The best language is the one that the teacher can teach well. If the teacher can't do a good job explaining the language, it doesn't matter how good the language is for programming... there will be a lot of kids in class that will be lost.
Have you seen what sort of money is spent at universities for R&D? It's quite a bit. The *real* crime is the sort of results that come out of R&D. I'm not talking failed projects; that's something to expect, since if the outcome were already known it wouldn't be "research".
What I'm talking about is handing over money and having NO follow-up on what's going on with the projects. I've seen projects that are nothing more than slush funds for professors, and that's the sort of thing that needs to stop. Quit paying people that are using money like that, redirect it to other folks, and you'd go a long way to solving the problem.
You realize everything you said was BS, unless you believe that England is lying for Bush too. That's where that report Bush cited was from.
And you also realize that Wilson's statements about who sent them there in the first place (he said it was Cheney) turned out to be a lie too, right? The bi-partisan panel that investigated it proved it:
Let's take a look at the actual words of the Report, whose findings are bipartisanly approved.
"Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable (..redaction..) Requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additinoal information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told hm "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.
The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf (..long redaction..). The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region (..redaction..).
------------
Wow! They even got Wilson involved! They're so tricky!
When in fact the article proves that any leak, however small is too dangerous to risk.
I sure wish there was this sort of outrage when Sandy Berger was caught stuffing secret documents in his socks and (yech) underwear last year. Where was the outrage then?
Oh, right... He's a democrat. Nothing to see here...move along.
There were two papers, one was a blanket statement for the whole white house staff, the second specifically drafted by Rove and his lawyer.
Too much Rush
Ha! yeah, right...
If a source tells a reporter that they don't have to keep the confidential agreement they have, then the reporter is free to talk. Rove let her off the hook. Explain to me what principle she's upholding if the source really is Rove and he let her off the hook?
Therefore, it's either someone else. I think it's Joe Wilson.
Only flaw in that theory is said current member of the white house staff specifically signed something that gave all reporters wavers on any confidential talks about this person.
Given this, who could she possibly be protecting? Does anyone seriously think that the NYTimes is protecting someone in the White House?
My bet it's Joe Wilson himself. If that's the case, the special prosecutor will get him for lying to a grand jury about what took place.
The world has always gotten this whole myth about how Mosaic was created from the Netscape people themselves. It's just like the myth that eBay was started because someone wanted to sell Pez containers, or any of the rest of the Silicon Valley myths. Marketing it that way makes a good story.
The only article you can find on what happened with NCSA Mosaic was in a GQ article from 1997. It's called Imposter Boy, and can be found here:
Call it sour grapes, or whatever you want, but I defy you to find any other articles about what happened back in those days... you can't. It's all because of the spin that Netscape put on it.
The first thing to do is to inquire the licensing arm of the University that you're thinking of joining. I've been at several universities, and they have vastly different policies; One let code go out as free (not GPL) for research use, while requiring licensing for commercial work. They would also give the developers a "cut of the action", as it were, if the code got licensed. One of the others would let NO source go out. The would give you a cut of the action.
This part is a little off topic, but you really have to pay attention to this too. If your licensing group asks for a sign off so that you get money for something that might eventually get licensed, your immediate supervisor may very well try and put their name on it, or cut you out of the licensing money completely. I've seen this happen to two friends, and they've both regreted being strong-armed. Don't be surprised if you see this once you're in academia.
This is particularly important if the work eventually gets licensed to a start up. I've seen that happen too... the university got stock options, the managers of the group got stock options, and the original developers got stock options....but much much less than the managers and the university....Back to the GPL. Don't use GPL-ed code and then feign ignorance about having used it. That won't work. They'll refuse to release anything at all, binaries or source, and it's likely they'll create a big stink about it. Besides, doing that is unethical.
You're much better off to have everyone sign off at the very beginning that GPLing the code is the intention. And I do mean *sign*. There's enough turnover at universities that someone that might agree to something today won't be there when the code is ready to release.
If you're writing a grant proposal, write the GPL release requirement in that. You'll have to run it by grants and contracts, and if it makes it past that, you should be in the clear.
Good luck with this. It's a battle, but a battle worth fighting. Universities are much more reluctant to have employees just release things for free since so many university projects hit it big in the "Internet Age".
The administration didn't prepare an amicus brief.
If you actually read the article you cited, it says:
According to the Wall Street Journal, "[The] Administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain."'
"May file". This was pure conjecture on the part of the writer, that they would do that.
You know what? The administration never filed anything.
You have to look at their overall voting record to see what their philosophical leaning are. On this court, the conversatives lined up against this ruling and the liberals were for it.
And handing someone's private property to another private party is wrong. Pure and simple. This is why conservatives freak out about having money taken from one group just to give it to another. The liberals have been doing this for years, and they've just extended it from money to personal private property. It's shameful.
In this ruling they're not giving it for public use like a university. They're giving it to a PRIVATE company to do development on. That's the bad thing about this. This isn't invoking emminent domain to build a needed highway, this is someone losing their house so the local government can pull in more tax dollars for a new shopping center... A privately owned shopping center.
No, the key is how the judges tend to vote on the issues. The liberals voted in favor of this stupid ruling, and the conservatives voted against it.
The administration that nominated the judge has very little to do with how they end up voting.
You're only hearing people put the "Republican" label on those liberal judges because the liberals don't want to take responsibility for a VERY bad ruling. I mean, come on folks, take responsibility for your actions, for once in your life.
The other way to look at this is that when the Supremes vote the way liberals approve of, you NEVER EVER hear them exclaim that it's because they're "republicans". It's always "the liberal members of the court".
I'm a conservative and I'm doing the same thing. I don't think it'll be more than a week before we see congress (and probably a helluva lot of state legislatures) will be drafting legislation to stop this crap.
Just a point here, but just because the judges were appointed by Republicans doesn't mean that the judges are conservative. The judges that voted against the little guy today tend to vote liberal on issues, not conservative.
All this "Well! They're *really* Republicans!" is crap. You have to look at their voting history, and that's been liberal.
People just can't stomach the fact that their liberal justices really really really screwed up today.
Slashdot Mirror
That study was trying to link violence using ASHRON'S CALL 2????
Ok, I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Do the same test with Quake, and see if you have the same result.
Does NCSA have editors? No.
Frankly, I'd be shocked if the higher ups there even knew this "study" existed.
The best language is the one that the teacher can teach well. If the teacher can't do a good job explaining the language, it doesn't matter how good the language is for programming... there will be a lot of kids in class that will be lost.
Have you seen what sort of money is spent at universities for R&D? It's quite a bit. The *real* crime is the sort of results that come out of R&D. I'm not talking failed projects; that's something to expect, since if the outcome were already known it wouldn't be "research".
What I'm talking about is handing over money and having NO follow-up on what's going on with the projects. I've seen projects that are nothing more than slush funds for professors, and that's the sort of thing that needs to stop. Quit paying people that are using money like that, redirect it to other folks, and you'd go a long way to solving the problem.
OK, how's this for a nice link:
e n061704/segment1.ram%5D
:-)
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binlad
That'll take you to the ABC report linking them.
Btw, if anyone's an idiot, it's you.
You realize everything you said was BS, unless you believe that England is lying for Bush too. That's where that report Bush cited was from.
And you also realize that Wilson's statements about who sent them there in the first place (he said it was Cheney) turned out to be a lie too, right? The bi-partisan panel that investigated it proved it:
Let's take a look at the actual words of the Report, whose findings are bipartisanly approved.
"Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable (..redaction..) Requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additinoal information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told hm "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.
The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf (..long redaction..). The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region (..redaction..).
------------
Wow! They even got Wilson involved! They're so tricky!
I sure wish there was this sort of outrage when Sandy Berger was caught stuffing secret documents in his socks and (yech) underwear last year. Where was the outrage then?
Oh, right... He's a democrat. Nothing to see here...move along.
Sorry, I'm still not buying it. Your theory that Miller is protecting Rove doesn't wash. She's not about to go to jail if she's off the hook with him.
Too much Rush
Ha! yeah, right...
If a source tells a reporter that they don't have to keep the confidential agreement they have, then the reporter is free to talk. Rove let her off the hook. Explain to me what principle she's upholding if the source really is Rove and he let her off the hook?
Therefore, it's either someone else. I think it's Joe Wilson.
Only flaw in that theory is said current member of the white house staff specifically signed something that gave all reporters wavers on any confidential talks about this person.
Given this, who could she possibly be protecting? Does anyone seriously think that the NYTimes is protecting someone in the White House?
My bet it's Joe Wilson himself. If that's the case, the special prosecutor will get him for lying to a grand jury about what took place.
Let's not forget Imposter Boy:
w ww.chrispy.net/marca/gqarticle.html ....Unless you want to believe the marketing goons at Netscape.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030212202753/http://
Kinda odd that the guy that was supposed to have written Mosaic single-handedly didn't write ANY code at Netscape.
The only article you can find on what happened with NCSA Mosaic was in a GQ article from 1997. It's called Imposter Boy, and can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030212202753/http://
Call it sour grapes, or whatever you want, but I defy you to find any other articles about what happened back in those days... you can't. It's all because of the spin that Netscape put on it.
For years we've been hearing that the HDTV cutover date was sometime in 2007. What happened??
This could be about TiVo and Netflix' previous announcement:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5915470/site/newsweek
The first thing to do is to inquire the licensing arm of the University that you're thinking of joining. I've been at several universities, and they have vastly different policies; One let code go out as free (not GPL) for research use, while requiring licensing for commercial work. They would also give the developers a "cut of the action", as it were, if the code got licensed. One of the others would let NO source go out. The would give you a cut of the action.
...Back to the GPL. Don't use GPL-ed code and then feign ignorance about having used it. That won't work. They'll refuse to release anything at all, binaries or source, and it's likely they'll create a big stink about it. Besides, doing that is unethical.
This part is a little off topic, but you really have to pay attention to this too. If your licensing group asks for a sign off so that you get money for something that might eventually get licensed, your immediate supervisor may very well try and put their name on it, or cut you out of the licensing money completely. I've seen this happen to two friends, and they've both regreted being strong-armed. Don't be surprised if you see this once you're in academia.
This is particularly important if the work eventually gets licensed to a start up. I've seen that happen too... the university got stock options, the managers of the group got stock options, and the original developers got stock options....but much much less than the managers and the university.
You're much better off to have everyone sign off at the very beginning that GPLing the code is the intention. And I do mean *sign*. There's enough turnover at universities that someone that might agree to something today won't be there when the code is ready to release.
If you're writing a grant proposal, write the GPL release requirement in that. You'll have to run it by grants and contracts, and if it makes it past that, you should be in the clear.
Good luck with this. It's a battle, but a battle worth fighting. Universities are much more reluctant to have employees just release things for free since so many university projects hit it big in the "Internet Age".
OMG! It's raining! W's Fault! W's Fault!
This is University policy, not government policy... I guess that's a little tough for you to understand.
If you actually read the article you cited, it says:
According to the Wall Street Journal, "[The] Administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain."'
"May file". This was pure conjecture on the part of the writer, that they would do that.
You know what? The administration never filed anything.
"republican judges"? What the heck is that?
You have to look at their overall voting record to see what their philosophical leaning are. On this court, the conversatives lined up against this ruling and the liberals were for it.
And handing someone's private property to another private party is wrong. Pure and simple. This is why conservatives freak out about having money taken from one group just to give it to another. The liberals have been doing this for years, and they've just extended it from money to personal private property. It's shameful.
In this ruling they're not giving it for public use like a university. They're giving it to a PRIVATE company to do development on. That's the bad thing about this. This isn't invoking emminent domain to build a needed highway, this is someone losing their house so the local government can pull in more tax dollars for a new shopping center... A privately owned shopping center.
to the AC that posted...I sure wish I had some mod points for you right now. You said it exactly right.
No, the key is how the judges tend to vote on the issues. The liberals voted in favor of this stupid ruling, and the conservatives voted against it.
The administration that nominated the judge has very little to do with how they end up voting.
You're only hearing people put the "Republican" label on those liberal judges because the liberals don't want to take responsibility for a VERY bad ruling. I mean, come on folks, take responsibility for your actions, for once in your life.
The other way to look at this is that when the Supremes vote the way liberals approve of, you NEVER EVER hear them exclaim that it's because they're "republicans". It's always "the liberal members of the court".
Who said anything about W? Are you actually saying the liberals DON'T take money (and now, property!) from one group just to give it another?
Wake up! They've been doing it for decades. This is just the next step! Be proud! This is what society needs, right?
I'm a conservative and I'm doing the same thing. I don't think it'll be more than a week before we see congress (and probably a helluva lot of state legislatures) will be drafting legislation to stop this crap.
At least, I sure hope so.
Just a point here, but just because the judges were appointed by Republicans doesn't mean that the judges are conservative. The judges that voted against the little guy today tend to vote liberal on issues, not conservative.
All this "Well! They're *really* Republicans!" is crap. You have to look at their voting history, and that's been liberal.
People just can't stomach the fact that their liberal justices really really really screwed up today.
Nope. You're dead wrong, and don't try and justify it in any other way. I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that, but you're WRONG.
It's the judges that tend to liberal on issues that did this. The conservatives voted AGAINST it.