My logic tells me that true science is more about questions than answers. I believe that we continually need to move forward but with enough doubt about how far we have come to be able to freely discuss "facts" that we have already established.
In the fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant ), various people correctly observe things and make differing conclusions about them. While there are definitely times to apply Occam's Razor and accept certain facts and move on, that does not mean there is not more to the story that can be observed later from a different angle.
Any "scientist" who works to "shut up" the opposition, has ceased to be a scientist and has turned into a political creature. Science is not about manipulation but about free and open discussions based upon the merits of the arguments.
It is more efficient to learn one set of rules and as few exceptions as possible to those rules. 1 doll, 2 dolls. 1 car, 2 cars. 1 Lego, 2 Legos.
I will take the time to teach them that 2 gooses are 2 geese but I'm not wasting my time on explaining the Lego thing. I realize some people don't know diddly squat about raising children so I'll help you out here.
Children learn by observing patterns. As they develop they realize that if "x" is true then "y" is probably true too. If you constantly go around "correcting" them every time they say something that fits the pattern but technically fits into an exception, you are not necessarily helping their development.
Sure, they will need to learn these things eventually but by letting some of the little things go, you reinforce the pattern that they learned, rather than destroying the pattern in favor of your pedantic requirement that every single thing be "correct".
We just have buckets of bricks they can use to make something up. I agree, having a "right" way to assemble a Lego model is silly and defeats the purpose.
I played with Legos when I was a kid and my kids play with Legos now. They don't play with "Lego" as they think that refers to a single modular building brick.
I know a lot of other kids that play with Legos that don't have the time or inclination to say they play with "Lego", "Lego bricks", "Lego playsets", or "Lego compatible modular building playsets". They just play with Legos.
As far as the idea of patenting putting a battery in a computer instead of using a UPS because it is more efficient. That idea is so blatantly obvious that the patent should be thrown out.
When I was designing my ideal/dream data center, I used this idea without any knowledge that Gooogle or anyone else had thought of it. A computer is driven by DC current and batteries are a great source of DC current. (for the record, this was last year, so no possible prior art here)
Turning AC into DC into AC into DC is a stupid idea and is only done because it is easier to incorporate into our current setups where computers plug into the AC. Building the UPS into the computer on the DC side is much smarter than wasting energy converting back and forth between AC and DC.
I have always kept my car insurance up also. My point isn't about fiscal responsibility, only that the idea of using this as an income center is a silly one.
You can't get blood from a turnip. Much of that money will not appear as the uninsured motorists have no money. It may be great for enforcing the law and getting them off of the road but not a great source of income.
I agree. I've hired people with all kinds experience who can't program their way out of a paper bag. There is no reason not to give tests to applicants for any field, except that some tests are hard to devise.
I will not hire a programmer without seeing some evidence that they can program. I don't care if they have all kinds of education and experience or if they have none.
If they can convince me of their ability, they can work for me. If they can't, then I can't use them.
IANAL, but I looked into this type of lawsuit when someone threatened to sue me for defamation.
An absolute defense against defamation is that the stated item is the truth. For their lawsuit to succeed, it has to be premised that something untrue was said that hurt them.
How much progress you make is noticed. If you are consistently not producing, people can tell.
Personally, especially when telecommuting, I make sure I put in a minimum of 40 hours weekly. If I have an unproductive, unmotivated day, like the one you describe, I would feel compelled to make that time up elsewhere in the week.
I believe telecommuting lets you concentrate on the work and less on the distractions. Going into the office could easily result in a day like the one described below.
1. Discuss 'The Road Warrior' (a.k.a. Mad Max 2) with colleagues. Include phrases such as "remember when" and "that was cool"
2. Email boss regarding latest project
3. Discuss Waterworld' with colleagues. Include phrases such as "remember when" and "no, I was asleep by that point"
4. Answer coworkers emails re: latest project
5. Discuss just how much of Waterworld was lifted straight out of The Road Warrior. Throw in references to Office Space and Family Guy to confuse and distract people.
6. Return boss' email, give daily status of your work on assigned module
Of course it is unreasonable to expect a bullet-proof fix in 48 hours. The thing that we look at in my department is downside vs upside. Downside = risk for additional bugs, upside = good customer relations, fast elimination of current issue.
Any code with that short of a turnaround time is a risk for bugs but if there is no workaround (or if the workaround is unwieldy) for the bug out there, it may be the best way.
The other issue to watch for is the "you did it before" problem. You need to protect your department from having these kind of demands put on it for minor issues, as these demands will lead to reduced code quality.
If it is truly dual-licensed then I have the choice to treat it as BSD license or GPL license. If I have changes to make to this dual-licensed file, I should have the choice to release my changes as BSD licensed, GPL licensed, or dual-licensed.
If my changes are GPL licensed, and the file was released as a dual-license, the result is a GPL licensed file. If I am forced to leave the dual license provision in there then the file is not truly dual-licensed.
As you describe it, there is no difference between a dual-license and a BSD license as you supposedly can't choose to ever really use the GPL license.
In the cited case, it was even worse, as some authors selected BSD license, while other authors selected dual-license, causing confusion about what license the files really were under.
The patch file quoted removes only the BSD license notes, not any attribution to a creator. Since the file specifically states that it (the file) is available in either BSD or GPL license, it makes since to me that a GPL user would say "OK then. We are using it as GPL" and remove the BSD license notes.
How come they aren't upset about Microsoft changing the license on the BSD code they use in Windows products?
You cannot take the BSD files from the Microsoft source code and modify them. Those files are under the Microsoft copyright and you are not even allowed to view them without special permission. The only difference here is that when they are in the Linux tree, you can freely view and modify them.
Slashdot Mirror
My logic tells me that true science is more about questions than answers. I believe that we continually need to move forward but with enough doubt about how far we have come to be able to freely discuss "facts" that we have already established.
In the fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant ), various people correctly observe things and make differing conclusions about them. While there are definitely times to apply Occam's Razor and accept certain facts and move on, that does not mean there is not more to the story that can be observed later from a different angle.
Any "scientist" who works to "shut up" the opposition, has ceased to be a scientist and has turned into a political creature. Science is not about manipulation but about free and open discussions based upon the merits of the arguments.
Pictures of Verizon Executives in compromising positions is automatically a violation of the AUP.
A bear walks into a bar and says "I would like a beer ... ", waits 30 seconds, then says "... and a wine cooler."
The bartender says, "OK. But why the big pause?"
The bear says, "I dunno. I've always had them"
Excuse me but I think the parent post is on-topic, which is obviously off-topic for this topic.
Don't forget to tip your waitress over!
I'll be here all week. Unless they let me out.
It is more efficient to learn one set of rules and as few exceptions as possible to those rules. 1 doll, 2 dolls. 1 car, 2 cars. 1 Lego, 2 Legos.
I will take the time to teach them that 2 gooses are 2 geese but I'm not wasting my time on explaining the Lego thing. I realize some people don't know diddly squat about raising children so I'll help you out here.
Children learn by observing patterns. As they develop they realize that if "x" is true then "y" is probably true too. If you constantly go around "correcting" them every time they say something that fits the pattern but technically fits into an exception, you are not necessarily helping their development.
Sure, they will need to learn these things eventually but by letting some of the little things go, you reinforce the pattern that they learned, rather than destroying the pattern in favor of your pedantic requirement that every single thing be "correct".
We just have buckets of bricks they can use to make something up. I agree, having a "right" way to assemble a Lego model is silly and defeats the purpose.
As long as they aren't sleeping with them.
I played with Legos when I was a kid and my kids play with Legos now. They don't play with "Lego" as they think that refers to a single modular building brick.
I know a lot of other kids that play with Legos that don't have the time or inclination to say they play with "Lego", "Lego bricks", "Lego playsets", or "Lego compatible modular building playsets". They just play with Legos.
As far as the idea of patenting putting a battery in a computer instead of using a UPS because it is more efficient. That idea is so blatantly obvious that the patent should be thrown out.
When I was designing my ideal/dream data center, I used this idea without any knowledge that Gooogle or anyone else had thought of it. A computer is driven by DC current and batteries are a great source of DC current. (for the record, this was last year, so no possible prior art here)
Turning AC into DC into AC into DC is a stupid idea and is only done because it is easier to incorporate into our current setups where computers plug into the AC. Building the UPS into the computer on the DC side is much smarter than wasting energy converting back and forth between AC and DC.
I have always kept my car insurance up also. My point isn't about fiscal responsibility, only that the idea of using this as an income center is a silly one.
What could be smarter than a tax on broke people?
You can't get blood from a turnip. Much of that money will not appear as the uninsured motorists have no money. It may be great for enforcing the law and getting them off of the road but not a great source of income.
I agree. I've hired people with all kinds experience who can't program their way out of a paper bag. There is no reason not to give tests to applicants for any field, except that some tests are hard to devise.
I will not hire a programmer without seeing some evidence that they can program. I don't care if they have all kinds of education and experience or if they have none.
If they can convince me of their ability, they can work for me. If they can't, then I can't use them.
So the basics of the conversation is that we are all upset that the US government hasn't criminalized listening to the radio at work?
Who here thinks that maybe the WTO is going a bit overboard on this? Bad enough they keep pushing for DRM, DMCA, and other scary initials.
FYI, I overlooked the Italian nature of this issue. I looked into this in the United States.
IANAL, but I looked into this type of lawsuit when someone threatened to sue me for defamation.
An absolute defense against defamation is that the stated item is the truth. For their lawsuit to succeed, it has to be premised that something untrue was said that hurt them.
"Who wants to bet that of this bandwidth, it is almost all pirated material?"
Without more evidence, I will not take your bet. Remember a lot of bandwidth is used by legal porn and legal streaming and media services.
How much progress you make is noticed. If you are consistently not producing, people can tell.
Personally, especially when telecommuting, I make sure I put in a minimum of 40 hours weekly. If I have an unproductive, unmotivated day, like the one you describe, I would feel compelled to make that time up elsewhere in the week.
I believe telecommuting lets you concentrate on the work and less on the distractions. Going into the office could easily result in a day like the one described below.
1. Discuss 'The Road Warrior' (a.k.a. Mad Max 2) with colleagues. Include phrases such as "remember when" and "that was cool"
2. Email boss regarding latest project
3. Discuss Waterworld' with colleagues. Include phrases such as "remember when" and "no, I was asleep by that point"
4. Answer coworkers emails re: latest project
5. Discuss just how much of Waterworld was lifted straight out of The Road Warrior. Throw in references to Office Space and Family Guy to confuse and distract people.
6. Return boss' email, give daily status of your work on assigned module
7. Discuss Mad Max for closure.
8. Call it a day.
Of course it is unreasonable to expect a bullet-proof fix in 48 hours. The thing that we look at in my department is downside vs upside. Downside = risk for additional bugs, upside = good customer relations, fast elimination of current issue.
Any code with that short of a turnaround time is a risk for bugs but if there is no workaround (or if the workaround is unwieldy) for the bug out there, it may be the best way.
The other issue to watch for is the "you did it before" problem. You need to protect your department from having these kind of demands put on it for minor issues, as these demands will lead to reduced code quality.
Ah. So my experience was not a real hallucination. I hallucinated having a hallucination.
If it is truly dual-licensed then I have the choice to treat it as BSD license or GPL license. If I have changes to make to this dual-licensed file, I should have the choice to release my changes as BSD licensed, GPL licensed, or dual-licensed.
If my changes are GPL licensed, and the file was released as a dual-license, the result is a GPL licensed file. If I am forced to leave the dual license provision in there then the file is not truly dual-licensed.
As you describe it, there is no difference between a dual-license and a BSD license as you supposedly can't choose to ever really use the GPL license.
In the cited case, it was even worse, as some authors selected BSD license, while other authors selected dual-license, causing confusion about what license the files really were under.
The patch file quoted removes only the BSD license notes, not any attribution to a creator. Since the file specifically states that it (the file) is available in either BSD or GPL license, it makes since to me that a GPL user would say "OK then. We are using it as GPL" and remove the BSD license notes.
How come they aren't upset about Microsoft changing the license on the BSD code they use in Windows products?
You cannot take the BSD files from the Microsoft source code and modify them. Those files are under the Microsoft copyright and you are not even allowed to view them without special permission. The only difference here is that when they are in the Linux tree, you can freely view and modify them.
You're wrong!
(sorry, just trying to liven things up here with some conflict)
My project SolutionsDesk ( http://www.cosentry.com/post/resources/L2%20Soluti ons%20Desk%20Datasheet.pdf ) does all of these things and more but, alas, I was not able to convince my company to create it as an open-source app.