Will Computer Engineers need to be certified? I would that those that are designing systems that pose potental harm to the public good, such as air traffic control systems, medical systems, water and power plans controls, should have some sort of certification, but in conjunction with those that would normally work on those projects as well.
There's a big difference between a bridge and a chunk of software. Software can and is tested before use that might harm the public. Bridges are not so easy to test full scale under working conditions.
PE restrictions do not keep "non engineers" from making things and offering their ideas to the public, it just keeps them from charging money for it and pretending they are something that they are not. Stoping that kind of activity would obviously violate the first amendment. Question, "Are you an engineer?". Answer, "No, I am not a Professional Engineer yet." That was easy, but it won't keep me from sharing any mechanical designs I come up with for fun.
M$ is Optimizing Standard English, goodSpeak. By simplifying the word choices available, all people will be able to utilize it equally well. Words like monopoly, and others based on the limiting mono stem are inherently limiting and negative. Samewise, anti-competitive should be replaced by competitive, plus. There are many other words that are negative and serve no good purpose that must be removed. In the end, you have duck speak which is good when it agrees with you and bad when it does not. The content never changes.
This is all part of the effort to end the information anarchy. You see, when people know to much they don't always do what you want them too. For this reason, independent publications will have to stop so that we can be sure of what the truth is. All of these confilicting opinions are just too much for the average person to sort out.
With M$ in control, everything will be easier and more fun.
FORTRAN is the language of math and science applications. Almost all usefull engineering applications in the nuclear and aerospace industries are written in it. It's a language that engineers can easily master and use. Where peer review and undertanding of the code is needed you will find FORTRAN, and engineers maintaining it. Many of those applications have litteraly thousands of man years of development behind them so that replacement is not only undesirable, it's not cost effective.
This is a great gift from NASA. I can imagine FEA and finite difference packages for thermal, stress and rad flux. Other languages can be used to devolop graphical front ends where that is useful. Sooooo cool.
Programs like this that reward misbehavior piss me off. The money is better spent on honest people, you know like on high schools. Criminals have proved that they can not be trusted by violating other people. They should never be trusted again, and certianly never rewarded or given special opertunities that others do not have.
Honest livings can be had in contruction, washing dishes, taking out garbage and what not that requires little trust. This is what criminals should end up doing. If they want to do more, and pay for it, good for them and good luck. Trade organizations realize this. You can't get so much as a plumber's liscense if you have a criminal record, and that's the way it should remain.
The damage to the IT proffesion's reputation is secondary to the real harm well trained criminals can do. Yes, dishonest people can and do aquire skills. Every learning institution and every proffesional organization tries to exclude the dishonest, but nothing's perfect. Programs like this start out with the dishonest and train them up. There is a much greater probability of these people doing harm with their knowledge because you have selected the worst of all people to start out. Gangs trained by police departments in Los Angeles have a record of being nothing but stronger for the effort.
This is very backward thinking in a country that will keep "hackers" away from computers forever.
Developers can choose to support some or all of those in the applications they develop and will be charged accordingly.
Muglia said for entry-level, small-scale applications, Microsoft will charge developers $1,000 a year for access to.Net My Services and $250 per application they create.
For standard use, which Microsoft expects will involve the majority of users, Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using.Net My Services and $1,500 per application.
That's hard to misread. Why Muglia would say that they will charge $250 for the privalige of writing an application if it was not so? Of course, such "service" fees are nothing next to what M$ thinks people will pay to use their garbage.
Yes, they are going to CHARGE you just for writing an application, as was pointed out by M$ themselves in the first few lines of the article. I suppose they will try to levy that toll on anyone who wrote an application using their tools or not, so free developers may need apply before they try. At that rate the city library might have to pay a M$ tax too. I'd prefer my libray used a reasonable, peer reviewed free program like postgress or mysequel and left M$ out.
Let's quote the article:
Developers can choose to support some or all of those in the applications they develop and will be charged accordingly.
Muglia said for entry-level, small-scale applications, Microsoft will charge developers $1,000 a year for access to.Net My Services and $250 per application they create.
For standard use, which Microsoft expects will involve the majority of users, Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using.Net My Services and $1,500 per application.
If that's not a toll on development, I'm not sure what is. The client is charged per application that the developer was charged to make. That's some some service service, thank you, thank you.
Talk about a viral liscense. They must consider anything that links to their new "Service" a derivative work. The only problem is that it's not going to be catching.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a big difference between a bridge and a chunk of software. Software can and is tested before use that might harm the public. Bridges are not so easy to test full scale under working conditions.
PE restrictions do not keep "non engineers" from making things and offering their ideas to the public, it just keeps them from charging money for it and pretending they are something that they are not. Stoping that kind of activity would obviously violate the first amendment. Question, "Are you an engineer?". Answer, "No, I am not a Professional Engineer yet." That was easy, but it won't keep me from sharing any mechanical designs I come up with for fun.
This is all part of the effort to end the information anarchy. You see, when people know to much they don't always do what you want them too. For this reason, independent publications will have to stop so that we can be sure of what the truth is. All of these confilicting opinions are just too much for the average person to sort out.
With M$ in control, everything will be easier and more fun.
Heal yourself first. It is foolish to insult people you don't know.
This is a great gift from NASA. I can imagine FEA and finite difference packages for thermal, stress and rad flux. Other languages can be used to devolop graphical front ends where that is useful. Sooooo cool.
What a different world it would be if all tax $ funded software were available like this.
So, what's the difference?
Honest livings can be had in contruction, washing dishes, taking out garbage and what not that requires little trust. This is what criminals should end up doing. If they want to do more, and pay for it, good for them and good luck. Trade organizations realize this. You can't get so much as a plumber's liscense if you have a criminal record, and that's the way it should remain.
The damage to the IT proffesion's reputation is secondary to the real harm well trained criminals can do. Yes, dishonest people can and do aquire skills. Every learning institution and every proffesional organization tries to exclude the dishonest, but nothing's perfect. Programs like this start out with the dishonest and train them up. There is a much greater probability of these people doing harm with their knowledge because you have selected the worst of all people to start out. Gangs trained by police departments in Los Angeles have a record of being nothing but stronger for the effort.
This is very backward thinking in a country that will keep "hackers" away from computers forever.
Developers can choose to support some or all of those in the applications they develop and will be charged accordingly.
Muglia said for entry-level, small-scale applications, Microsoft will charge developers $1,000 a year for access to .Net My Services and $250 per application they create.
For standard use, which Microsoft expects will involve the majority of users, Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using .Net My Services and $1,500 per application.
That's hard to misread. Why Muglia would say that they will charge $250 for the privalige of writing an application if it was not so? Of course, such "service" fees are nothing next to what M$ thinks people will pay to use their garbage.
Yes, they are going to CHARGE you just for writing an application, as was pointed out by M$ themselves in the first few lines of the article. I suppose they will try to levy that toll on anyone who wrote an application using their tools or not, so free developers may need apply before they try. At that rate the city library might have to pay a M$ tax too. I'd prefer my libray used a reasonable, peer reviewed free program like postgress or mysequel and left M$ out.
Developers can choose to support some or all of those in the applications they develop and will be charged accordingly.
Muglia said for entry-level, small-scale applications, Microsoft will charge developers $1,000 a year for access to .Net My Services and $250 per application they create.
For standard use, which Microsoft expects will involve the majority of users, Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using .Net My Services and $1,500 per application.
If that's not a toll on development, I'm not sure what is. The client is charged per application that the developer was charged to make. That's some some service service, thank you, thank you.
Talk about a viral liscense. They must consider anything that links to their new "Service" a derivative work. The only problem is that it's not going to be catching.
How do I enable inbound port 80 for my crappy ToS @Home cable box?