But the summary says different sources of money of different media are the
cause of this situation.
That's not really the cause of the situation, though. The cause is that
the self described bastions of free media aren't doing the job they promise their readership, and haven't done so in at least a generation. So the readership has wised up and no longer spends money on newspapers and "serious' magazines as they used to, and the alternatives "state sponsored media" therefore have an evolutionary advantage.
The solution isn't for the public to bite the bullet and accept unpalatable new ways to fund media, the solution is for the old media giants to either die off (most likely) or return to offering a quality product (most unlikely).
Not really. The O(1) is correct in the worst case, provided you use a perfect hash. Since the hash function wasn't specified, you may as well assume that it's perfect in case you really need the performance guarantee, so I guess the interviewer was wrong.
"Minimum wage" is a modern invention. It's a stupid idea that doesn't work.
LOL. It only prevents us from having riots in the streets like in the good ol' days of robber baron capitalism. You know, even rich people understand that if there are too many destitute poor people around them, sooner or later there's going to be a fight, and the poor are numerically superior...
Wage slavery is when the slave makes less than what is required to live independently and save enough money to better himself/herself.
It has nothing to do with $1000/month or whatever. If you dont make enough money to move out of your parents' house, then you're a wage slave.
If you don't make enough money that you can't save enough to survive six months when you lose your job, then you're a wage slave. If you don't make enough to be able to take care of your family, then you're a wage slave.
It's called wage slavery because the person is stuck, all their time is spent at a job and it's impossible to leave that job because it never pays enough to save the minimum amount needed to move away without risk.
If you live in NY city, and you make $1000/month, you're obviously a wage slave. The same amount in Nowheresville may not be as bad.
Dude, your work ethic is fucked up (pardon my french).
You've been brainwashed into a completely ridiculous and ultimately self defeating conception of employment, which treats workers as slaves and companies as slave owners.
Here's how the economy really works. You, whether an employee or a manager, are a person offering a service, namely your ability to do work. Companies are *your* customers, and you have the right (and the obligation) to negotiate with your customers a mutually agreeable deal, that can include whatever the hell you both like. It's that simple.
If you want to include a clause that says every friday you get the day off, that's fine. If you want to allow the company to fire you for being 3 minutes late, that's fine too. But realize that people who *don't* let their customer/company walk all over them are pitying you.
In the end, your only task is to negotiate a good deal for yourself. And when circumstances change, it's up to you to renegotiate. Sadly, 99% of people are too lazy or scared to stand up for themselves, and will sign anything without reading it. That's just a fact. But if you think you have to be like them, or even that being like them is desirable or optimal for the proper functioning of the economy, then your business administration course was wasted on you, and I'm being kind.
The world doesn't owe you a living, but you're always free to organize all parts of your life as you see fit. Use that freedom, and deal with your customer(s) as you think best.
I thought we already know how to handle uncertainty. The difficulty is that every real world problem needs to modeled differently, and inventing new models doesn't scale. Hence the slow progress of Science, and the incidental difficulty of inventing algorithms that think up new algorithms for us.
Thus, I'm part of the
incredibly small minority of people who actually think it's dumb for them to
get rid of Starter.
I suspect they're being smarter than you give them credit, actually. Did you click on the ads and buy a product? No? How many people who used Starter did actually clickthrough? I bet the Starter Edition brings in next to no revenue to Microsoft.
They may not be very good at software engineering, but they are excellent at sales, and if they think that switching people to a new shareware/trialware system is going to be more profitable, then they're probably right.
And that's a good thing. The Free Software community shouldn't get suckered into using proprietary formats. We're here for the long haul, not to line some turtleneck sporting CEO's pockets.
I for one welcome this idea, and I move to extend it to its logical conclusion. I *also* want to be able to sell my wife(1), my kids(2), and my kidneys(3) if I want to, too. It's too hard to think about enforcing all those arbitrary rules, let's just let the market decide(4)!
1) The neighbour stups her already when I'm in the office, so there's a market. I should be compensated in money terms.
2) There's that paedophile I see every day in the park, so there's a market.
It's inevitable he'll grab my 7 year old anyway, I should be compensated in money terms.
3) The rich old woman down the street really needs a kidney.
She might just get lucky on the waiting list, so I want to get in on the action now.
She'll pay anything!
Not at all. They're worried that PhDs are *too* independent, and are more interested in figuring cool things out than in following orders and increasing the bottom line by yesterday.
And they're not quite wrong, since the vast majority of PhDs that got hired by banks and hedge funds in the last decade didn't last the distance.
If you're trying to get hired, you'll have to convince them that you're a team player first, and way more interested in making the company some money whatever it takes, than just working on the same stuff your PhD was about. And that you have real coding skills (design patterns, algorithms, C++, version control, debugging, etc), not just Matlab or Excel.
We need to give people in their late 20's
and early 30's the majority of the power in the field, because that's when
our minds are sharpest, and we are most capable.
Nuh-uh. People in their 20's and early 30's don't have families and mortgages, THAT's what makes them more capable. While older guys have more experience and nagging wives and children. So...
Let's make scientists sign a contract that they can't marry or procreate, and in return the university gives them a free house with a housekeeper and tenure. THAT's what will push science truly forward.
Yeah, it all started going downhill when JonKatz left. He was a visionary and a supercoder, and I learned everything I know about computers from his articles.
You know the etymology of pickpocket? A pocket was a bag worn *under* a woman's dress, attached around her waist by strings. And thieves still managed to steal them routinely.
then the user is most welcome to write his own s/w.
Not if the OS doesn't LET HIM. That's what the bootloader fight is about.
do you think about who's gonna spy on you when you talk on the phone,
Of course. That's why there are laws AGAINST PHONETAPPING, because some people thought about that before you were born. I guess you didn't know that?
when you watch tv,
There are default rules about privacy here too. That's why you need to VOLUNTEER to be monitored by Nielsen ratings, for example.
accept it, you can't
have total control over stuff that you didn't make yourself. and you can't
make everything yourself.
How about YOU ACCEPT it and leave the rest of us to figure out how to save our privacy in the future?
Total control isn't even remotely the issue. What is the issue is freedom. Freedom to do what we like, freedom from being spied upon, and freedom from being forced to accept the economic slavery that we are being pushed into.
It's not difficult. Companies are welcome to do whatever they like so long as they DON'T break our freedoms. Each time they do, we'll just have to complain about it, figure out what it means, and keep talking about it until we find a way to smack them so they stop.
There's a limited number of cloud hardware providers on the internet, and the rest are middle men. It's useless to diversify yourself on the middle men, they will all be affected when the common underlying hardware provider has an issue. Thus there's a limit to the reliability that can be achieved, irrespective of how much mixing and matching is performed at the "business end".
Diversification only "works" when the alternatives are provably independent. That's not true in a highly interconnected and interdependent world, which is TFA's point, I believe.
You're missing the point. The AQ militants aren't talking to YO(US), they are talking to their own population, who agree with them and join their ranks. It's not about the US, and it's not directed at the US. The US is simply the bad guy killing women and children while sipping Mountain Dew from the comfort of a chair half way around the world. And having NERF firefights during breaks or whatever. That's what Drones represent to most people in the world: obese cowards pressing buttons and killing people. And it's a *great* propaganda aid.
Sure, I was just pointing out that the "solution" called piracy is a fact on the ground. It's there, and it's competing with all the proposed "solutions", and it's probably still winning by a wide margin.
You can't shift people's behaviour by calling them cheapskates and offering them the privilege of feeling good about giving away money to some company so that they can get a more limited product in return that they already have access to for free.
The current generation of pirates are a bit like farmers. They know how to extract food (media) from the ground (internet) and all they need is a bit of free time and knowledge to do it. Nobody can go to them and say don't grow your own food, just buy ready made meals (now 5 varieties!) in the supermarket. They'll just laugh and keep doing their own thing.
As to the end game, even if the new stuff is reduced to zero, there's so much old stuff out there already that can replace it, there aren't enough hours in the day for somebody to watch it all.
theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal
goods or property of another; larceny.
There's a reason why copyright infringement isn't called theft, and it's because there's no stealing involved. And there's a reason why people don't think piracy is a serious crime, and it's because the private ownership is of a copy on their own bits and hard disks. The original remains the private property of the owner.
Haven't any of you ever created anything unique? Did you try to make more
unique things, or say to yourself "nobody will ever appreciate this shit" and
give up? It's that exact deterrent that piracy causes in would-be artists.
I wonder if you understand the mentality of an artist? The classic artist feels the need to create even if nobody appreciates his work. It's an internal need, not a kind of narcissism. There are plenty of famous artists who never saw a lot of money in their own hands, or were appreciated in their lifetime.
Based on this any research University or Organisation around the world would
become a patent troll unless they start to use the 'research' aka patents
they created.
You're misrepresenting the *substantial* difference between research and patent seeking. 'research' is open, it is all about sharing knowledge and promoting the free reuse of discoveries with no strings attached. 'patent seeking' is about closing off ideas and generating rent by artificially restricting the rest of the world's experimentation with similar ideas.
The fact is that the CSIRO is skirting the line, and that can put them very close to patent trolls.
For any true research organisation, that is, if its purpose for existing is research, then patents aren't needed. It's not like the employees do nothing all day, and one day someone hears that patents are worth money, and suddenly everybody does research so they can get the patents. Most university departments are true research organisations, and they *don't* seek patents.
It's true that patents can supplement income for a research organisation, but again, that's just *one* way of supplementing income and certainly shouldn't be the *main* one. There's grant money, consulting, teaching/seminars etc, even bake sales;-), all of which don't bring the nasty evilness of patents into the world.
An organisation which only does research and seeks patents from that research exclusively to sell them is IMHO a patent troll. It's a classic case of homesteading the space of ideas for rent money. Just because maybe a "good guy" does it doesn't make it right.
What said organisation ought to be doing if it is going to patent an idea is launching a startup which owns the patent.
For example, when Stanford got the patent for PageRank it was used to found a small company to exploit the idea and run with it. If Stanford had just sat on the patent without launching any startups based on it, I would call that patent trolling behaviour. And yes, sometimes Stanford does that too.
Why is that his solution? He already *has* a solution, it's called piracy.
He's invested in it, has the equipment and the skill to use that solution.
Now you're suggesting he should scrap a working solution and replace it
with.... a more expensive, partial solution that may cause extra inconvenience?
Netflix is at best an alternative that may or may not be around in a few years time, and could be ruined by a change of management. Piracy is not only a proven solution by now, it also has the advantage of staying power. If you've pirated a favourite DVD ten years ago, you will be able to watch it in ten years time with your kids. Can you honestly say that every movie that was in Netflix's catalog ten years ago will be available as-is in ten years time from them?
One thing people never discuss enough is that with piracy you get private ownership, just like when you buy some physical good in the store. Whereas the commercial digital world is all about renting everything and owning nothing. One day you have the right to watch or listen or read something, and the next the company is gone, or your credit card has expired, or your computer is b0rked, and *poof* it's all gone forever. It's highly unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really the cause of the situation, though. The cause is that the self described bastions of free media aren't doing the job they promise their readership, and haven't done so in at least a generation. So the readership has wised up and no longer spends money on newspapers and "serious' magazines as they used to, and the alternatives "state sponsored media" therefore have an evolutionary advantage.
The solution isn't for the public to bite the bullet and accept unpalatable new ways to fund media, the solution is for the old media giants to either die off (most likely) or return to offering a quality product (most unlikely).
Not really. The O(1) is correct in the worst case, provided you use a perfect hash. Since the hash function wasn't specified, you may as well assume that it's perfect in case you really need the performance guarantee, so I guess the interviewer was wrong.
And today we still have closed social networks providers like Facebook. The game is still afoot, except at a higher level than the network protocols.
Useless! Science needs to attract more laboratory mice bent on taking over the world!
LOL. It only prevents us from having riots in the streets like in the good ol' days of robber baron capitalism. You know, even rich people understand that if there are too many destitute poor people around them, sooner or later there's going to be a fight, and the poor are numerically superior...
It's called wage slavery because the person is stuck, all their time is spent at a job and it's impossible to leave that job because it never pays enough to save the minimum amount needed to move away without risk.
If you live in NY city, and you make $1000/month, you're obviously a wage slave. The same amount in Nowheresville may not be as bad.
You've been brainwashed into a completely ridiculous and ultimately self defeating conception of employment, which treats workers as slaves and companies as slave owners.
Here's how the economy really works. You, whether an employee or a manager, are a person offering a service, namely your ability to do work. Companies are *your* customers, and you have the right (and the obligation) to negotiate with your customers a mutually agreeable deal, that can include whatever the hell you both like. It's that simple.
If you want to include a clause that says every friday you get the day off, that's fine. If you want to allow the company to fire you for being 3 minutes late, that's fine too. But realize that people who *don't* let their customer/company walk all over them are pitying you.
In the end, your only task is to negotiate a good deal for yourself. And when circumstances change, it's up to you to renegotiate. Sadly, 99% of people are too lazy or scared to stand up for themselves, and will sign anything without reading it. That's just a fact. But if you think you have to be like them, or even that being like them is desirable or optimal for the proper functioning of the economy, then your business administration course was wasted on you, and I'm being kind.
The world doesn't owe you a living, but you're always free to organize all parts of your life as you see fit. Use that freedom, and deal with your customer(s) as you think best.
Sorry, asking and waiting for confirmation won't work.
I thought we already know how to handle uncertainty. The difficulty is that every real world problem needs to modeled differently, and inventing new models doesn't scale. Hence the slow progress of Science, and the incidental difficulty of inventing algorithms that think up new algorithms for us.
I suspect they're being smarter than you give them credit, actually. Did you click on the ads and buy a product? No? How many people who used Starter did actually clickthrough? I bet the Starter Edition brings in next to no revenue to Microsoft. They may not be very good at software engineering, but they are excellent at sales, and if they think that switching people to a new shareware/trialware system is going to be more profitable, then they're probably right.
And that's a good thing. The Free Software community shouldn't get suckered into using proprietary formats. We're here for the long haul, not to line some turtleneck sporting CEO's pockets.
Hmm? What? Hey! I thought the box was Pandorica's.
And I should know. I'm a doctor.
1) The neighbour stups her already when I'm in the office, so there's a market. I should be compensated in money terms.
2) There's that paedophile I see every day in the park, so there's a market. It's inevitable he'll grab my 7 year old anyway, I should be compensated in money terms.
3) The rich old woman down the street really needs a kidney. She might just get lucky on the waiting list, so I want to get in on the action now. She'll pay anything!
4) I really need the money! Honest!
And they're not quite wrong, since the vast majority of PhDs that got hired by banks and hedge funds in the last decade didn't last the distance.
If you're trying to get hired, you'll have to convince them that you're a team player first, and way more interested in making the company some money whatever it takes, than just working on the same stuff your PhD was about. And that you have real coding skills (design patterns, algorithms, C++, version control, debugging, etc), not just Matlab or Excel.
Nuh-uh. People in their 20's and early 30's don't have families and mortgages, THAT's what makes them more capable. While older guys have more experience and nagging wives and children. So...
Let's make scientists sign a contract that they can't marry or procreate, and in return the university gives them a free house with a housekeeper and tenure. THAT's what will push science truly forward.
Yeah, it all started going downhill when JonKatz left. He was a visionary and a supercoder, and I learned everything I know about computers from his articles.
You know the etymology of pickpocket? A pocket was a bag worn *under* a woman's dress, attached around her waist by strings. And thieves still managed to steal them routinely.
Or maybe YOUR response is shit?
Not if the OS doesn't LET HIM. That's what the bootloader fight is about.
Of course. That's why there are laws AGAINST PHONETAPPING, because some people thought about that before you were born. I guess you didn't know that?
There are default rules about privacy here too. That's why you need to VOLUNTEER to be monitored by Nielsen ratings, for example.
How about YOU ACCEPT it and leave the rest of us to figure out how to save our privacy in the future?
Total control isn't even remotely the issue. What is the issue is freedom. Freedom to do what we like, freedom from being spied upon, and freedom from being forced to accept the economic slavery that we are being pushed into.
It's not difficult. Companies are welcome to do whatever they like so long as they DON'T break our freedoms. Each time they do, we'll just have to complain about it, figure out what it means, and keep talking about it until we find a way to smack them so they stop.
Diversification only "works" when the alternatives are provably independent. That's not true in a highly interconnected and interdependent world, which is TFA's point, I believe.
You're missing the point. The AQ militants aren't talking to YO(US), they are talking to their own population, who agree with them and join their ranks. It's not about the US, and it's not directed at the US. The US is simply the bad guy killing women and children while sipping Mountain Dew from the comfort of a chair half way around the world. And having NERF firefights during breaks or whatever. That's what Drones represent to most people in the world: obese cowards pressing buttons and killing people. And it's a *great* propaganda aid.
Go ahead, knock yourself out. I do have to wonder about the 80s big hair obsession with the Americans though.
You can't shift people's behaviour by calling them cheapskates and offering them the privilege of feeling good about giving away money to some company so that they can get a more limited product in return that they already have access to for free.
The current generation of pirates are a bit like farmers. They know how to extract food (media) from the ground (internet) and all they need is a bit of free time and knowledge to do it. Nobody can go to them and say don't grow your own food, just buy ready made meals (now 5 varieties!) in the supermarket. They'll just laugh and keep doing their own thing.
As to the end game, even if the new stuff is reduced to zero, there's so much old stuff out there already that can replace it, there aren't enough hours in the day for somebody to watch it all.
There's a reason why copyright infringement isn't called theft, and it's because there's no stealing involved. And there's a reason why people don't think piracy is a serious crime, and it's because the private ownership is of a copy on their own bits and hard disks. The original remains the private property of the owner.
I wonder if you understand the mentality of an artist? The classic artist feels the need to create even if nobody appreciates his work. It's an internal need, not a kind of narcissism. There are plenty of famous artists who never saw a lot of money in their own hands, or were appreciated in their lifetime.
You're misrepresenting the *substantial* difference between research and patent seeking. 'research' is open, it is all about sharing knowledge and promoting the free reuse of discoveries with no strings attached. 'patent seeking' is about closing off ideas and generating rent by artificially restricting the rest of the world's experimentation with similar ideas.
The fact is that the CSIRO is skirting the line, and that can put them very close to patent trolls.
For any true research organisation, that is, if its purpose for existing is research, then patents aren't needed. It's not like the employees do nothing all day, and one day someone hears that patents are worth money, and suddenly everybody does research so they can get the patents. Most university departments are true research organisations, and they *don't* seek patents.
It's true that patents can supplement income for a research organisation, but again, that's just *one* way of supplementing income and certainly shouldn't be the *main* one. There's grant money, consulting, teaching/seminars etc, even bake sales ;-), all of which don't bring the nasty evilness of patents into the world.
An organisation which only does research and seeks patents from that research exclusively to sell them is IMHO a patent troll. It's a classic case of homesteading the space of ideas for rent money. Just because maybe a "good guy" does it doesn't make it right.
What said organisation ought to be doing if it is going to patent an idea is launching a startup which owns the patent. For example, when Stanford got the patent for PageRank it was used to found a small company to exploit the idea and run with it. If Stanford had just sat on the patent without launching any startups based on it, I would call that patent trolling behaviour. And yes, sometimes Stanford does that too.
Why is that his solution? He already *has* a solution, it's called piracy. He's invested in it, has the equipment and the skill to use that solution. Now you're suggesting he should scrap a working solution and replace it with.... a more expensive, partial solution that may cause extra inconvenience?
Netflix is at best an alternative that may or may not be around in a few years time, and could be ruined by a change of management. Piracy is not only a proven solution by now, it also has the advantage of staying power. If you've pirated a favourite DVD ten years ago, you will be able to watch it in ten years time with your kids. Can you honestly say that every movie that was in Netflix's catalog ten years ago will be available as-is in ten years time from them?
One thing people never discuss enough is that with piracy you get private ownership, just like when you buy some physical good in the store. Whereas the commercial digital world is all about renting everything and owning nothing. One day you have the right to watch or listen or read something, and the next the company is gone, or your credit card has expired, or your computer is b0rked, and *poof* it's all gone forever. It's highly unreasonable.