"For the rest of us, we look at what happened and why it happened and if it was because of something we did or did not do or didn't know enough about, we WORK to IMPROVE our skills or knowledge so that the NEXT time we will succeed."
I second you on that. And there is something that I don't understand... If i take the risk, and it failed, I face the consequences and work around it. I knew it was risky, why should I feel bad?
First: Your code is as stable as the less stable piece of it. It doesn't matter if you work alone, but if you have a team, make sure that ALL the components of the team are great programmers. Only one bad programmer is enough to destroy all the code.
Second: Your code can't be more stable than the system it is running on. Some people have pointed things on this direction, but didn't go to the point. You'll need stable (and, probaly redundant) hardware, and a very stable OS (I'd adivise to forget about Windows, Linux-2.6 and weard drivers). All processes running on the machine should also be stable (OS tries to blind you from that, but there is all sort of timing problems that leak), so the less processes the better, and all of them stable. The network should be reliable: no random errors, only packages drop (write another error detection if needed, but you shouldn't need). And, most important, you need a reliable ENERGY SUPPLY. All effort is lost if you suddenly have no energy.
He has a problem here. Since he doesn't code, he can't know what is the structure of the site. But he also have a fenomenal business plan (most of them are bu***it, but not all like some people will tell you) and he doesn't want to disclosure it so candidates can know if they can hadle the job.
The advise I can give is to hire a generalist with a solid formation. That will be more expensive than hiring someone who just grasps the technology that he needs, but cheaper than hiring lots of people who doesn't understand it.
The last iteration of GPLv3 that I read leads to the conclusion that RH may be oblied to publish its private key if it publishes signed binaries. That can only be concluded by a very litteral interpretation of the licence, and is against the preambule, but it is the exactly situation that lawyers love to take advantage of.
But this problem will probably (had?) be fixed on the next iteration. Remember, it is a draft, it is expected to have bugs. And oblying a distributor to publish his key even if he doesn't distribute DRM hardware himself is against the objectives of the license (and FSF as far as I know).
There are some people here that don't like RMS. I can't understand why, it seems that he offended their mothers or something like that. But he should be very buzy offending mothers, what doesn't seem to be true, otherwise he'd not have the time to work on GPLv3. Those people seem to like FOSS, but that passions against the basics of the phylosophy they like (the F in FOSS) is weard.
I sencod that there are a few points on GPLv3 that need a better wording. I also know that Torvalds oppinion isn't important, Linux will be GPLv2 anyway. But not seing a problem in having his GPLed program taken away is doublethinking. Or he don't want the GPL at all.
As a side note, I'm only waitting GPLv3 release to publish a piece of code (that I already have) on it. The anti DRM clause is exactly what I want it to have, and the compatibility clause is astounishing.
Nice troll! But that means "I'm not an executive of a big company". Or alternatively, "Yes, I am an executive of a big company, but mine is different".
That may be news for you, but Linux is used by the corporate world because it is good. And it is good because it has a very big and active community. And it has a very big and active community because it can't be taken away.
If easy to take away where why companies are using Linux, they would already be using a BSD.
So, you want Yahoo to pay for the emails instead of the non-profit? I can see how this helps... Even more when Yahoo starts billing the non-profit to send the messages (or do you think they'll do that for free?).
It is a matter of expectations. Most people expect the RIAA to sue everybody whitout bothering to check the facts. Most people also expect a lawer that asks for a judgement to be anteciped to have a point, because it would be follish to not have, and most lawers are not fools.
But this may be a case where the RIAA checked the facts, and the lawer is a fool, who knows?
"Yes, you'll lose a couple of potential sales because the price presents a barrier to entry, but if you did the math properly, that minor loss is substantially easier to swallow than the loss from a huge non-revenue-generating support obligation."
One of the rules of business is that you always know what you gained, but you never knows what you lost. That small hobbyst that you put away can dominate your maket a few years later. Go check with MS.
By "managing" the hobbysts, MS means not having them leaking their keys (remember, it is about DRM). That is a very hard "management", and MS does not and can not have enough "resources" for that.
Nobody can avoid a hurd (nice word:)) of hobbists leaking their keys. And the more "resources" MS uses for that, the more failure points it creates, so things compensate.
Well, if you have a (true) computer, you can always beat DRM. IF that means that you need to be a pirate, too bad for the content owners... Maybe this is less true at the US, because of the DMCA, but I don't think this law would survive a massive adoption of Linux.
All this DRM stuff is intended to destroy the small companies, but wait and see it backfires.
You never tried to get a patent, did you? Patents a very expensive and take a very long time to be granted. Even more if you lack experience on requiring them.
If you ever met someone that had the experience of creating a hight tech start-up, let he tell you how he spent eons waiting for patents, and a very big part of the capital was applied on it. This proposal has the potential to make those start-up lifes much easier.
But he probably wasn't thinking about software patents. Remember,./ people that there are other kinds of patents out there, and most of them aren't bogus.
I guess nobody will mod you funny. Well, the people I deal with are easier, sice I can delete the IE icon and say: "The internet now is on this icon". But if they where unable to grasp it, I'd do the same thing.
But what do you mean by people needing bokmarks? By my experience, those people can't use bookmarks on IE (it is too hard to grasp). Some of them even tell me about that very interesting feature of FF after the switch, but most simply use paper.
If your data is so valuable that hackers spend mounths (or even years) to attack you by this stategy, you should never rely on pre-packaged software's security. It doesn't matter how resilient pre-packaged software development model is, it can always be broken by a well motivated human.
My comment is that hard to understand? If the government can't print more money when the economy is growing, the only possibility is to the money value rise. That is a bad thing, because deflation comes with resection (is both a cause and a consequence), and you don't want it.
But if the government can make more money available, by printing it for example, it can avoid the deflation making it possible for the ecconomy to continue growing.
First, I was talking about deflation, not inflation. Second, I never assumed that there was no inflation with the metal currency. Third, I know about the money multiplier. By that same theory, I can say that the more the government prints money, the more money will be on the market.
If you read my comment again, maybe you'll be able to realise that I am suppoting the same point as you are. I just wanted to present an alternative explanation for the same situation looking at other variables, so it may be easier to understan for some people.
Looking the same thing by another side, there are some times when you WANT the government to print a little more money. So all the people that need to carry money to buy stuff, and all the people that want to keep some money at home can do that witout the money value rising and without affecting the external transactions. Other times, you want government to destroy a bit more money than it prints. And none of this can be done with metal, so it is only usefull on an equilibrium (that never happens).
Good speech recognition would be great for searching audio. We could index webcastings, not only text. It would also be great for reporting meetings and conferences.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I always tought that that was what helicopters and closing the streets were for...
I second you on that. And there is something that I don't understand... If i take the risk, and it failed, I face the consequences and work around it. I knew it was risky, why should I feel bad?
Some things people didn't consider yet:
First: Your code is as stable as the less stable piece of it. It doesn't matter if you work alone, but if you have a team, make sure that ALL the components of the team are great programmers. Only one bad programmer is enough to destroy all the code.
Second: Your code can't be more stable than the system it is running on. Some people have pointed things on this direction, but didn't go to the point. You'll need stable (and, probaly redundant) hardware, and a very stable OS (I'd adivise to forget about Windows, Linux-2.6 and weard drivers). All processes running on the machine should also be stable (OS tries to blind you from that, but there is all sort of timing problems that leak), so the less processes the better, and all of them stable. The network should be reliable: no random errors, only packages drop (write another error detection if needed, but you shouldn't need). And, most important, you need a reliable ENERGY SUPPLY. All effort is lost if you suddenly have no energy.
Here is a hint: Don't trust any VC that you meet with.
It seems that the GP meant that worse than mediocre needs to go to VB. Mediocre or better can go to C#.
He has a problem here. Since he doesn't code, he can't know what is the structure of the site. But he also have a fenomenal business plan (most of them are bu***it, but not all like some people will tell you) and he doesn't want to disclosure it so candidates can know if they can hadle the job.
The advise I can give is to hire a generalist with a solid formation. That will be more expensive than hiring someone who just grasps the technology that he needs, but cheaper than hiring lots of people who doesn't understand it.
Repeat with me:
DRM doesn't stop piracy!
DRM doesn't stop piracy!
DRM doesn't stop piracy!
DRM doesn't stop piracy!
It is easy to break. And once broken, it IS broken.
The last iteration of GPLv3 that I read leads to the conclusion that RH may be oblied to publish its private key if it publishes signed binaries. That can only be concluded by a very litteral interpretation of the licence, and is against the preambule, but it is the exactly situation that lawyers love to take advantage of.
But this problem will probably (had?) be fixed on the next iteration. Remember, it is a draft, it is expected to have bugs. And oblying a distributor to publish his key even if he doesn't distribute DRM hardware himself is against the objectives of the license (and FSF as far as I know).
There are some people here that don't like RMS. I can't understand why, it seems that he offended their mothers or something like that. But he should be very buzy offending mothers, what doesn't seem to be true, otherwise he'd not have the time to work on GPLv3. Those people seem to like FOSS, but that passions against the basics of the phylosophy they like (the F in FOSS) is weard.
I sencod that there are a few points on GPLv3 that need a better wording. I also know that Torvalds oppinion isn't important, Linux will be GPLv2 anyway. But not seing a problem in having his GPLed program taken away is doublethinking. Or he don't want the GPL at all.
As a side note, I'm only waitting GPLv3 release to publish a piece of code (that I already have) on it. The anti DRM clause is exactly what I want it to have, and the compatibility clause is astounishing.
Nice troll! But that means "I'm not an executive of a big company". Or alternatively, "Yes, I am an executive of a big company, but mine is different".
That may be news for you, but Linux is used by the corporate world because it is good. And it is good because it has a very big and active community. And it has a very big and active community because it can't be taken away.
If easy to take away where why companies are using Linux, they would already be using a BSD.
So, you want Yahoo to pay for the emails instead of the non-profit? I can see how this helps... Even more when Yahoo starts billing the non-profit to send the messages (or do you think they'll do that for free?).
It is a matter of expectations. Most people expect the RIAA to sue everybody whitout bothering to check the facts. Most people also expect a lawer that asks for a judgement to be anteciped to have a point, because it would be follish to not have, and most lawers are not fools.
But this may be a case where the RIAA checked the facts, and the lawer is a fool, who knows?
One of the rules of business is that you always know what you gained, but you never knows what you lost. That small hobbyst that you put away can dominate your maket a few years later. Go check with MS.
By "managing" the hobbysts, MS means not having them leaking their keys (remember, it is about DRM). That is a very hard "management", and MS does not and can not have enough "resources" for that.
Nobody can avoid a hurd (nice word :)) of hobbists leaking their keys. And the more "resources" MS uses for that, the more failure points it creates, so things compensate.
Well, if you have a (true) computer, you can always beat DRM. IF that means that you need to be a pirate, too bad for the content owners... Maybe this is less true at the US, because of the DMCA, but I don't think this law would survive a massive adoption of Linux.
All this DRM stuff is intended to destroy the small companies, but wait and see it backfires.
You never tried to get a patent, did you? Patents a very expensive and take a very long time to be granted. Even more if you lack experience on requiring them.
If you ever met someone that had the experience of creating a hight tech start-up, let he tell you how he spent eons waiting for patents, and a very big part of the capital was applied on it. This proposal has the potential to make those start-up lifes much easier.
But he probably wasn't thinking about software patents. Remember, ./ people that there are other kinds of patents out there, and most of them aren't bogus.
I guess nobody will mod you funny. Well, the people I deal with are easier, sice I can delete the IE icon and say: "The internet now is on this icon". But if they where unable to grasp it, I'd do the same thing.
But what do you mean by people needing bokmarks? By my experience, those people can't use bookmarks on IE (it is too hard to grasp). Some of them even tell me about that very interesting feature of FF after the switch, but most simply use paper.
If your data is so valuable that hackers spend mounths (or even years) to attack you by this stategy, you should never rely on pre-packaged software's security. It doesn't matter how resilient pre-packaged software development model is, it can always be broken by a well motivated human.
Maybe THAT is inevitable. But we can always avoid something worse.
My comment is that hard to understand? If the government can't print more money when the economy is growing, the only possibility is to the money value rise. That is a bad thing, because deflation comes with resection (is both a cause and a consequence), and you don't want it.
But if the government can make more money available, by printing it for example, it can avoid the deflation making it possible for the ecconomy to continue growing.
First, I was talking about deflation, not inflation. Second, I never assumed that there was no inflation with the metal currency. Third, I know about the money multiplier. By that same theory, I can say that the more the government prints money, the more money will be on the market.
If you read my comment again, maybe you'll be able to realise that I am suppoting the same point as you are. I just wanted to present an alternative explanation for the same situation looking at other variables, so it may be easier to understan for some people.
Looking the same thing by another side, there are some times when you WANT the government to print a little more money. So all the people that need to carry money to buy stuff, and all the people that want to keep some money at home can do that witout the money value rising and without affecting the external transactions. Other times, you want government to destroy a bit more money than it prints. And none of this can be done with metal, so it is only usefull on an equilibrium (that never happens).
Good speech recognition would be great for searching audio. We could index webcastings, not only text. It would also be great for reporting meetings and conferences.
I am claimming that piracy was much smaller than the formal distribution a few years ago. So, comparing relative growth is useless.