No, it was mostly just for the fun of it, and partly to see if using channel 14 was much better than the other 802.11b/g channels in my very RF-crowded neighborhood. It was much better, but I only ran it for a short while before switching back over to 802.11a exclusively.
If you have the ability to modify the firmware, you can make it violate regulations. For example, if you hack the madwifi driver you can make some cards work up to 100mW of power (limit where I live is 30mW).
I've hacked binary blobs (Airport Extreme and an Atheros chipset in a Zyxel router) to run using 802.11g on channel 14 (a prohibited combination everywhere). Open source would just make it a little easier.
Murder? It's a book. A bunch of pieces of paper wrapped in a little cardboard (or stiffer paper), held together with glue and string. Nothing more. Burning it isn't akin to murder.
If you're objection relates to the destruction of the symbols, then it is the speech part you're objecting to.
Burning the Koran is a deliberate incitement, and is on a different level to the Islamic radicals burning American or western flags or Bibles, because we have a significantly lower attachment to the actual physical object
So Muslims have made themselves an easy target by emotionally investing themselves in the integrity of all copies of a certain text. So what? Why should non-Muslims cater in any way to their foolishness?
As a higher denominator, this is what we should be preventing - because its not on our level, its far below it and I don't enjoy being part of a society that can stoop that low.
It's best not to be so insistent on being "high" that you allow your legs to be cut out from under you.
Or is the iPad made of magical pixie dust and will therefore not be subject to industry norms? I can see Jobs now, "Profit be damned! There will be only one iPad, and no one will ever want to upgrade it, EVER!"
It's hard to see that happening, but it's not hard to see Jobs saying it, as a very similar statement appeared in early editions of _Inside Macintosh_
With today's systems in "Westernized" countries, you can't even have an effective 2-way conversation. The duplex performance sucks - you can't hear anything while you're talking. Add to that a small but noticable delay, and you have to resort to long pauses between sentences to ensure you don't talk over one another.
Am I the only one that notices this? It's AWFUL compared to what it was like 20 years ago.
I haven't had this problem on a wired phone in the US, even with digital signaling in between. The Phone Company actually went through a great deal of trouble to keep that working.
... dance classes all across the country are filled up with engineers, programmers,...
Doesn't work so well. Dance classes assume you know how to dance, but need to learn the steps. If you can't dance at all, you're pretty much SOL (unless, as another programmer I know did, you hire a private dance tutor).
Ah, I see. You have no accomplishments of your own, so you set a high and arbitrary standard of what constitutes changing the world, so you can bring down the accomplishments of others as well. I hope a primate hits you with a rock.
The same would apply to Gates on his own. Even if you consider Microsoft as a whole (which is already not "Gates"), it hasn't "changed the world" except in some superficial detail.
What's your bar for changing the world, the Great Oxygenation Event?
Consider all the useless implementation work you've done while your design was wrong (before you reworked it). It's just as important in software as in building.
In building, "implementation" means leveling ground, pouring concrete, fabricating structural members, welding, etc.
In software, "implementation" means writing a bunch of code. It's not nearly the same. Rework the design, rework the code; not that big a difference. And by coding without a design document, I save the time required to produce a design document, and I discover more quickly if my design does not work.
Hmm....if you're at all interested in your career, progress both in level and SALARY/BILL RATE, you need to resign yourself to the point that you will not be at the same job 10 years from now to look at code again. The only way to make it these days..is to job hop every 2-3 years.
Yeah, but the perversity of the universe is such that the company you're with in 10 years could buy up (or be bought by) the company with now, and you could end up responsible for the very same code...
There is no silver bullet. You are no Superman. You're not going to change the world.
I'm not, no. But some people have, and they may be reading this right now. How do you know you're not addressing the next Bill Gates?
Anyway, your advice is way off. The people with the most _social_ success are raging egotists and shameless self-promoters. There's right ways and wrong ways to do it, and the wrong ways lead to you being written off as a pompous ass -- but not being such will never lead to social success.
Says Wired. It doesn't matter if any particular case is straightforward or not, what matters is that the method they use works whether the case is flimsy or strong, without regard to its strength.
Commenting code isn't enough, it's just a small part of the design and documentation process. Comments are there to tie the code to the relevant part in your design document, which really is a part of programming people should put more effort into.
It's been said for years, but it is almost never done. When it is done, it's most often (IME) done _after the fact_ because of some requirement to produce the paperwork. Perhaps it's time to give up on it. Is there a real reason for insisting on a design document, or is it just some sort of self-flagellation on the part of programmers?
Only if you do nasty things that you don't want people to know about. If you live by principles, treat people well and avoid doing things that you'd regret seeing the light of day, saving all of your communications can make you a defense lawyer's wet dream.
Only if your principles are the same as those of the judge and/or jury.
I lack the time right now to read that paper fully, but scanning it a bit I see mentions of: lots and lots of litigation, people being forced to let go their patent due to not having money for lawyers (quoted above), patent trolling, the troll (Howe) making lots of money from the litigation though it wasn't he who solved the final problems (it was Singer), and he wasn't manufacturing anything, a patent pool and a resulting cartel, and I'm probably missing something because I've not read the entire thing.
You missed one of the good ones -- prior art clearly covering Howe's patents, but dismissed on a technicality.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it was mostly just for the fun of it, and partly to see if using channel 14 was much better than the other 802.11b/g channels in my very RF-crowded neighborhood. It was much better, but I only ran it for a short while before switching back over to 802.11a exclusively.
I've hacked binary blobs (Airport Extreme and an Atheros chipset in a Zyxel router) to run using 802.11g on channel 14 (a prohibited combination everywhere). Open source would just make it a little easier.
Murder? It's a book. A bunch of pieces of paper wrapped in a little cardboard (or stiffer paper), held together with glue and string. Nothing more. Burning it isn't akin to murder.
If you're objection relates to the destruction of the symbols, then it is the speech part you're objecting to.
So Muslims have made themselves an easy target by emotionally investing themselves in the integrity of all copies of a certain text. So what? Why should non-Muslims cater in any way to their foolishness?
It's best not to be so insistent on being "high" that you allow your legs to be cut out from under you.
Sometimes the best way to win _IS_ to descend to your opponent's level and beat him at his own game.
It's hard to see that happening, but it's not hard to see Jobs saying it, as a very similar statement appeared in early editions of _Inside Macintosh_
I haven't had this problem on a wired phone in the US, even with digital signaling in between. The Phone Company actually went through a great deal of trouble to keep that working.
You might want to try these things before making silly claims.
Not to worry, with the solar-powered Corvette he should be able to find an acceptable substitute.
Doesn't work so well. Dance classes assume you know how to dance, but need to learn the steps. If you can't dance at all, you're pretty much SOL (unless, as another programmer I know did, you hire a private dance tutor).
Ah, I see. You have no accomplishments of your own, so you set a high and arbitrary standard of what constitutes changing the world, so you can bring down the accomplishments of others as well. I hope a primate hits you with a rock.
It turned out that no matter how tough they claimed they were, Marines can't really breathe vacuum.
All civilized societies expose their elderly in order to save resources for the next generation.
What's your bar for changing the world, the Great Oxygenation Event?
In building, "implementation" means leveling ground, pouring concrete, fabricating structural members, welding, etc.
In software, "implementation" means writing a bunch of code. It's not nearly the same. Rework the design, rework the code; not that big a difference. And by coding without a design document, I save the time required to produce a design document, and I discover more quickly if my design does not work.
Which is? If it's along the lines of "It's easier and cheaper to fix a blueprint than a building", then it does not apply to software.
Yeah, but the perversity of the universe is such that the company you're with in 10 years could buy up (or be bought by) the company with now, and you could end up responsible for the very same code...
I'm not, no. But some people have, and they may be reading this right now. How do you know you're not addressing the next Bill Gates?
Anyway, your advice is way off. The people with the most _social_ success are raging egotists and shameless self-promoters. There's right ways and wrong ways to do it, and the wrong ways lead to you being written off as a pompous ass -- but not being such will never lead to social success.
Says Wired. It doesn't matter if any particular case is straightforward or not, what matters is that the method they use works whether the case is flimsy or strong, without regard to its strength.
It's been said for years, but it is almost never done. When it is done, it's most often (IME) done _after the fact_ because of some requirement to produce the paperwork. Perhaps it's time to give up on it. Is there a real reason for insisting on a design document, or is it just some sort of self-flagellation on the part of programmers?
You're still one fire away from losing it all. If it's really all that important, some sort of off-site backup is a necessity.
Only if your principles are the same as those of the judge and/or jury.
There was no stealing. There was merely acquisition of territory by right of conquest.
And the envelope says: "What three things are most lacking in England?"
You missed one of the good ones -- prior art clearly covering Howe's patents, but dismissed on a technicality.