuable characteristic, but besides that, experience is king.
But what hasn't been shown is that self-educated skilled IT workers are more likely to be assholes than formally-educated IT workers.
Re:My Gripes about Java &tm;
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
This is funny?
Re:Development Processes be damned..
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 2
Patterns are language-agnostic. They are just concepts. They don't "overcome" anything in and of themselves. Perhaps your lovely functional language is just particularly suited to a particular pattern - that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Ok, guys, I heard that there was this backwoods genius who invented some, uh, "magic" box, that like, makes normal phone lines faster than a T1! Isn't that crazy! We better get in on this now before some major corporation sweeps this deal up!
Eric: *puff* so here we are again guys Fez: Hey hey, let's play that game...joo know...where we think about ways to annihilate ourselves from space! *puff* Kelso: Yeah! Annihilation! Cool! *puff* Hyde: *puff* Ok - check this out - what if we like put LASERS up on satellites, and like, shoot people from space. Like in Star Wars! Eric: Haha yeah! *puff* No no wait - what if we just toss junk down and let the kinetic energy gained through falling through earth's atmosphere yeild an inexpensive but highly destructive bomb! Kelso: Like bowling balls! Fez: Well, guys, what if we just divert asteroids that are already up there? You know not *all* of us have money for expensive space programs. Eric: *puff* But...wait...what if something happens to our satellites? Hyde: *puff* Like anti-satellites? Fez: Aye...we need like anti-anti-satellites! Kelso: I say we just drop conventional weapons - this sci fi stuff is too confusing. Donna: *snorkle* Hahahah...You said balls!
So don't go to this theater when on-call, or just go to a different theater. Duh! Maybe I should bring my performing monkey troupe to the theater...I mean I have to make a living somehow...why is The Man putting me down!?
The biggest problem with X, no matter how wonderful it is, technically speaking, is that it does not enforce GUI semantics. This can be considered either a good or bad thing. From the perspective of a desktop OS, I think this is a bad thing. I don't know the guts of X well, but isn't the fact that video drivers are implemented in userland an architectural problem to begin with? Plus, the resources mechanism is absolutely byzantine and needs to be be razed, and salted, as well the complex distinctions between server and client (wait, who's the server, who's the client, who has the toolkit?, who's running the window manager? what the fsck is going on?). X simple suffers from being everything to everyone. I mean, it does an OK job being everything to everyone, but sometimes, as in when designing a *cohesive* desktop operating system, you *purposefully* don't want to have every option, and you *purposefully* want to force/standardize some things. Currently to get a GUI you have to choose a permutation of Toolkit/Window Manager/Desktop each of which might have its own subtle semantic differences, and due to the "flexibility" of X, may or may not work with each other with varying degrees of success. Just because a toothpick is "modular" doesn't mean you should build a house out of them.
Now maybe X is as modular as you say, and can be used as the building blocks for a more narrowly-defined GUI. But I think X has engendered as much bile against it as there is inertia behind it. (and a lot of the problems of X are the same old unsolved problems of Unix in general - no standardized method of configuration or collation of preferences for one)
Ok, here is my ungrateful whiney rant. Feel free to skip it and move along.
We have tons of half-baked, alpha, spin-off, desktop operating system/UI projects that never get anywhere, and which invoke laughter when anybody claims Linux/<some free unix> is ready for the desktop. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, I realize that these guys are doing this "for themselves" as a hobby, but unless desktop developers get together, think over the hard questions, and come to solutions which all can agree on ("standards"? Gasp!), all we will have is a sea of hobby projects. Work that has already been done needs to be leveraged.
It seems to me that AtheOS, OpenBeOS, BlueOS, and NewOS (which I just discovered today), all have the same goal in common - to create a new, all-encompassing, semantics-enforcing, object oriented UI (basing it of the BeOS APIs simply because this is one of the areas BeOS did really well) fundamentally integrated with the rest of the OS. Surely these projects can work together? What about Berlin - is *none* of the work they've done relevant?
In the end, it may simply be that more work will get done *without* cooperating because each hobby developer is incentivized to work on his own thang (working in parallel, through the magic of open source), but it just really screams of inefficiency to me - the work that is done on any of these projects is probably reusable in the others (and I think bootstrapping by using the X drivers is a great idea). Is there really any fundamental philosophical difference between any of these projects? We'll never get anywhere if everybody is reinventing their own unicycle - let's combine them into a useful vehicle. I'm also more than partly motivated because I, myself, as a user, am pretty sick of X (no matter what is thrown on it) and am ready for a free desktop OS designed from the ground up *as* a desktop OS.
That is the standard argument to explain away any bad behavior in the market. Don't like the policies of company X, well, simply *choose* to not be a consumer of their product and switch to company Y. Of course this breaks down miserably when *all the companies are equally heinous*. "When they came for my privacy, I didn't say anything because I didn't mind..."
And I hope RIAA runs themselves right into the ground in a vicious cycle of inventing new copyright controls that incentivize people to use other forms of music creation and distribution. Finally nobody will be purchasing their broken ass products, and hopefully a whole new market will have formed. Keep going RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case the key is what is meant by "distribution". I can take GPL code, mix it up with some evil evil Nazi proprietary code, and run it with ZERO legal liability on my own machine. If I run my own network, I can probably use this solely on my own network. If I have company I can /probably/ still do this. If I have satellite offices I need to distribute it to, /maybe/ I can do this. If I am an international organization that I want to spread this code to...
At some point a line is drawn and what is happening is officially called "distribution". This is the fuzzy part, and probably will be left up to somebody filing a suit (like was recently done against some company that included GPLed code in a proprietary product - sorry I don't recall the company/product) and up to the courts to decide whether the defendent was actually "distributing".
Christ, they're right here dammit. The docs are great, watchoo talkin' 'bout Willis...
If that's not enough, go grab the servlet spec from Sun. It's really not that hard.
I don't think you need money for that...
(if you already have a decent amount of experience)
FOR CHRISSAKES CAN I SKIP THE INTRO COURSES?
be ready to provide documentation of prior experience. If you make the appeal to the dean and it is not some asshole college just after your money, this might work.
Uh, isn't the moon (and, well, all of space) considered international land, like the poles? So why does any one country think they can start *mining* there. We haven't even begun to do a thorough scientific investigation...and somebody wants to unilateraly MINE there??
Fine. I got dibs on Mars.
here
Yeah, but crappy films are timeless.
I still think it's funny that when the British first came to the Poles asking them how in the hell they cracked it - the Poles just stared blankly and told them the Germans used the (out of potentially millions) keypress-value mappings: a-a b-b c-c d-d
hehe
4. Give Blizzard an instant online community and pave way for larger acceptence of their game by the number of servers (which they don't have to run or maintain!) available.
This is what Valve has done with Half Life. Why is this such a hard concept? Sell the game, but make the server freely available.
"A lot of problems in third world development and disaster relief are not cash-limited"
Actually MOST are cash-limited. Dare I say all...?
Just remember that your job depends on people breaking shit. Be grateful :p
http://www.despair.com/ignorance.html
No, it's a conclusion drawn from your sweeping statement equating anybody who is self-taught with being an asshole and thus unhireable:
That indicates you are more concerned with credentials and pieces of paper than authentic legitimate experience, and are quiet frankly prejudiced. I sure would hate to have to sit down accross an interview table with somebody who has already knee-jerkingly prejudged me to be an arrogant asshole.
"Being able to write clearly, speak intelligently, coming up with new & unique solutions to problems and being willing to take a risk on a new idea are my idea of soft skills."
That is my idea of intelligence period. Tell me, do you really think that anybody who is self taught cannot "write clearly", "speak intelligently", "come up with new & unique solutions to problems" and "be willing to take a risk on a new idea"? I find that highly offensive, and think it is you who is arrogant and needs the attitude readjustment. Here's a clue for you - a few years out of college, the only learning (or should I say, the most valuable learning) your shiny new BS drone will be doing will be, wait for it, self-taught. In fact, if you do not require the ability to self-teach as an absolute prerequisite, I think you are in the wrong industry. The most that can be said of college is that it teaches persistence (to wade through 4 years of courses), which itself is a valuable characteristic, but besides that, experience is king.
But what hasn't been shown is that self-educated skilled IT workers are more likely to be assholes than formally-educated IT workers.
This is funny?
Patterns are language-agnostic. They are just concepts. They don't "overcome" anything in and of themselves. Perhaps your lovely functional language is just particularly suited to a particular pattern - that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Ok, guys, I heard that there was this backwoods genius who invented some, uh, "magic" box, that like, makes normal phone lines faster than a T1! Isn't that crazy! We better get in on this now before some major corporation sweeps this deal up!
Eric: *puff* so here we are again guys
Fez: Hey hey, let's play that game...joo know...where we think about ways to annihilate ourselves from space! *puff*
Kelso: Yeah! Annihilation! Cool! *puff*
Hyde: *puff* Ok - check this out - what if we like put LASERS up on satellites, and like, shoot people from space. Like in Star Wars!
Eric: Haha yeah! *puff* No no wait - what if we just toss junk down and let the kinetic energy gained through falling through earth's atmosphere yeild an inexpensive but highly destructive bomb!
Kelso: Like bowling balls!
Fez: Well, guys, what if we just divert asteroids that are already up there? You know not *all* of us have money for expensive space programs.
Eric: *puff* But...wait...what if something happens to our satellites?
Hyde: *puff* Like anti-satellites?
Fez: Aye...we need like anti-anti-satellites!
Kelso: I say we just drop conventional weapons - this sci fi stuff is too confusing.
Donna: *snorkle* Hahahah...You said balls!
"there just isn't enough ocean frontage for all the soccer-moms."
Well, then you know what our duty is. Start rounding up the soccar moms...I'll start digging the ditch.
So don't go to this theater when on-call, or just go to a different theater. Duh! Maybe I should bring my performing monkey troupe to the theater...I mean I have to make a living somehow...why is The Man putting me down!?
The biggest problem with X, no matter how wonderful it is, technically speaking, is that it does not enforce GUI semantics. This can be considered either a good or bad thing. From the perspective of a desktop OS, I think this is a bad thing. I don't know the guts of X well, but isn't the fact that video drivers are implemented in userland an architectural problem to begin with? Plus, the resources mechanism is absolutely byzantine and needs to be be razed, and salted, as well the complex distinctions between server and client (wait, who's the server, who's the client, who has the toolkit?, who's running the window manager? what the fsck is going on?). X simple suffers from being everything to everyone. I mean, it does an OK job being everything to everyone, but sometimes, as in when designing a *cohesive* desktop operating system, you *purposefully* don't want to have every option, and you *purposefully* want to force/standardize some things. Currently to get a GUI you have to choose a permutation of Toolkit/Window Manager/Desktop each of which might have its own subtle semantic differences, and due to the "flexibility" of X, may or may not work with each other with varying degrees of success. Just because a toothpick is "modular" doesn't mean you should build a house out of them.
Now maybe X is as modular as you say, and can be used as the building blocks for a more narrowly-defined GUI. But I think X has engendered as much bile against it as there is inertia behind it. (and a lot of the problems of X are the same old unsolved problems of Unix in general - no standardized method of configuration or collation of preferences for one)
Ok, here is my ungrateful whiney rant. Feel free to skip it and move along.
We have tons of half-baked, alpha, spin-off, desktop operating system/UI projects that never get anywhere, and which invoke laughter when anybody claims Linux/<some free unix> is ready for the desktop. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, I realize that these guys are doing this "for themselves" as a hobby, but unless desktop developers get together, think over the hard questions, and come to solutions which all can agree on ("standards"? Gasp!), all we will have is a sea of hobby projects. Work that has already been done needs to be leveraged.
It seems to me that AtheOS, OpenBeOS, BlueOS, and NewOS (which I just discovered today), all have the same goal in common - to create a new, all-encompassing, semantics-enforcing, object oriented UI (basing it of the BeOS APIs simply because this is one of the areas BeOS did really well) fundamentally integrated with the rest of the OS. Surely these projects can work together? What about Berlin - is *none* of the work they've done relevant?
In the end, it may simply be that more work will get done *without* cooperating because each hobby developer is incentivized to work on his own thang (working in parallel, through the magic of open source), but it just really screams of inefficiency to me - the work that is done on any of these projects is probably reusable in the others (and I think bootstrapping by using the X drivers is a great idea). Is there really any fundamental philosophical difference between any of these projects? We'll never get anywhere if everybody is reinventing their own unicycle - let's combine them into a useful vehicle. I'm also more than partly motivated because I, myself, as a user, am pretty sick of X (no matter what is thrown on it) and am ready for a free desktop OS designed from the ground up *as* a desktop OS.
That is the standard argument to explain away any bad behavior in the market. Don't like the policies of company X, well, simply *choose* to not be a consumer of their product and switch to company Y. Of course this breaks down miserably when *all the companies are equally heinous*. "When they came for my privacy, I didn't say anything because I didn't mind..."
And I hope RIAA runs themselves right into the ground in a vicious cycle of inventing new copyright controls that incentivize people to use other forms of music creation and distribution. Finally nobody will be purchasing their broken ass products, and hopefully a whole new market will have formed. Keep going RIAA.