No offense, but I've worked for companies that hired managers with MBAs and I've worked for (the vast majority of) companies that "promote" programmers into management positions. Never underestimate the value of working with someone who is actually trained to do their job. It kinda pissed me off that I went to university, studied hard, passed my exams with distinction and then have to take orders from a guy who came bottom in his class doing the exact same degree. Managers who are not trained to manage are the bane of the IT industry.
Maybe you don't really understand the concept of identity check. They ask the credit card company for the name on the card. They then match it against the name the user has supplied. If they don't match they don't accept the card. They then look up the name in the list of banned players. If you're on the list, you can't play. I don't think I can make this any simpler.
Wrong and wrong. First of all, MMOs ban people using identity check information. That's why 99% of them require a credit card. Unless the player goes out and gets a new identity or steals someone elses he aint signing back up. Second, I said that the Ask Slashdotter should encourage his addicted friend to ask for a temporary ban. MMOs do that. They should be required by law to do that, like casinos are, but they're not.
Do *not* try to hook him up with a girl. Friends of friends tried this tact on an addicted co-worker and his failure to relate to the poor girl just drove him back to the game. My personal preference is to convince him to ask the game masters for a temporary ban. Then take care of him for the withdrawl period.
Let's face it, the reason why Theo de Raadt can't maintain his unpaid work on OpenBSD/OpenSSH is because he's an impersonable jerk. You can't make money as a consultant if your response to everyone is just to tell them to shut the hell up. You may be able to make money from speaking tours (like RMS does) but you actually have to have enough patience and dedication to stand up deliver a talk that people who are willing to pay to hear (i.e., not talks that people give to developers). Theo reminds me of people who like to play folk music or surf all day. They run around looking for sponsors but they're not interested in putting on shows or entering competitions.
Nvidia did not give anyone documentation. Instead, they expect people to load a gigantic blob of binary code into their kernel, and just be happy with that. Some Linux people in Germany reverse-engineered the driver years ago, but the rough story I heard is that Nvidia asked them to stop, and they did. This just astounds me!
Gee, I don't know, maybe they had lives they didn't want to sacrafice for the cause Theo. He then goes on to slag linux developers in general but maintains that he doesn't really go into advocacy.
Re:Queensland Univ is running the HyShot program
on
New Jet Engine Tested
·
· Score: 1
UQ has been working on SCRAM jets for the last 30 years. It's a black hole for research money and is driven entirely by who wants to do a post-graduate thesis in hypersonics at the time. Don't expect anything except more research out of their program.
Can you tell us the file and line number that causes the problem and the mitigating circumstances under which it occurs. Jesus, it is open source ya know.
Ever notice how the GPL doesn't say that anyone who uses GPL code must attribute the creators of that code? Ever notice how the LICENSE file distributed along with binaries of GPL programs typically doesn't have the name of the creators in it? Consider this, is it legal to remove someone's name from a GPL work? Not from the copyright declaration on the top of the source files.. that's obviously unlawful. But what about from the About box or the documentation? There's nothing in the GPL which prevents these kinds of modifications. Seems like a pretty big ommission. After all, if users of software are not guarenteed to know who the original copyright holder is they have no recourse if the distributer of the work refuses to hand over source code. Only the copyright holder can force the distributer to follow the license. If the distributer has stripped the software of its original name, made significant modifications and removed attribution to the original creators then, in practice, they cannot be forced to give up those modifications when they distribute the work in binary form as the users don't know who the copyright holders are. Also note that there's nothing in GPLv3 that addresses this. It's ironic really, as almost all BSD-style licenses include this:
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
So the length of the GPL compared to BSD-style licenses seems to be working against it.
I consider it a given that eventually games will become more about enabling third parties (or "modders") to easily tell stories to players in real time. i.e., online games will become more like pen and paper RPGs with a real life game master sitting there making up the story as you go along. So when you ask that witty magician why you can't just break the lock on the chest instead of going up the mountain and fighting the dragon he actually has a real answer because there's someone in the background ready to supply that answer. How will you possibly afford to pay all these people to answer inane questions all the time? You wont. They'll do it because they enjoy seeing a thousand different player's reaction to their story.
You need look no further than Microsoft Office to see that end users are quite willing to program. The problem is that us developers make it so hard to program by not giving simple examples or adequate documentation. People use Open Office, but no-one uses the VBA like scripting language in Open Office.
Sure you are. You're missing the most horrific example available today of what DRM on physical objects will be like in the not too distant future. I'd love to teach a class where I justify the right of creators to control how people use their creative works, then set the students loose in Second Life and see how long it takes them to come to the conclusion that being dominated by the arbitary whims of others is not a good thing.
And therefore it would only cost Linden Labs about $4m a year to produce work with more significant quality. It's kinda stupid to do this kind of analysis anyway. The whole point of Second Life is that it is different. Comparing Second Life with, oh, I don't know, WoW, is like comparing apples and oranges. You can like both, it's ok.
I wish everyone would make this conviction as I'm sure it would drive more people to Free and Open Source software. It's ironic how history repeats itself. I believe it is inevitable that proprietary software makers will continue to add more and more draconian restrictions on what people can do with the software they have purchased. Including the so-called "Software as a service" movement that aims to charge consumers a subscription fee to access software. The proprietary operating systems, with the aid of insidious hardware, will make third party copy protection and digital rights management unnecessary. Finally, consumers will start to recognise the advantages of software freedom. They will flock to Free and Open Source alternatives. Depending on how the proprietary software makers react, think legislation, and how the Free and Open Source community responds, think funding, we may see a revolution.
What's the historical parallel? Replace "proprietary software makers" with "capitalist bourgeois", "consumers" with "workers", and "Free and Open Source" with "scientific socialism". Unfortunately, the scientific socialists had a major advantage over their modern counterpart: they knew their place in history. Marx was often criticised for declaring that the world was not ripe for a socialist revolution. Few of the followers of scientific socialism took this to heart, and the tragedy of Lenonism was the result. Where is today's Marx? More importantly, where is today's Lenon? The leaders of the Free and Open Source software movements are more like the sentimental communists that scientific socialism, and Marx in particular, pushed aside.
Where's the inevitability of Free and Open Source software being preached as a rational economic alternative? Believe it or not, I think we need to look to the open source companies and, in particular, Sun Microsystems. In a recent interview, Simon Phipps was heard to remark that eventually all of Sun's software will be Open Source. They're currently navigating the legal mine field they created by going proprietary in the first place. It sounds like there's a visionary somewhere in Sun who has seen the inevitable death of proprietary software.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but I've worked for companies that hired managers with MBAs and I've worked for (the vast majority of) companies that "promote" programmers into management positions. Never underestimate the value of working with someone who is actually trained to do their job. It kinda pissed me off that I went to university, studied hard, passed my exams with distinction and then have to take orders from a guy who came bottom in his class doing the exact same degree. Managers who are not trained to manage are the bane of the IT industry.
I don't think I can make this any simpler.
Did I or did I not just say that I was simplifying. Fuckin' Slashdot.
Maybe you don't really understand the concept of identity check. They ask the credit card company for the name on the card. They then match it against the name the user has supplied. If they don't match they don't accept the card. They then look up the name in the list of banned players. If you're on the list, you can't play. I don't think I can make this any simpler.
Right on, it's all about pay-per-view.
Wrong and wrong. First of all, MMOs ban people using identity check information. That's why 99% of them require a credit card. Unless the player goes out and gets a new identity or steals someone elses he aint signing back up. Second, I said that the Ask Slashdotter should encourage his addicted friend to ask for a temporary ban. MMOs do that. They should be required by law to do that, like casinos are, but they're not.
I know of at least one guy who heard that Vista was going to be late so he gave into his long felt desire to buy a Mac.
If only VMWare saw their consumer product as more important than their server product. Virtualizing a 3d graphics card or two would be nice.
Do *not* try to hook him up with a girl. Friends of friends tried this tact on an addicted co-worker and his failure to relate to the poor girl just drove him back to the game. My personal preference is to convince him to ask the game masters for a temporary ban. Then take care of him for the withdrawl period.
Let's face it, the reason why Theo de Raadt can't maintain his unpaid work on OpenBSD/OpenSSH is because he's an impersonable jerk. You can't make money as a consultant if your response to everyone is just to tell them to shut the hell up. You may be able to make money from speaking tours (like RMS does) but you actually have to have enough patience and dedication to stand up deliver a talk that people who are willing to pay to hear (i.e., not talks that people give to developers). Theo reminds me of people who like to play folk music or surf all day. They run around looking for sponsors but they're not interested in putting on shows or entering competitions.
Nvidia did not give anyone documentation. Instead, they expect people to load a gigantic blob of binary code into their kernel, and just be happy with that. Some Linux people in Germany reverse-engineered the driver years ago, but the rough story I heard is that Nvidia asked them to stop, and they did. This just astounds me!
Gee, I don't know, maybe they had lives they didn't want to sacrafice for the cause Theo. He then goes on to slag linux developers in general but maintains that he doesn't really go into advocacy.
as we say in Australia, fuck the Queen!
You should do your work here in Australia. We have laws that guarentee our right to reverse engineer software to fix security issues.
In high school, Amanda was always my backup too!
Ahh, fun times.
UQ has been working on SCRAM jets for the last 30 years. It's a black hole for research money and is driven entirely by who wants to do a post-graduate thesis in hypersonics at the time. Don't expect anything except more research out of their program.
I hark from a time when that kind of information was front and centre in the security advisory. I'm old, I have an inalienable right to get uppity.
Can you tell us the file and line number that causes the problem and the mitigating circumstances under which it occurs. Jesus, it is open source ya know.
Ever notice how the GPL doesn't say that anyone who uses GPL code must attribute the creators of that code? Ever notice how the LICENSE file distributed along with binaries of GPL programs typically doesn't have the name of the creators in it? Consider this, is it legal to remove someone's name from a GPL work? Not from the copyright declaration on the top of the source files.. that's obviously unlawful. But what about from the About box or the documentation? There's nothing in the GPL which prevents these kinds of modifications. Seems like a pretty big ommission. After all, if users of software are not guarenteed to know who the original copyright holder is they have no recourse if the distributer of the work refuses to hand over source code. Only the copyright holder can force the distributer to follow the license. If the distributer has stripped the software of its original name, made significant modifications and removed attribution to the original creators then, in practice, they cannot be forced to give up those modifications when they distribute the work in binary form as the users don't know who the copyright holders are. Also note that there's nothing in GPLv3 that addresses this. It's ironic really, as almost all BSD-style licenses include this:
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
So the length of the GPL compared to BSD-style licenses seems to be working against it.
God damn that link is good.
I consider it a given that eventually games will become more about enabling third parties (or "modders") to easily tell stories to players in real time. i.e., online games will become more like pen and paper RPGs with a real life game master sitting there making up the story as you go along. So when you ask that witty magician why you can't just break the lock on the chest instead of going up the mountain and fighting the dragon he actually has a real answer because there's someone in the background ready to supply that answer. How will you possibly afford to pay all these people to answer inane questions all the time? You wont. They'll do it because they enjoy seeing a thousand different player's reaction to their story.
You need look no further than Microsoft Office to see that end users are quite willing to program. The problem is that us developers make it so hard to program by not giving simple examples or adequate documentation. People use Open Office, but no-one uses the VBA like scripting language in Open Office.
Podcasting? Isn't that another term for how african american girls dance?
The same reason people use groupware. They want to be able to easily schedule events with others.
Sure you are. You're missing the most horrific example available today of what DRM on physical objects will be like in the not too distant future. I'd love to teach a class where I justify the right of creators to control how people use their creative works, then set the students loose in Second Life and see how long it takes them to come to the conclusion that being dominated by the arbitary whims of others is not a good thing.
And therefore it would only cost Linden Labs about $4m a year to produce work with more significant quality. It's kinda stupid to do this kind of analysis anyway. The whole point of Second Life is that it is different. Comparing Second Life with, oh, I don't know, WoW, is like comparing apples and oranges. You can like both, it's ok.
I wish everyone would make this conviction as I'm sure it would drive more people to Free and Open Source software. It's ironic how history repeats itself. I believe it is inevitable that proprietary software makers will continue to add more and more draconian restrictions on what people can do with the software they have purchased. Including the so-called "Software as a service" movement that aims to charge consumers a subscription fee to access software. The proprietary operating systems, with the aid of insidious hardware, will make third party copy protection and digital rights management unnecessary. Finally, consumers will start to recognise the advantages of software freedom. They will flock to Free and Open Source alternatives. Depending on how the proprietary software makers react, think legislation, and how the Free and Open Source community responds, think funding, we may see a revolution.
What's the historical parallel? Replace "proprietary software makers" with "capitalist bourgeois", "consumers" with "workers", and "Free and Open Source" with "scientific socialism". Unfortunately, the scientific socialists had a major advantage over their modern counterpart: they knew their place in history. Marx was often criticised for declaring that the world was not ripe for a socialist revolution. Few of the followers of scientific socialism took this to heart, and the tragedy of Lenonism was the result. Where is today's Marx? More importantly, where is today's Lenon? The leaders of the Free and Open Source software movements are more like the sentimental communists that scientific socialism, and Marx in particular, pushed aside.
Where's the inevitability of Free and Open Source software being preached as a rational economic alternative? Believe it or not, I think we need to look to the open source companies and, in particular, Sun Microsystems. In a recent interview, Simon Phipps was heard to remark that eventually all of Sun's software will be Open Source. They're currently navigating the legal mine field they created by going proprietary in the first place. It sounds like there's a visionary somewhere in Sun who has seen the inevitable death of proprietary software.