How is Microsoft supposed to take drastic measures to ensure retailers don't sell its games to people under 17? I wouldn't be upset if Microsoft started a "17 means 17" program, where if they received proof of a retaler selling "M for Mature" games to people under 17, they would cut off that retailer from all shipments of Microsoft products for 6 months. That might be an antitrust violation if it's construed as Microsoft leveraging Windows (a common item at game-selling stores) to enforce their distribution policies for another product.
There are places you can park and sit in your car, and there are places where it is not expected. The article doesn't say whether it was a designated parking spot or not. It was, most likely, a parking spot intended for the coffee shop...
And if the police don't check on people who are doing the unusual they are not doing their jobs. Except that it being a ritual makes it usual, for the person doing it. And I take exception to the fact that I can't have routines that other people would find unusual. I'm not them, why should I act like them to any extent beyond normal social interaction?
If you don't consider color combinations, you only get 256 shades from each of the three color channels. (Or, more accurately, as this comment pointed out, 766 colors) To make my point a bit clearer, take one each of red, green and blue LEDs, space them five inches apart, and allow controls to set each LED to each of 256 different shades. Would you still argue that you're seeing 16.7 million colors?
That's why I said, "Technically, they're correct." If you're pedantic enough.
Only the really dedicated could ever play and... well... if you could really play the guitar, why would you plug it into a console instead of an amplifier? Ever hear of this game?
Everyone else seems to be harping on the fact that the guy was charged for using free wi-fi. If the guy would at least buy a coffee (Hey, he was spending gas to get there, wasn't he? And gas has been over $3/gal for months.), this wouldn't have been an issue.
However, this part worries me:
His ritual raised the suspicions of Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who approached him and asked what he was doing. So his ritual of parking in a certain spot regularly warrants suspicion? I realize that we're a bastion of neocon support, but is West Michigan really high enough on the terror targets list that someone who parks in the same spot every day warrants suspicion?
This "bullet" could have been easily dodged, but Kent County wants its free money. Actually, you're partially right. Michigan's facing statewide budget cuts, and, two weeks ago, Kent County residents voted down a millage that would have helped maintain funding for our community college.
The millage failed by 700 votes out of 40,000. Kinda pisses me off, because I was a ground pounder for a PAC supporting it.
That doesn't make any sense, that's not how you calculate the number of combinations I didn't say "combinations", I said "colors". If the plaintiffs wanted to argue about actual colors displayed, they could take the same approach.
You've fallen victim to FUD. VGA (and DVI) displays have always operated in the way Apple's being accused of.
If your job requires that you deal accurately in color, you should already know that such displays operate by means of RGB color triads which approximate 16,777,216 unique colors.
The RGB comes from the human eye's particular sensitivity to those three colors. The chemicals in our eye's cones are primarily sensitive to those hues, combinations of which grant us perception of other colors.
Therefore, to approximate the vast majority of the color range we can perceive, we only need displays that operate by way of those three hues.
Surely the judge is going to say a dignified version of "What the fuck are you on? Get the fuck out of here." Sadly, you know a hell of a lot more abot monitors than the judge likely will.
Your average display can only show 768 unique colors. However, our eyes blend them so that you see white instead of a combination of red, green and blue. Some displays support 16-bit shading, but I don't know if that's available in an RGB format or just a black-and-white format.
And while "dithering" is usually used to refer to pixels, as opposed to subpixels, the same principle applies.
This result of this case will have less to do with the technical merits of the display, and more to do with common practice and practical use.
at the end of the day, both jobs get eliminated not by innovation, efficiency, or technology, but by charity work. so, i think howard anderson makes at least one good point. Depends on what you think of as innovation. Most OSS geeks I know think of it as a sort of economic innovation, a different way of approaching the software market.
I'd have to agree, but isn't a wildly successful open source movement what people here are rooting for? Anyone who thinks OSS is going to obviate the need for in-house software is a fanatic and probably shouldn't be listened to.
and, eliminating all but custom and in-house software apps still sees a significant impact on the job market. I don't think so. As companies are required to pay less for their core software, they'll be able to spend more on tuning widely available software to their specific needs. Rather than eliminating programming jobs, you've moved those jobs out of dedicated software houses and into businesses of all industries.
so, what happens when both primary jobs get blown away by "competition" and both secondary jobs pay nothing? I just had this argument with mpapet. Your experience gleaned from those secondary jobs still goes on your resume, raising your value in future jobs.
The likelyhood of paying software jobs becoming scarce due to open source is rediculously low, IMO. You'll always have companies that need custom applications written specifically to their needs. That's how the software business got started, after all.
Perhaps your employers will let you have sleepover parties in your cube. Nah...but we've had self-organized bonfires, new years parties, cookouts and bowling tournaments. Do you regularly do that kind of thing with your friends?
Those are good points of reference, but what about getting the job or not? That seems the more likely comparison.
Here, we delve into statistics.
If there are fifteen applicants for a $35k/yr job, and only four of them have the same relevant certification I do, that's put me in the top third of the applicants for that position.
If two thirds of those applicants are then guaranteed to not get the job because of the third that had been elevated, then that certification is worth the difference between the average ending salary of those who are in that top third and those who aren't. The average salary of that top third is $35k/5, or $5,000/yr.
The average salary of those who didn't have the certification is zero.
While that obviously doesn't mean that that certification has a value of $5,000 in every application scenario, it clearly and logically illustrates that the certification has value.
Mind you, this is that "psychological" value you were discounting earlier. Many employers will more strongly consider a candidate with a certificate than a similar candidate without one, elevating the certified candidate's chance of landing the job. Why? Because that piece of paper represents certain presumptions that may be more safely made about a candidate: That they know something, or, at the very least, that they're capable of sitting down and studying information underlying a problem.
Contributing to open source software holds similar value. If I can show that I've lead successful projects, I show that I have project management experience. If I can show that I've made meaningful code contributions, I show that I can write useful code, and that I can work with other peoples' codebases.
Experience leads to knowledge, knowledge leads to a job, and a job leads to money.
You're still ignoring the certification. There's no obligation that I purchase a book before I take the Network+ exam. I could find most of the same information online, meaning my cost is limited to the cost of the exam. ($100)
Software itself violates the free market. For an item to have value, it must have utility and scarcity. Scarcity is artificially imposed by means of restrictive software licenses. Free Software could be said to violate your free market, but not software as a whole.
Value is defined as the exchange value (price) of goods or services. You're assuming that the exchange value needs to be exacted from the client upon delivery of the service. That's not true. Mechanisms such as community and reputation allow one to recoup that investment later, per my earlier example:
To address your argument: There is definitely an exchange in value. If I make meaningful contributions to an open source project, those go on my resume. As the userbase of that project increases, so does that project's reputation, leading to an increase in my perceived value for having contributed to such a project. Let's take your arguments and apply them to another common example: Certifications. You buy a $50 book, and follow up with a $100 test. You've spent $150. Why? Because you want something to put on your resume.
But what value does that certification have? You've shelled out $150 for a piece of paper worth less than a cent in recyclable content. By my argument, you depend on the reputation of that certification to aid you in getting a job. Another argument is that you've gained knowledge which will aid you in your future jobs. (Which, by the way, is what having your name associated with a popular FL/OSS project implies; The two arguments are interdependent.)
But by your arguments, that certification has no value whatsoever, and anyone who shells out $150 for that piece of paper has accomplished nothing.
Which is it? Is the certification worth anything? Or is it a waste because you receive no direct benefit?
Free (as in speech and beer) software violates the premise of a market. There is no exchange of value. It most certainly is different than your example of paid programming jobs. You either ignored the point of my post, or you missed it completely. I wasn't saying that the free market is equivalent, I was pointing out that the non-commercial approach of FL/OSS was indistinct from the commercial one in the context of competition between two programmers for whom multiple employers led to multiple paths of competition.
However, saying it this way makes it more difficult for the average person to wrap their head around it.
To address your argument: There is definitely an exchange in value. If I make meaningful contributions to an open source project, those go on my resume. As the userbase of that project increases, so does that project's reputation, leading to an increase in my perceived value for having contributed to such a project.
There's also the effect of having created a portfolio, in such cases where I'm the primary contributor or motivator behind a project. I've got three projects out there on the Web where I can tell an interviewer, "Yeah. I did that. That's an example of my work."
In short, the monetary value of something is not its only value, nor is it necessarily part of its initial value.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't consider color combinations, you only get 256 shades from each of the three color channels. (Or, more accurately, as this comment pointed out, 766 colors) To make my point a bit clearer, take one each of red, green and blue LEDs, space them five inches apart, and allow controls to set each LED to each of 256 different shades. Would you still argue that you're seeing 16.7 million colors?
That's why I said, "Technically, they're correct." If you're pedantic enough.
However, this part worries me: His ritual raised the suspicions of Police Chief Andrew Milanowski, who approached him and asked what he was doing. So his ritual of parking in a certain spot regularly warrants suspicion? I realize that we're a bastion of neocon support, but is West Michigan really high enough on the terror targets list that someone who parks in the same spot every day warrants suspicion?
Glad I don't drive in that area much.
We could use more computer geeks around here, because our manufacturing economy is sure shot to hell.
The millage failed by 700 votes out of 40,000. Kinda pisses me off, because I was a ground pounder for a PAC supporting it.
Actually, I did miss that bit. Thanks for pointing it out.
number of combinations I didn't say "combinations", I said "colors". If the plaintiffs wanted to argue about actual colors displayed, they could take the same approach.
If you don't blend the color triads, you get 256 shades of red, 256 shades of blue and 256 shades of green. 768 shades in total.
However, blending the color triads allows those 768 shades to approximate 16.7 million colors. That's how modern displays work, to my knowledge.
You've fallen victim to FUD. VGA (and DVI) displays have always operated in the way Apple's being accused of.
If your job requires that you deal accurately in color, you should already know that such displays operate by means of RGB color triads which approximate 16,777,216 unique colors.
The RGB comes from the human eye's particular sensitivity to those three colors. The chemicals in our eye's cones are primarily sensitive to those hues, combinations of which grant us perception of other colors.
Therefore, to approximate the vast majority of the color range we can perceive, we only need displays that operate by way of those three hues.
Your monitor is capable of producing 16,777,216 unique color triads, each approximating a different color. Apple did nothing wrong here.
Your average display can only show 768 unique colors. However, our eyes blend them so that you see white instead of a combination of red, green and blue. Some displays support 16-bit shading, but I don't know if that's available in an RGB format or just a black-and-white format.
And while "dithering" is usually used to refer to pixels, as opposed to subpixels, the same principle applies.
This result of this case will have less to do with the technical merits of the display, and more to do with common practice and practical use.
The likelyhood of paying software jobs becoming scarce due to open source is rediculously low, IMO. You'll always have companies that need custom applications written specifically to their needs. That's how the software business got started, after all.
Those are good points of reference, but what about getting the job or not? That seems the more likely comparison.
Here, we delve into statistics.
If there are fifteen applicants for a $35k/yr job, and only four of them have the same relevant certification I do, that's put me in the top third of the applicants for that position.
If two thirds of those applicants are then guaranteed to not get the job because of the third that had been elevated, then that certification is worth the difference between the average ending salary of those who are in that top third and those who aren't. The average salary of that top third is $35k/5, or $5,000/yr.
The average salary of those who didn't have the certification is zero.
While that obviously doesn't mean that that certification has a value of $5,000 in every application scenario, it clearly and logically illustrates that the certification has value.
Mind you, this is that "psychological" value you were discounting earlier. Many employers will more strongly consider a candidate with a certificate than a similar candidate without one, elevating the certified candidate's chance of landing the job. Why? Because that piece of paper represents certain presumptions that may be more safely made about a candidate: That they know something, or, at the very least, that they're capable of sitting down and studying information underlying a problem.
Contributing to open source software holds similar value. If I can show that I've lead successful projects, I show that I have project management experience. If I can show that I've made meaningful code contributions, I show that I can write useful code, and that I can work with other peoples' codebases.
Experience leads to knowledge, knowledge leads to a job, and a job leads to money.
You're still ignoring the certification. There's no obligation that I purchase a book before I take the Network+ exam. I could find most of the same information online, meaning my cost is limited to the cost of the exam. ($100)
Do you deny that the certification holds value?
But what value does that certification have? You've shelled out $150 for a piece of paper worth less than a cent in recyclable content. By my argument, you depend on the reputation of that certification to aid you in getting a job. Another argument is that you've gained knowledge which will aid you in your future jobs. (Which, by the way, is what having your name associated with a popular FL/OSS project implies; The two arguments are interdependent.)
But by your arguments, that certification has no value whatsoever, and anyone who shells out $150 for that piece of paper has accomplished nothing.
Which is it? Is the certification worth anything? Or is it a waste because you receive no direct benefit?
However, saying it this way makes it more difficult for the average person to wrap their head around it.
To address your argument: There is definitely an exchange in value. If I make meaningful contributions to an open source project, those go on my resume. As the userbase of that project increases, so does that project's reputation, leading to an increase in my perceived value for having contributed to such a project.
There's also the effect of having created a portfolio, in such cases where I'm the primary contributor or motivator behind a project. I've got three projects out there on the Web where I can tell an interviewer, "Yeah. I did that. That's an example of my work."
In short, the monetary value of something is not its only value, nor is it necessarily part of its initial value.
Not really. When my site was Slashdotted, I hit 20,000 hits over a couple days. And that was with an 18 hour down period.
Trolls serve one valuable purpose in online discussions: They incite posts that remind people of the facts at hand.