That is a question with a long and complex answer. A short answer could be that one benefit of forcing you to go through all that is that it may make you investigate the long answer, and get some idea of the philosophical differences between free software and proprietary software.
Anyway, they're planning to make it easy to install the binary drivers, so that's not the WHOLE answer...
Sure, there are people taking a free ride. I never meant to imply otherwise.
The question is if these are so many that they have a net negative impact. This depend on how many they are, how many buy more, and how much each of the groups would buy without downloading non-licensed content. The best studies I've seen seem to indicate a net positive or net neutral impact; in my opinion, they are not strong enough to fully conclude that it is positive yet, though they hint that way - and there's been no reasonabe study that show the opposite conclusion (decreased sales). So, it's very wrong to conclude "there is obvious loss of sales", as what evidence there is point the other way.
Downloading may have a POSITIVE impact on purchasing, as people that download music get into the habit of getting new music, and they know what the offerings are.
I personally have never bought anywhere near as much music as when I was downloading like crazy (Napster period), and I've seen the same pattern in others for downloading other things: The people I know that download tons of films also buy a bunch - the guy I know that download most films also has about 2000 legitimately purchased movies.
7-Eleven does some censorship of porn and I don't really know if they carry hardcore. Narvesen has always carried it as far as the law would allow them, as a principle of freedom. So, Narvesen these days carry hardcore (e.g, Private) and I'm not sure if 7-Eleven does.
People "doing it" *was* illegal. Go into any Narvesen (norwegian variant of 7-Eleven, more or less) and pick up one of the porn magazines there, and you'll find it full of pure, old-fashioned fucking (with some anal thrown in). The change happened about a year ago.
I think maybe I have extracted a core part of our disagreement:
The vast majority of programs really have nothing to gain by explicitly specifying the persistency of each part of their data, and even worse, accessing that data with differing primitives, constantly wasting run-time translating back and forth between representations. I tried to think of programs that do not benefit significantly from this, and failed. The problem is one of interoperability. Most programs I can think of need to interoperate with other programs, either other programs they are communicating with, or other versions of themselves, or other copies of themselves running on different computers.
Other copies can be handled fairly generally. Other versions and other programs require some form of serialization or transformation. This require similar handling as writing file format does today.
In the environments I work, persistency of object structures is trivially available. For a variety of reasons, primarily to do with transparency in debugging, this has turned out to be less than useful. Persisting just the stuff that's relevant to persist and reloading at restart (with a very simple mapping between the in-memory structure and storage structures) has been the best way forward.
You think of the in/out and startup transformations as being for no gain. I think of them as being for the gain of separating different invokations of the program and the state and code of these different invokations, to minimize the world size in debugging and consistency in updating. I see this as a big, big gain for most cases.
I'll be back with answers to larger parts, I just thought this deserved its own separate handling.
I agree it is hard. If it was easy it would probably have been done already by Linux and Windows. But I don't believe it is very hard - as allocating I/O and RAM resources in a prioritized way is not that difficult.
When I looked at doing this (which is almost a decade ago, so bear with me if some details of my memory fail me), I found it was very hard even to define I/O resources. The problem is that you have seeking, reading and writing, spanning several disks and several heads, and with little information being available to help you optimize, and a cache that can make it hard to measure (though I don't know of any filesystem that even try to measure.) Back in the late 70s and early 80s, it was much easier, and filesystems (e.g, UFS) were optimized to deal with the number of heads in use, and setting up cylinder groups that fit with this. These days, there are so many interactions that it seemed like any attempt to schedule would lose large amounts of I/O, as it would easily get in the way of sorting of requests in disk order.
2. There ARE multiple types of memory, and they behave differently. There is an 100,000 times difference in access speed between RAM and disk. For reasonable performance/stability, there is a need to distinguish these to a larger degree than is presently done. Some data structures need to be fast, some are fine with being swapped to disk, and quite a few are just cache and can be recomputed at will. It is fairly common to have caches that we are better off throwing out and recomputing when necessary than we are swapping them out and in again; this should be possible to specify. That's part one of my reason for disliking your idea.
I think you have not understood the comparison I made to existing OS's. They already lie to you about the memory that they are allocating, and there is no way for you to actually allocate RAM or disk, as the OS will just change it at will. Since RAM and disk are already inter-changable from the app's point of view, it will be no degradation to simply expose only one memory allocation system. It is a mere simplification of today's model - not a real change of policy. I think maybe you are missing some subtlety here? While the modern VM systems allocate backing store dynamically and use "everything" as cache for disk, the use of serialization lead to a very different access pattern for files and "memory". This is used for prefetching decisions (or at least it used to be used for prefetching decisions, and I assume that makes sense still), and I also seem to remember it being used for handling swap writes compared to file system writes (swap space writes could be done more or less as a Write-Anywhere, as it was losable on power failure, while FS requires more careful updates of metadata).
And we already have the ability to work only with in-memory formats through the use of mmap() and/or coredumping+undump (undump is an utility to make a core dump executable) - it hasn't really taken off much, and I'll discuss why below.
Part two is that you go for much higher state dependence, and much less testability than presently. Serializing and re-loading reset the state of programs; this means that corruption is short lived. Not doing this can easily lead to extremely complex bugs, and extremely complex working conditions.
If you consider that a considerable part of today's programs' complexity is in serializing/de-serializing their data, I think maybe we should introduce a distinction here: The distinction between interfacing with different programs (including different versions of the same program) while maintaining data structure integrity, and serializing/de-serializing. Serializing and de-serializing is usually fairly trivial; it can be done in libraries, and without high amounts of checking it can be quite fast. Merging files and memory (to a larger degree than mmap() does) just force this interfacing to happen through eit
I *do* vote in my own country, and I *do* spend time educating people. I even spent a bunch of time attempting to set up a political party working for the primary difficulty I see for my own country (low education level for the politicans, distance between scientific knowledge and the ruling politicians), though that never really got off the ground.
However, at this point the major problem I see isn't local: It is global, and it is that the US is slipping with fear. This brings the major democratic problems of the US to the foreground, and "riders" is one of these. The other primary problems are disenfranchment of the voters, IMO primarily due to indirect effects of the election system (winner-takes-all giving a two-party system instead of the plurality of parties typical when using a more proportional system of voting) and the use of paid advertising for candidates, thus giving the impression that only those with money can win (which may or may not be right, there's reasonable economic arguments that it isn't.)
Anyway, since you did not like my way of attempting to humourously highlight these problems: How would you highlight them? How would you point out, in this forum, that the US has large democratic issues and hopefully get some of the people living there riled up about these issues enough that they start to do something about them? How would you get you yourself riled up enough that you start to actively work to get the US to have a better democracy?
In all friendliness and with the hope of a better tomorrow, Eivind.
I'm perfectly with you on the EU being a bad example. You can look to some of the member states as reasonable democracies, though, and there are non-members that are fairly good (Australia has an interesting voting system, for instance). Anyway, I was speaking of a particular point: Riders. Riders is a hack on the voting system, one that could be removed without any major change (except it being somewhat more work to pass legislation, which is almost certainly a good thing.)
This has nothing to do with the EU, something that is a completely different problem, and to my mind (as somebody that is neither a resident of the EU nor of USA) a lesser problem than the USA.
Knowledge of the US political model, including how a significant fraction of americans tend to automatically disregard those that are not from the US.
Effectively, you CAN campaign for reforms of this, and any campaign done by a foreigner will be ineffective.
And I already just did the only thing that I can do: Appeal to the people of the US to help turn it into a proper democracy, which they can do by being OUTRAGED at the existence of riders and unread laws. Scream about it. Tell your neighbour. Tell the people on the bus. Tell the people at work how you are being robbed. Talk about voting for those that want to reform this.
You can do that and it can have an effect. I can only post on Slashdot. Which I've done.
Riders is a total loophole in the democracy that's possible to drive a dictatorship through. Given your use of power internationally (both diplomatic and violent power), we would prefer if you had a better functioning democracy. Do you have any estimated time-to-fix? Even a time-to-start-working-on-a-fix would be helpful.
I find this reasonable, even though it is fairly complex to implement. The problem is that there isn't one resource to schedule - there are a lot of different ones that interact. The primary problem, as I see it, is the I/O capacity isn't scheduled, while CPU is. Historically, CPU was the really scarce resource. These days, memory and IO capacity is what is scarce, while CPU is generally cheap. (There are also some problems related to X windows being an application and out of memory conditions, these can be dealt with through an application hierarchy.)
There ARE multiple types of memory, and they behave differently. There is an 100,000 times difference in access speed between RAM and disk. For reasonable performance/stability, there is a need to distinguish these to a larger degree than is presently done. Some data structures need to be fast, some are fine with being swapped to disk, and quite a few are just cache and can be recomputed at will. It is fairly common to have caches that we are better off throwing out and recomputing when necessary than we are swapping them out and in again; this should be possible to specify. That's part one of my reason for disliking your idea. Part two is that you go for much higher state dependence, and much less testability than presently. Serializing and re-loading reset the state of programs; this means that corruption is short lived. Not doing this can easily lead to extremely complex bugs, and extremely complex working conditions.
Network transparency: Computers fail as a unit. Networks fail partially. These make network transparency a fake dream: The network isn't transparent.
Agree. Our security models suck.
I find that our problems in computing are more in planning and programming languages than in operating systems, and that the OS problems are different than the ones you state (apart from the security model issue, which frustrates me too.)
In terms of programming languages, I believe we need something where we can assert invariants over programs with fairly free run-time typing, where we can use those invariants (written as tests or invariants or something inbetween) to classify our dependencies, where we can use and contribute to standardized libaries while maintaining a stable system as the libraries evolve.
I do not know any language/system that seems to be close to this yet. A team of us worked somewhat for getting parts of this to Ruby, but were pushed out politically (or, to put it another way, we didn't do the job to get enough people to understand what they would gain through working with us, and ended up with them going in incompatible directions to get a "good enough" solution.) However, if done right, I think this could significantly change the face of programming - through just plain good engineering of the library space.
I get why you're assuming what you do - it seems reasonable at first and second and probably even third look - yet it's not clear that it actually is at all correct. Adding people to a software project very often do not work.
To pull up statistics from an old study (I don't remember the reference, I believe I read a summary of it in Code Complete), large software projects have 40% lower productivity per person than small software projects. The kicker? The definition of "Small" is 2 people and "Large" is 3 people - meaning adding a third person to a two-person project delays the project, on average.
What does work is getting the design right - and that may happen by skill or by accident, and often a bit of both. This is why I think it's a good idea to have many open source projects: It is likely that some of them will happen on a good design, and that those are the projects that will have staying power - on average.
As for dealing with the problem at "My own end" - I always agree. Bitching and moaning get us nowhere.
This reveals a significant lack of knowledge of history. It seems to be more the rule than the exception for US tycoons to give away their money when they die, trying to purchase a good image for posterity. A simple example is The Rockefeller Foundation.
From my point of view, Gates has his fortune from various forms of market manipulation to force people and institutions to pay his company - in other words, a form of theft. He has been stealing from hospitals, from charity institutions, from schools, and has been destroying untold amounts of wealth by his (illegal) manipulations. Giving parts of his stolen money (and the bulk of it when he dies) to charity does not eradicate that.
For some reason, you're trying to put Warren Buffet in the same boat as Gates. However, as far as I know, Buffet has always been honest, he's just been a very, very good investor. He deserves good guy credit all through. I am not sure Gates deserve any at all; it is very hard for me to accept that until he at least apologize for previous behaviour.
I suspect the idea is that "If information (paper) is only available to scientists, the government won't bother to censor it, as it doesn't affect politics directly. If the information (paper) is publicly available, it will affect politics, and the government will censor it.
I don't think that will fly with scientists - if they buy it, the scientists in question seems likely to become rabidly political and want to stop this travesty, either through technical or through political means. If they don't buy it, they'll just trust the journals less - and I find this most likely.
This does not necessarily signify what the author thinks it does. Being of better health - that is, smarter, taller, etc - will influence socioeconomic status (this is as far as I know generally known, I'll dig up references if necessary), and there is no reason to think that this won't also influence the chance of winning the Nobel prize rather than being nominated for it. It will also influence the average lifespan.
Research in these particular areas are extremely hard; evolution has mixed together being smart, being healthy, and being socially dominant/socially attractive. Our subconscious automatically slightly prefer people that are healthy for everything positive (winning a Nobel prize), and that are unhealthy for everything negative (e.g, being judged as criminals). This mostly shows up in statistically sized samples, not evaluation of a single person.
Getting really upset don't turn trespassing into stealing. Not piracy, either. And it's probably not good for your health. (Even though I get moderately upset when somebody start doing massive piracy of the content I make my living from - though that's mostly due to the work I have to do to clean up after the messy way they do it...)
Strawman argument. You can do all the legalese mumbojumbo you want, but you are still depriving someone of their rightful income. That some of us still use the word steal, instead of your newspeak and backpatting wording, is your problem.
Maybe you should try to create and make money of some content yourself? You are assuming that people that pirate content would buy it if they didn't pirate it. This is a false assumption. What people are doing is creating a benefit for themselves that may be at the expense of or to the benefit of the copyright holder. As an example of the latter, I've got Battlestar Galactica and The Island on DVD due to having seen pirate copies. (And no, I did not download those copies, just to counter the obvious argument. I have downloaded five movies in my life - all hard to get hold of legally - and bought about 300.)
And most of my living derive from content, and have done so since I started working in 1993.
Eivind.
These are collections of people, too. Abstracting it to "businesses" doesn't remove that factor. In some cases, these are good people, in some cases, they are bad people - and they still function as people. They need to somehow justify what they are doing to themselves.
The systems around companies often make people behave badly - yet there's a limit to how badly and for how many, and especially when things hit their own family. The couple of people I know that work in pharma are reasonably good people; and in general, the researchers I know in any discipline does this because they want to help people. (The only person I know that does research in pharma works in a university lab, not for big pharma, though.)
Providing information and testing is a socialist program, It may be an interruption of the free market, yet it is a move towards the perfect market, as a perfect market assume there's complete information on the hand of all participants. And it is a basic model much of the thinking around markets is based on. Personally, I find reasonable labelling requirements the single best intervention there is - get good information to the people affected. I suspect we could probably even replace much of the testing requirements for drugs with better labelleing for untested drugs, and let people (or possibly their doctors) decide if they want to pay for the tested stuff.
Remember, there's not just the direct cost of fraud - there's also the feeling the customer has of being safe (or not being safe). This is probably a larger cost/benefit than the fraud itself.
Life is great - working at a place I like, great girlfriend, getting a bunch of economic stuff sorted out (fallout from a failed startup). I'm somewhat changing fields; studying a lot of psychology/medicine instead of being that much into computers at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, they're planning to make it easy to install the binary drivers, so that's not the WHOLE answer...
Eivind.
The question is if these are so many that they have a net negative impact. This depend on how many they are, how many buy more, and how much each of the groups would buy without downloading non-licensed content. The best studies I've seen seem to indicate a net positive or net neutral impact; in my opinion, they are not strong enough to fully conclude that it is positive yet, though they hint that way - and there's been no reasonabe study that show the opposite conclusion (decreased sales). So, it's very wrong to conclude "there is obvious loss of sales", as what evidence there is point the other way.
Eivind.
I personally have never bought anywhere near as much music as when I was downloading like crazy (Napster period), and I've seen the same pattern in others for downloading other things: The people I know that download tons of films also buy a bunch - the guy I know that download most films also has about 2000 legitimately purchased movies.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Other copies can be handled fairly generally. Other versions and other programs require some form of serialization or transformation. This require similar handling as writing file format does today.
In the environments I work, persistency of object structures is trivially available. For a variety of reasons, primarily to do with transparency in debugging, this has turned out to be less than useful. Persisting just the stuff that's relevant to persist and reloading at restart (with a very simple mapping between the in-memory structure and storage structures) has been the best way forward.
You think of the in/out and startup transformations as being for no gain. I think of them as being for the gain of separating different invokations of the program and the state and code of these different invokations, to minimize the world size in debugging and consistency in updating. I see this as a big, big gain for most cases.
I'll be back with answers to larger parts, I just thought this deserved its own separate handling.
Eivind.
I agree it is hard. If it was easy it would probably have been done already by Linux and Windows. But I don't believe it is very hard - as allocating I/O and RAM resources in a prioritized way is not that difficult.
When I looked at doing this (which is almost a decade ago, so bear with me if some details of my memory fail me), I found it was very hard even to define I/O resources. The problem is that you have seeking, reading and writing, spanning several disks and several heads, and with little information being available to help you optimize, and a cache that can make it hard to measure (though I don't know of any filesystem that even try to measure.) Back in the late 70s and early 80s, it was much easier, and filesystems (e.g, UFS) were optimized to deal with the number of heads in use, and setting up cylinder groups that fit with this. These days, there are so many interactions that it seemed like any attempt to schedule would lose large amounts of I/O, as it would easily get in the way of sorting of requests in disk order.
I think you have not understood the comparison I made to existing OS's. They already lie to you about the memory that they are allocating, and there is no way for you to actually allocate RAM or disk, as the OS will just change it at will. Since RAM and disk are already inter-changable from the app's point of view, it will be no degradation to simply expose only one memory allocation system. It is a mere simplification of today's model - not a real change of policy. I think maybe you are missing some subtlety here? While the modern VM systems allocate backing store dynamically and use "everything" as cache for disk, the use of serialization lead to a very different access pattern for files and "memory". This is used for prefetching decisions (or at least it used to be used for prefetching decisions, and I assume that makes sense still), and I also seem to remember it being used for handling swap writes compared to file system writes (swap space writes could be done more or less as a Write-Anywhere, as it was losable on power failure, while FS requires more careful updates of metadata).
And we already have the ability to work only with in-memory formats through the use of mmap() and /or coredumping+undump (undump is an utility to make a core dump executable) - it hasn't really taken off much, and I'll discuss why below.
If you consider that a considerable part of today's programs' complexity is in serializing/de-serializing their data, I think maybe we should introduce a distinction here: The distinction between interfacing with different programs (including different versions of the same program) while maintaining data structure integrity, and serializing/de-serializing. Serializing and de-serializing is usually fairly trivial; it can be done in libraries, and without high amounts of checking it can be quite fast. Merging files and memory (to a larger degree than mmap() does) just force this interfacing to happen through eit
Eivind.
However, at this point the major problem I see isn't local: It is global, and it is that the US is slipping with fear. This brings the major democratic problems of the US to the foreground, and "riders" is one of these. The other primary problems are disenfranchment of the voters, IMO primarily due to indirect effects of the election system (winner-takes-all giving a two-party system instead of the plurality of parties typical when using a more proportional system of voting) and the use of paid advertising for candidates, thus giving the impression that only those with money can win (which may or may not be right, there's reasonable economic arguments that it isn't.)
Anyway, since you did not like my way of attempting to humourously highlight these problems: How would you highlight them? How would you point out, in this forum, that the US has large democratic issues and hopefully get some of the people living there riled up about these issues enough that they start to do something about them? How would you get you yourself riled up enough that you start to actively work to get the US to have a better democracy?
In all friendliness and with the hope of a better tomorrow, Eivind.
This has nothing to do with the EU, something that is a completely different problem, and to my mind (as somebody that is neither a resident of the EU nor of USA) a lesser problem than the USA.
Eivind.
Effectively, you CAN campaign for reforms of this, and any campaign done by a foreigner will be ineffective.
And I already just did the only thing that I can do: Appeal to the people of the US to help turn it into a proper democracy, which they can do by being OUTRAGED at the existence of riders and unread laws. Scream about it. Tell your neighbour. Tell the people on the bus. Tell the people at work how you are being robbed. Talk about voting for those that want to reform this.
You can do that and it can have an effect. I can only post on Slashdot. Which I've done.
Eivind.
Riders is a total loophole in the democracy that's possible to drive a dictatorship through. Given your use of power internationally (both diplomatic and violent power), we would prefer if you had a better functioning democracy. Do you have any estimated time-to-fix? Even a time-to-start-working-on-a-fix would be helpful.
Thanks!
Eivind.
- I find this reasonable, even though it is fairly complex to implement. The problem is that there isn't one resource to schedule - there are a lot of different ones that interact. The primary problem, as I see it, is the I/O capacity isn't scheduled, while CPU is. Historically, CPU was the really scarce resource. These days, memory and IO capacity is what is scarce, while CPU is generally cheap. (There are also some problems related to X windows being an application and out of memory conditions, these can be dealt with through an application hierarchy.)
- There ARE multiple types of memory, and they behave differently. There is an 100,000 times difference in access speed between RAM and disk. For reasonable performance/stability, there is a need to distinguish these to a larger degree than is presently done. Some data structures need to be fast, some are fine with being swapped to disk, and quite a few are just cache and can be recomputed at will. It is fairly common to have caches that we are better off throwing out and recomputing when necessary than we are swapping them out and in again; this should be possible to specify. That's part one of my reason for disliking your idea. Part two is that you go for much higher state dependence, and much less testability than presently. Serializing and re-loading reset the state of programs; this means that corruption is short lived. Not doing this can easily lead to extremely complex bugs, and extremely complex working conditions.
- Network transparency: Computers fail as a unit. Networks fail partially. These make network transparency a fake dream: The network isn't transparent.
- Agree. Our security models suck.
I find that our problems in computing are more in planning and programming languages than in operating systems, and that the OS problems are different than the ones you state (apart from the security model issue, which frustrates me too.)In terms of programming languages, I believe we need something where we can assert invariants over programs with fairly free run-time typing, where we can use those invariants (written as tests or invariants or something inbetween) to classify our dependencies, where we can use and contribute to standardized libaries while maintaining a stable system as the libraries evolve.
I do not know any language/system that seems to be close to this yet. A team of us worked somewhat for getting parts of this to Ruby, but were pushed out politically (or, to put it another way, we didn't do the job to get enough people to understand what they would gain through working with us, and ended up with them going in incompatible directions to get a "good enough" solution.) However, if done right, I think this could significantly change the face of programming - through just plain good engineering of the library space.
Eivind.
Eivind.
To pull up statistics from an old study (I don't remember the reference, I believe I read a summary of it in Code Complete), large software projects have 40% lower productivity per person than small software projects. The kicker? The definition of "Small" is 2 people and "Large" is 3 people - meaning adding a third person to a two-person project delays the project, on average.
What does work is getting the design right - and that may happen by skill or by accident, and often a bit of both. This is why I think it's a good idea to have many open source projects: It is likely that some of them will happen on a good design, and that those are the projects that will have staying power - on average.
As for dealing with the problem at "My own end" - I always agree. Bitching and moaning get us nowhere.
Eivind.
From my point of view, Gates has his fortune from various forms of market manipulation to force people and institutions to pay his company - in other words, a form of theft. He has been stealing from hospitals, from charity institutions, from schools, and has been destroying untold amounts of wealth by his (illegal) manipulations. Giving parts of his stolen money (and the bulk of it when he dies) to charity does not eradicate that.
For some reason, you're trying to put Warren Buffet in the same boat as Gates. However, as far as I know, Buffet has always been honest, he's just been a very, very good investor. He deserves good guy credit all through. I am not sure Gates deserve any at all; it is very hard for me to accept that until he at least apologize for previous behaviour.
Eivind.
I don't think that will fly with scientists - if they buy it, the scientists in question seems likely to become rabidly political and want to stop this travesty, either through technical or through political means. If they don't buy it, they'll just trust the journals less - and I find this most likely.
Eivind.
Research in these particular areas are extremely hard; evolution has mixed together being smart, being healthy, and being socially dominant/socially attractive. Our subconscious automatically slightly prefer people that are healthy for everything positive (winning a Nobel prize), and that are unhealthy for everything negative (e.g, being judged as criminals). This mostly shows up in statistically sized samples, not evaluation of a single person.
Eivind.
Read the parent again. You are completely ignoring his argument (which is actually based on personal, present greed among executives and investors.)
Getting really upset don't turn trespassing into stealing. Not piracy, either. And it's probably not good for your health. (Even though I get moderately upset when somebody start doing massive piracy of the content I make my living from - though that's mostly due to the work I have to do to clean up after the messy way they do it...)
Maybe you should try to create and make money of some content yourself? You are assuming that people that pirate content would buy it if they didn't pirate it. This is a false assumption. What people are doing is creating a benefit for themselves that may be at the expense of or to the benefit of the copyright holder. As an example of the latter, I've got Battlestar Galactica and The Island on DVD due to having seen pirate copies. (And no, I did not download those copies, just to counter the obvious argument. I have downloaded five movies in my life - all hard to get hold of legally - and bought about 300.)
And most of my living derive from content, and have done so since I started working in 1993. Eivind.
The systems around companies often make people behave badly - yet there's a limit to how badly and for how many, and especially when things hit their own family. The couple of people I know that work in pharma are reasonably good people; and in general, the researchers I know in any discipline does this because they want to help people. (The only person I know that does research in pharma works in a university lab, not for big pharma, though.)
Eivind.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Life is great - working at a place I like, great girlfriend, getting a bunch of economic stuff sorted out (fallout from a failed startup). I'm somewhat changing fields; studying a lot of psychology/medicine instead of being that much into computers at the moment.
How are you doing?
Eivind.