great thing to get kids interested in early, so by the time they reach working age, there wont be job..
The only jobs left are high-end jobs that require a LOT of training - doctors, dentists, lawyers, therapists - and the job of automating everything else. Believe it, the automators are going after those other occupations over the next several decades too. It's going to take a long time.
Elementary math is memorization and learning a mechanical system of computing.
If you just drill in the procedure then yes. But I asked my daughter (6 years old in grade K) what 60 + 20 is. She didn't get it, but I asked things like "how many 10s in 60?" She said 6. I asked how may 10s in 20. She said 2. So I ask how many 10s in 80. She thinks, she then says 8. So what's 60 + 20. 80. This is all while we're driving somewhere, so no looking at numbers on paper or anything. If you think about it, adding 10's is the same concept as adding X's. Same for hundreds. No, it's not algebra. But I think if you present early concepts the right way it will make things easier later.
Paying Dividends also lowers working capital that is useful for growing a company. The issue is more complex than you think. The goal of stock is to grow Wealth, which includes Stock Price and Dividends.
Yes, but the potential to pay dividends is still relevant to the stock price. Once you completely decouple these you are playing a greater-fool game by trying to convince someone else that the stock is worth more than you paid. Point is the P/E ratio or rather it's inverse E/P determines that maximum possible dividend (annual return) one could expect to make should they go that route.
IPOs are often intentionally undervalued because that is how the people who invested before the IPO (i.e. the people whose investment helped make the company successful in the first place) make money.
No, the people who invested before the IPO are making money by selling shares in something that was privately held before. If you mean they undervalued it deliberately so people who "got in on the IPO" can make a quick buck (those are premium clients) then that may not be in the best interest of the company that's going public.
Last time I heard it was Google's IPO. That turned out pretty darn well.
Google serving ads is different. For anyone seaching for a product they can throw sponsored links at the top of the search results page and they are often relevant to the person searching. This particular advertising mechanism actually makes sense and is probably one of the most effective around. Not that everyone is doing a search where ads are welcome, but that nobody goes looking for products or services on Facebook ads there are never relevant to what people are doing. I suspect FB click-through rate is much lower than Googles. OTOH, FB ads have images and reflect your "likes" even if they are not related to what you're doing at the moment. I suppose the jury is still out on this.
I'm better served by public domain open source, both when I've released software as open source and when I've used others open source. GPL has only ever restricted what I want to do with open source software, not given me more freedom.
You do say GPL has restricted what you want to do. I said "presumably this means you develop commercial software" because the requirements around providing source code tend to allow users to give copies away to others for free which goes against the profit motive. Apparently that's incorrect - you seem a bit angry about my supposition. But if we take that off the table it only leaves a couple options for what you don't like. And I do say "what you don't like" deliberately. At this point the GPL does not directly prevent you from using software, adding to the software, incorporating code into your own software, or redistributing any of that. It does require you to do certain things in some of those case. It requires your combined work to be GPL licensed should you give it to someone (which you may not like). It requires you to offer source code (which may be an inconvenience).
Personally I would have accepted my presumption - the diminished potential for commercial use is the strongest and most reasonable objection to the GPL (IMHO of course). The remaining motives seem more like personal preference and laziness. And lastly:
I specifically avoid contributing code to anything licensed under copyleft terms because I do not want other people restricting how third parties can use my code.
The key question is "is it OK if someone puts your code into a closed source program and gives/sells that to someone?" Because that is restricting what that "someone" can do with your code unless they can find an original copy of just your contribution. That's really the distinction between GPL and BSD. GPL guarantees the third party has the same rights as the second party.
GPL is about the USERS freedom. The software is inanimate and doesn't give a crap. It's the users of the software that the GPL is intended to protect. I understand that many developers like to make a buck. I also understand that some developers want to use other peoples work for free but don't want their users to benefit in the same way. For them it's BSD.
What baffles me though is this use of a technically inferior compiler. I could see in a few years if LLVM can produce comparable code in more cases. But to provide users with a different free (as in beer) compiler just because of GPL vs BSD license really points to some kind of deep rooted bias. And yes, I believe LLVM is not up to par in terms of generated code, YMMV of course.
And for a company like Adobe with a massive customer base using its Photoshop, Illustrator, and Flash Professional, the bandwidth cost alone can be substantial.
Seriously? What's the bandwidth cost for an update vs. the cost of that copy of the product? Like 3 cents vs Umm I dunno what those professional products cost, but I'm sure the bandwidth cost is essentially nothing in comparison.
Most papers I've seen make magnificent speculative claims.
This novel material could usher in a new era in...
This novel method could become...
OMG this material has an IOR of 1.00000001 for gama rays - this will enable.... (yes this was a few days ago).
OMG jelly spread on glass can produce a voltage when exposed to sunlight - organic solar cells could change the world but more research will need to be done to get the efficiency above 0.3 percent.
Anything that isn't in a textbook is "novel" because that's an important word in patents and it's important to seem new. Then the grand claims are made either to make the research seem relevant or to line up funding for future work. Papers have become promotional material.
In the workplace it pits employees against each other. Not exactly a "team building" option. I also didn't see any indication of research by Gartner on this one. Are they just making predictions based on how they feel things should be done? Or did they actually ask company leaders about their "gamification" strategies?
Your rights maybe, but not my rights. I'm better served by public domain open source, both when I've released software as open source and when I've used others open source.
GPL has only ever restricted what I want to do with open source software, not given me more freedom.
The idea that he's fought for my rights is laughable.
You presumably develop commercial software. You like to incorporate the work of others (or just extend it) and make a commercial product. That's fine - we all need to make a living. Stallman is looking out for *users* of software. He doesn't feel they should have the restrictions placed on them that you want to place on them. In your developer role, you're not the "user" he's concerned about. Some people don't even "use" the software they develop (it's some business app).
So RMS is looking out for the users, not the developers. There are certainly more users than developers. But then most people who actually read a license are developers. And round and round we go.
No, he has spent his life picking up his toys and going to play in a corner. And he has been freeriding the open source "movement" ever since. I won't argue the impact GPL has made, or the merits it may have - but how many of that *popular* GPL-licensed software was actually done by him? Not much. And how well is that software supported in "non-free" operating systems? Well, at least *BSD ports keep their patches for a given application off the official sourcetree:P. Talking about hipocrisy...
Which compiler does BSD use for everything? And who wrote that initially? Who wrote a number of utilities that went along with it? Who wrote the GPL? Sure, RMS hasn't done any cool GUI apps or really any notable apps in 20 years. He moved on to running FSF and advocating his philosophy. He built the foundation for something big. It was actually the Open Source "movement" that freeloaded on the idea with a shitload of "approved" licenses.
I do agree that he should stick to his free software philosophy and perhaps anti-DRM stance (tech freedom?) and stay out of more social and political issues.
Get the standard done. Browser vendors are not going to wait 20 years for you to make up your mind.
And excellent point. And in the mean time, sites should avoid browser-specific features. This is not just "MS did it wrong, gotta support that variant", in this case the prefix actually indicates a browser specific implementation. If you want to burden yourself with it feel free, but don't complain. If you must complain, complain that the standard isn't done - not that you dug yourself a hole with non-standard features.
No, but the equipment to produce them costs somewhat more than the $2,000 a 3d printer will set you back, and will take up a lot more space than most people have available.
One type of prototyping PCB machine uses a 3-axis mill to cut traces into plain copper-clad boards. Got that - a 3 axis mill. All the rep-raps and such are already 3-axis machines. They just need a mill option to cut circuit boards. Not everything needs to be "additive" manufacturing. Also, once you have a mill you can cut sheet metal. That means you can now make motors (rotor and stator laminations) sans shaft. You can also cut wood or metal shapes accurately to build structures. This would go a looooong way toward self-replication. But hey, if you insist on extruding goo for *everything* it's going to be decades before you make more than plastic toys.
A company I worked for did integration work on a hybrid electric sail boat. With electric props you can charge the battery from the wind while sailing - use the motors as generators. They produced enough power to run all electrical loads on the boat including air conditioning with a very small loss in speed. In dock you may want some solar to keep it charged.
Just that observation by NASA last year. Something about less CO2 than expected or less warming - I don't remember, but GW people were not happy. Then there's the old NASA data showing changes the week after 9/11. This showed that air traffic has immediate short-term effect on the weather. Interestingly, air traffic has been increasing steadily through the warming period. So on days when I feel like agreeing that humans cause climate change, I just say it's all due to air traffic, not total CO2 output. The thing is, planes seed clouds and here TFA is talking about clouds causing warming... The models are shit. The data may have some validity.
Perhaps if the denial crowd didn't use methods exactly like those of the evolution deniers and the tobacco firms who lied about tobacco being harmless, we'd stop making such comparisons.
Not sure if you recall, but someone caught the tobacco companies supporting AGW research. The reason was profound. They figured that scientists had convinced the public that smoking causes cancer. To defeat the scientists, they would support "the other side" and bring about this whole public debate over global warming. This was intended to have the scientists discredit themselves in the public opinion. Really a neat tactic. Dirty, but interesting. Anyway, we should expect some similarity between AGW and tobacco firms, since there is/was overlap.
AMD was given a license because IBM wanted a second source for processors in the PC. Later extensions (386 I think) got argued about, but AMD had a license from the start IIRC.
Copyrights are used to claim ownership of specific, concrete realization of ideas, covering the "look and feel" and surface aspects rather than essential mechanisms.
Look and feel of an application is not copyrightable. Microsoft fought apple over this a long time ago and won. Apple had claimed Windows infringed the look and feel of Mac OS. That precedent is one really good thing MS has done for the world.
Slashdot Mirror
The only jobs left are high-end jobs that require a LOT of training - doctors, dentists, lawyers, therapists - and the job of automating everything else. Believe it, the automators are going after those other occupations over the next several decades too. It's going to take a long time.
If you just drill in the procedure then yes. But I asked my daughter (6 years old in grade K) what 60 + 20 is. She didn't get it, but I asked things like "how many 10s in 60?" She said 6. I asked how may 10s in 20. She said 2. So I ask how many 10s in 80. She thinks, she then says 8. So what's 60 + 20. 80. This is all while we're driving somewhere, so no looking at numbers on paper or anything. If you think about it, adding 10's is the same concept as adding X's. Same for hundreds. No, it's not algebra. But I think if you present early concepts the right way it will make things easier later.
Yes, but the potential to pay dividends is still relevant to the stock price. Once you completely decouple these you are playing a greater-fool game by trying to convince someone else that the stock is worth more than you paid. Point is the P/E ratio or rather it's inverse E/P determines that maximum possible dividend (annual return) one could expect to make should they go that route.
No, the people who invested before the IPO are making money by selling shares in something that was privately held before. If you mean they undervalued it deliberately so people who "got in on the IPO" can make a quick buck (those are premium clients) then that may not be in the best interest of the company that's going public.
Google serving ads is different. For anyone seaching for a product they can throw sponsored links at the top of the search results page and they are often relevant to the person searching. This particular advertising mechanism actually makes sense and is probably one of the most effective around. Not that everyone is doing a search where ads are welcome, but that nobody goes looking for products or services on Facebook ads there are never relevant to what people are doing. I suspect FB click-through rate is much lower than Googles. OTOH, FB ads have images and reflect your "likes" even if they are not related to what you're doing at the moment. I suppose the jury is still out on this.
You do say GPL has restricted what you want to do. I said "presumably this means you develop commercial software" because the requirements around providing source code tend to allow users to give copies away to others for free which goes against the profit motive. Apparently that's incorrect - you seem a bit angry about my supposition. But if we take that off the table it only leaves a couple options for what you don't like. And I do say "what you don't like" deliberately. At this point the GPL does not directly prevent you from using software, adding to the software, incorporating code into your own software, or redistributing any of that. It does require you to do certain things in some of those case. It requires your combined work to be GPL licensed should you give it to someone (which you may not like). It requires you to offer source code (which may be an inconvenience).
Personally I would have accepted my presumption - the diminished potential for commercial use is the strongest and most reasonable objection to the GPL (IMHO of course). The remaining motives seem more like personal preference and laziness. And lastly:
The key question is "is it OK if someone puts your code into a closed source program and gives/sells that to someone?" Because that is restricting what that "someone" can do with your code unless they can find an original copy of just your contribution. That's really the distinction between GPL and BSD. GPL guarantees the third party has the same rights as the second party.
Unless you consider 1 to be prime, in which case 2 = 1+1. Didn't someone say Goldbach considered 1 prime for this?
GPL is about the USERS freedom. The software is inanimate and doesn't give a crap. It's the users of the software that the GPL is intended to protect. I understand that many developers like to make a buck. I also understand that some developers want to use other peoples work for free but don't want their users to benefit in the same way. For them it's BSD.
What baffles me though is this use of a technically inferior compiler. I could see in a few years if LLVM can produce comparable code in more cases. But to provide users with a different free (as in beer) compiler just because of GPL vs BSD license really points to some kind of deep rooted bias. And yes, I believe LLVM is not up to par in terms of generated code, YMMV of course.
Seriously? What's the bandwidth cost for an update vs. the cost of that copy of the product? Like 3 cents vs Umm I dunno what those professional products cost, but I'm sure the bandwidth cost is essentially nothing in comparison.
Most papers I've seen make magnificent speculative claims.
This novel material could usher in a new era in...
This novel method could become...
OMG this material has an IOR of 1.00000001 for gama rays - this will enable.... (yes this was a few days ago).
OMG jelly spread on glass can produce a voltage when exposed to sunlight - organic solar cells could change the world but more research will need to be done to get the efficiency above 0.3 percent.
Anything that isn't in a textbook is "novel" because that's an important word in patents and it's important to seem new. Then the grand claims are made either to make the research seem relevant or to line up funding for future work. Papers have become promotional material.
I have a feeling this is related to the departure of Taco. Not sure which is cause and which is effect.
In the workplace it pits employees against each other. Not exactly a "team building" option. I also didn't see any indication of research by Gartner on this one. Are they just making predictions based on how they feel things should be done? Or did they actually ask company leaders about their "gamification" strategies?
That is the only thing in the comments of any value - and it's only kinda funny.
You presumably develop commercial software. You like to incorporate the work of others (or just extend it) and make a commercial product. That's fine - we all need to make a living. Stallman is looking out for *users* of software. He doesn't feel they should have the restrictions placed on them that you want to place on them. In your developer role, you're not the "user" he's concerned about. Some people don't even "use" the software they develop (it's some business app).
So RMS is looking out for the users, not the developers. There are certainly more users than developers. But then most people who actually read a license are developers. And round and round we go.
Which compiler does BSD use for everything? And who wrote that initially? Who wrote a number of utilities that went along with it? Who wrote the GPL? Sure, RMS hasn't done any cool GUI apps or really any notable apps in 20 years. He moved on to running FSF and advocating his philosophy. He built the foundation for something big. It was actually the Open Source "movement" that freeloaded on the idea with a shitload of "approved" licenses.
I do agree that he should stick to his free software philosophy and perhaps anti-DRM stance (tech freedom?) and stay out of more social and political issues.
And excellent point. And in the mean time, sites should avoid browser-specific features. This is not just "MS did it wrong, gotta support that variant", in this case the prefix actually indicates a browser specific implementation. If you want to burden yourself with it feel free, but don't complain. If you must complain, complain that the standard isn't done - not that you dug yourself a hole with non-standard features.
One type of prototyping PCB machine uses a 3-axis mill to cut traces into plain copper-clad boards. Got that - a 3 axis mill. All the rep-raps and such are already 3-axis machines. They just need a mill option to cut circuit boards. Not everything needs to be "additive" manufacturing. Also, once you have a mill you can cut sheet metal. That means you can now make motors (rotor and stator laminations) sans shaft. You can also cut wood or metal shapes accurately to build structures. This would go a looooong way toward self-replication. But hey, if you insist on extruding goo for *everything* it's going to be decades before you make more than plastic toys.
Do the kids these day even know what wire-wrap is? That's the first thing I thought of too.
A company I worked for did integration work on a hybrid electric sail boat. With electric props you can charge the battery from the wind while sailing - use the motors as generators. They produced enough power to run all electrical loads on the boat including air conditioning with a very small loss in speed. In dock you may want some solar to keep it charged.
This will apply pressure to get everyone a fixed IP (V6) address.
That works out to 16 pounds per person. That's less than one months revenue for the network operators.
Just that observation by NASA last year. Something about less CO2 than expected or less warming - I don't remember, but GW people were not happy. Then there's the old NASA data showing changes the week after 9/11. This showed that air traffic has immediate short-term effect on the weather. Interestingly, air traffic has been increasing steadily through the warming period. So on days when I feel like agreeing that humans cause climate change, I just say it's all due to air traffic, not total CO2 output. The thing is, planes seed clouds and here TFA is talking about clouds causing warming... The models are shit. The data may have some validity.
Not sure if you recall, but someone caught the tobacco companies supporting AGW research. The reason was profound. They figured that scientists had convinced the public that smoking causes cancer. To defeat the scientists, they would support "the other side" and bring about this whole public debate over global warming. This was intended to have the scientists discredit themselves in the public opinion. Really a neat tactic. Dirty, but interesting. Anyway, we should expect some similarity between AGW and tobacco firms, since there is/was overlap.
AMD was given a license because IBM wanted a second source for processors in the PC. Later extensions (386 I think) got argued about, but AMD had a license from the start IIRC.
Look and feel of an application is not copyrightable. Microsoft fought apple over this a long time ago and won. Apple had claimed Windows infringed the look and feel of Mac OS. That precedent is one really good thing MS has done for the world.