Here's the thing... I love open source and all. I love what the Mozilla guys are doing. But looking at the timeline just shows me once again how hard it is for opensource projects to compete with commercial projects, especially on release dates.
While everyone continues to use software that is in it's 19th beta stage, buggy and unfinished, I can use a very stable commercial product (say, IE for example) that performs well, does the job correctly and hardly ever crashes. And we have to wait until Q2 (if they're lucky, so really Q1 of next year) for a 1.0 release of Mozilla.
The way I see it, open source projects are meant to be in infinite beta stages (or alpha, depending on the team members). They're never supposed to have a final release.:-) What's that rule in software development? Something like, adding more members to a project team makes the project later. Or to put it another way, too many cooks in the kitchen...
In the open source world, we continue to espouse the benefit of many eyes looking at the code as contributing to a better product. But if those many eyes end up delaying the final product to eternity, what's the real benefit?
The PTO recently launched a much-ballyhooed Business Method Patent Initiative, expanding its database of prior art and instituting a second-look policy whereby business-method patents are reviewed by a second experienced examiner before issuance. Dickinson says this program has already reduced the Group 705 allowance rate to less than 40 percent.
Your rights to seek happiness ends when it interferes with the commons.
And who is it that determines the "commons" of the people? In a capitalist society, it is the people.
You're statement that Americans don't care for others is incorrect. You only think that because each and every American is "fighting" to make a better world for themselves, individually. BUT, because there are a lot of people doing this together, there is a commonality of purpose and there is actually a lot of "holding hands" to help each other out.
In fact, not only do Americans care a LOT about each other, they also care a lot about other countries and attempt to aid others in the world tremendously. Consider all the humanitarian aid programs, such as the Red Cross, whose origins are in the U.S. of A.
As the great American Song says: "This land is your land, this land is my land..." It's yours, it's mine, it's ours. There is ownership. There is sharing. There is a community of fellow brethren all trying to move forward. People are definitely left behind. But noone is forced there. Each and every person has the ability and the opportunity to make something better out of what they already have. THAT is the beauty of Capitalism.
It's kind of like an artist who wins a Grammy. Rather than being "the artist so and so" it's now "the Grammy Award Winning artist so and so."
So the company is not longer selling just software XYZ. It's now selling software XYZ with patents 1,2,3,4 and 5. Even "Patent pending" brings business.
The patent system has turned into a marketing machine... So sad.
Also, the author seems to think we evolved from a combination of dinosaurs, jellyfish, and monkeys - something I seriously doubt.
Actually, he didn't quite say this. What he said was, "Our genetic instructions have been slowly assembled from the genetic instructions that made jellyfish, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and our primate ancestors." This leads me to believe that he is saying we all have genetic instructions and that they are very similar, no matter whether we're talking about jellyfish, dinosaurs, or us. We all evolved using genetic coding, not necessarily on the same branch, but from the same tree.
I personally didn't like his tone either. It was much too argumentative. Yes, bad science. But it's too be expected. Journalists always want to appear to be smarter than others.
I will take my current company as an example. We, the developers, are given ample time to seriously think about our problems and develop robust solutions. This method of development actually came about because they did it the other way the first time around.
My company went through the stage of "making it work" and ended up with software products that had to be constantly supported, patched, re-coded, etc., and it's costing them. So they decided to do it better the 2nd, 3rd,...,nth time around the track. Maybe companies do need to go through this stage to learn these things, a "trial by fire" sort of thing, but why waste the time and money on inadequate solutions when there's a better method just a few more steps down the road? My company realized it needed to spend more time developing better solutions, rather than spending less time developing any solution.
I'm just saying that there are companies out there who know that the time spent in development is worth the cost, in the long run. Of course, if they only need to get something out there today and don't care if they exist 2 years down the road, that's fine also... I just won't work there.
Most computer science "kids" know better. They realize that programming is just one aspect of a bigger picture. They are being trained in the science of software engineering, not just programming. Some fail in this, but most come out of these programs with excellent training, especially if it's from a major University.
The idea that we should program to "make it work" causes more problems in the software world than any other item. If we spent time analyzing our work, developing more elegant solutions and thinking about the future effects of our immediate development efforts, we'd have much stabler, faster, and overall better working software than our counterparts who just do it to get it done.
I admire the person who can sit down for two days, learn the essential elements needed for the task at hand, pound out a bunch of code and have it running fairly smoothly. I admire even more the person who spends a month researching all aspects of a topic, thinks about several different solutions to his problem, laboriously works through his code, tweaking it thoroughly, develops a beautiful structure, excellent documentation and clear, elegant code.
And to say that it's not possible to stay employed working in this manner is not true. It's only a problem if you work at a company who doesn't understand the realities of bad software development. And you've seen where most of those companies have gone in the past 6 months...
It's usually not a big problem, because both sides of the case bring their own "experts" so they cancel each other out. This just throws in a "neutral" third party that can provide "real" expert advice.
They don't appear to be telling the scientist that the subject cannot be researched. They're just saying they don't like it. The scientist can just go say f*** you right back at them. Nothing lost here. And in the circles the article would get distributed to, the readers won't accept the legislators' condemnation of the findings over the science of the study, so what's wrong here? Ah yes, the fact that the legislators are trying to do a job they're not fit for. That's the bad thing.
I think there is definitely a clear line to be drawn between a programmer and an artist as it is seen in the context of building applications for users.
A programmer creates a functional tool for the user. An artist creates a sense of visual and aural "cohesiveness" that defines the feel of the application.
This seems to be a simple explanation, but I think it defines the boundaries well, especially if you think of it in the way architects think about their work. Consider the phrase we all learned from architecture "Form Follows Function" and apply that to the computer world. The programmer creates the functions. The artist creates the form.
Now, those two roles may be handled by the same person and usually it is the programmer who ends up creating the "form" around his own "functions" (visual interfaces, menus, etc...) But oftentimes, there is a clear distinction between the two that often comes about from the list of skills needed for the task at hand. The programming must be done by someone who knows how to program. The "art" must be done by someone with artistic skills.
Yes, we can say the program code can be considered "art" but I don't believe that's what this question was talking about.
1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
etc...
Thanks, but if I wanted to go watch real life, I'd walk outside my front door. I go to the movies to escape reality. If I wanted a documentary, I'd watch the Discovery Channel, The History Channel, TLC, hell even Road Rules. But as long as I consider movies to be fantasy, I'll take the Hollywood bull over everything else. Now that's entertainment.
And what's the deal with not allowing a musical score on a movie? Music is a vital part of storytelling. There are so many moments where the music behind a film is much more moving than the visual scene itself.
I wonder if there's an award for most number of comments to be attributed to a Slashdot article, cause this one would win it, hands down. Wow, that's a lot of comments.
And to keep this post on topic... Damn you Microsoft! Damn you to Hell!
Slashdot Mirror
While everyone continues to use software that is in it's 19th beta stage, buggy and unfinished, I can use a very stable commercial product (say, IE for example) that performs well, does the job correctly and hardly ever crashes. And we have to wait until Q2 (if they're lucky, so really Q1 of next year) for a 1.0 release of Mozilla.
The way I see it, open source projects are meant to be in infinite beta stages (or alpha, depending on the team members). They're never supposed to have a final release. :-) What's that rule in software development? Something like, adding more members to a project team makes the project later. Or to put it another way, too many cooks in the kitchen...
In the open source world, we continue to espouse the benefit of many eyes looking at the code as contributing to a better product. But if those many eyes end up delaying the final product to eternity, what's the real benefit?
--
A step in the right direction, I think...
--
--
--
Here
And here
--
I'm just trying to illustrate that, yes, American's do care about more than just themselves.
--
And who is it that determines the "commons" of the people? In a capitalist society, it is the people.
You're statement that Americans don't care for others is incorrect. You only think that because each and every American is "fighting" to make a better world for themselves, individually. BUT, because there are a lot of people doing this together, there is a commonality of purpose and there is actually a lot of "holding hands" to help each other out.
In fact, not only do Americans care a LOT about each other, they also care a lot about other countries and attempt to aid others in the world tremendously. Consider all the humanitarian aid programs, such as the Red Cross, whose origins are in the U.S. of A.
As the great American Song says: "This land is your land, this land is my land..." It's yours, it's mine, it's ours. There is ownership. There is sharing. There is a community of fellow brethren all trying to move forward. People are definitely left behind. But noone is forced there. Each and every person has the ability and the opportunity to make something better out of what they already have. THAT is the beauty of Capitalism.
--
Of course it doesn't apply. They're two totally different things.
--
So the company is not longer selling just software XYZ. It's now selling software XYZ with patents 1,2,3,4 and 5. Even "Patent pending" brings business.
The patent system has turned into a marketing machine... So sad.
--
Actually, he didn't quite say this. What he said was, "Our genetic instructions have been slowly assembled from the genetic instructions that made jellyfish, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and our primate ancestors." This leads me to believe that he is saying we all have genetic instructions and that they are very similar, no matter whether we're talking about jellyfish, dinosaurs, or us. We all evolved using genetic coding, not necessarily on the same branch, but from the same tree.
I personally didn't like his tone either. It was much too argumentative. Yes, bad science. But it's too be expected. Journalists always want to appear to be smarter than others.
--
There is a difference.
--
So, does this mean we'll have a website with thousands of half-finished flowcharts? :-)
--
--
My company went through the stage of "making it work" and ended up with software products that had to be constantly supported, patched, re-coded, etc., and it's costing them. So they decided to do it better the 2nd, 3rd,...,nth time around the track. Maybe companies do need to go through this stage to learn these things, a "trial by fire" sort of thing, but why waste the time and money on inadequate solutions when there's a better method just a few more steps down the road? My company realized it needed to spend more time developing better solutions, rather than spending less time developing any solution.
I'm just saying that there are companies out there who know that the time spent in development is worth the cost, in the long run. Of course, if they only need to get something out there today and don't care if they exist 2 years down the road, that's fine also... I just won't work there.
--
--
Most computer science "kids" know better. They realize that programming is just one aspect of a bigger picture. They are being trained in the science of software engineering, not just programming. Some fail in this, but most come out of these programs with excellent training, especially if it's from a major University.
The idea that we should program to "make it work" causes more problems in the software world than any other item. If we spent time analyzing our work, developing more elegant solutions and thinking about the future effects of our immediate development efforts, we'd have much stabler, faster, and overall better working software than our counterparts who just do it to get it done.
I admire the person who can sit down for two days, learn the essential elements needed for the task at hand, pound out a bunch of code and have it running fairly smoothly. I admire even more the person who spends a month researching all aspects of a topic, thinks about several different solutions to his problem, laboriously works through his code, tweaking it thoroughly, develops a beautiful structure, excellent documentation and clear, elegant code.
And to say that it's not possible to stay employed working in this manner is not true. It's only a problem if you work at a company who doesn't understand the realities of bad software development. And you've seen where most of those companies have gone in the past 6 months...
--
--
--
--
A programmer creates a functional tool for the user. An artist creates a sense of visual and aural "cohesiveness" that defines the feel of the application.
This seems to be a simple explanation, but I think it defines the boundaries well, especially if you think of it in the way architects think about their work. Consider the phrase we all learned from architecture "Form Follows Function" and apply that to the computer world. The programmer creates the functions. The artist creates the form.
Now, those two roles may be handled by the same person and usually it is the programmer who ends up creating the "form" around his own "functions" (visual interfaces, menus, etc...) But oftentimes, there is a clear distinction between the two that often comes about from the list of skills needed for the task at hand. The programming must be done by someone who knows how to program. The "art" must be done by someone with artistic skills.
Yes, we can say the program code can be considered "art" but I don't believe that's what this question was talking about.
--
2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
etc...
Thanks, but if I wanted to go watch real life, I'd walk outside my front door. I go to the movies to escape reality. If I wanted a documentary, I'd watch the Discovery Channel, The History Channel, TLC, hell even Road Rules. But as long as I consider movies to be fantasy, I'll take the Hollywood bull over everything else. Now that's entertainment.
And what's the deal with not allowing a musical score on a movie? Music is a vital part of storytelling. There are so many moments where the music behind a film is much more moving than the visual scene itself.
Whatever.
--
--
Device: A word substituted for Devise if your a dumbass moron who didn't spend enough time on your 3rd grade vocabulary lesson.
If we're all so smart, how come this happens so often?
Go ahead, mod me down for it, but damnit, it's true and I'm sick of it.
--
And to keep this post on topic... Damn you Microsoft! Damn you to Hell!
--
--