Advocacy is to free software what marketing is to commercial software: the driver to bring in currency. In free software, that currency is warm bodies, both users and people who actively contribute to the product. Free software projects benefit mightily from community involvement, to the point where a lack of involvement can kill an otherwise promising project.
A language neutral virtual machine that allows developers to code in their language of choice.
A standard library covering everything you'd need, especially for hiding the Win32 API.
A collection of software written to the VM and the standard library that, in virtue of that standardization, would allow for greater interoperability and integration (taking advantage of things like binary compatibility for basic datatypes, for example).
A framework like Passport on steroids that would unify authentication and authorization and data storage over the network (AKA Hailstorm).
The reason no one really knows, or will ever know, is because, first, every business unit at MS was ordered to find some way, any way, to label themselves as.NET, thus diluting the whole brand before anyone even knew what it was; and second, MS couldn't commit itself to.NET 100%, and as result, many developers are already planning on skipping.NET because Avalon, XAML et al are already in the pipeline for Longhorn.
It's too bad, in a way..NET and C# have a lot of good points (if only by fixing Java's obvious shortcomings); a really good standard library to simplify win32 programming is always to be desired. But.NET will never have the ubiquity it needs for the higher order benefits to really pay off. What they should have done with Longhorn was call it "the native.NET OS" or something like that (and announce Longhorn technologies as additions to.NET), so that developers feel that.NET has both longevity and ubiquity. As it stands, MS has fatally undercut.NET by announcing the technologies that will replace it.
As for what will happen now,.NET will survive for a decade or so as a major but never dominant technology because of points #1 and #2. #3 will see some token uses but never really become a selling point for anything. With Passport's demise, #4 is already dead, and its market is being eaten by things like federated identity management.
The judge recognized that singling out evolution for the "theory, not fact" treatment was prejudicial to it. Gravitation is a theory, not a fact, but it wasn't noted as a sticker on the front, which makes evolution appear more speculative and hypothetical, when in fact the basics of evolution are as solid as any other "theory, not fact".
The judge recognized the sticker as a subtle play on the common misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is, and rightly quashed it.
As a man of science, you should be able to tell when a theory offers a viable alternative to explaining the evidence, and when that theory is nothing but a doctrinaire response to an external threat.
The reality of the word of God doesn't impact the quality of a scientific theory.
Would you prefer judges to rule that science is invalid because it conflicts with preconceived religious notions? I prefer that the judiciary knock down religious limitations on science, myself.
I didn't say it was a stumbling block, I said it wasn't "obvious". And questions about the designer's plan necessarily make the existence of the designer non-obvious in the face of a competing theory that, by Occam's Razor, explains the existence of cancer, tsunamis, and humanity's flirtation with self-destruction more sensible without positing a supreme being.
It's not "clearly visible" to me that an intelligent designer is responsible for the current state of affairs. In fact, the indifference to human life of the Indian Ocean tsunami makes more sense to me as a product of a mechanistic, unintelligent universe. Until you can explain the tsunami in a simple, self-evident way, I can't accept that an intelligent designer is behind it. That you accept it on its face is not convincing to me, either of a designer's handiwork or his existence.
I'm not saying that the tsunami proves that God doesn't exist; only that it's not obvious or self-evident except by your uncritical appraisal.
What would be perfect would be the clear teaching in the science classroom that all scientific theories are just "theories": that all are falsifiable, and that in the presence of a theory that better explains the evidence, the current theory is in question or disproven. Any science student, before being presented with actual theories, should understand the scientific process.
The problem with the sticker is that, by singling out evolution for this special caution about it's theoretical status, it unfairly prejudiced the teaching of evolution in the classroom. Gravitation is "only" a theory, but you don't see the parents clamoring for Aristotle's theory of natural motion to be taught, do you?
Because the judge correctly perceived that the sticker was playing on a common misunderstanding of the term "theory" to attack the credibility of evolution. The sticker implied, for the purposes of religious reinforcement by conservative Christian parents, that evolution is somehow a dubious hypothesis rather than one of the strongest scientific theories around.
Any decent scientist will tell you that evolution is a totally falsifiable theory, and that in 100 years, it will almost certainly be different than what we think it is now. The same would be said for any facet of science by anyone who actually understands the practice.
The reason you think that there's certainty about evolution is that there's an almost perfect absence of *viable* alternative theories--meaning theories that offer, or may in the future offer, a better explanation of the existing evidence and more predictive power.
Intelligent design isn't a viable alternative to evolution because it's not a better, or possibly better, scientific theory. There's no value at all to teaching it alongside evolution except to shield those who's faith might be weakened by failing to be reinforced by unrelated authorities.
It's not obvious that an itelligent designer would allow for 9.0 earthquakes creating tsunamis that kill 100,000+. It's not obvious that an itelligent designer would include cancer in his creation. It's not obvious that an intelligent designer would create a race of beings capable of destroying themselves in their immaturity.
The only way to rationalize those things with an intelligent designer is to imagine that they comply with some sort of divine plan, and if there is a divine plan, it's far from obvious what it is or why it should be that way.
You can't really argue with this, since by arguing, you're acknowledging that an intelligent designer is not self-evident. If it's truly obvious, then no argument is necessary.
Having worked with a lot of Japanese people who lived with their parents for extended periods of time, I can tell you that the typical Japanese is not someone suffering for want of a strong work ethic. You might not be able to picture it working for yourself, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for them.
Your dysfunction is their norm. A Japanese parent would probably say that you're being wasteful of money living on your own when you *could* live with your parents.
Obviously some posters don't user their brains. It's routine for residents in hospital emergency rooms to work 80+ hours a week, and to stand triple shifts. It's not about body clocks, it's about cash-strapped hospitals exploiting young doctors in order to keep functioning.
The point of the comic-within-a-comic was twofold: It carried the thesis that humanity's ambivelance to real, live superheros in its midst would have allowed comics to explore a lot of other areas that get crowded out by superhero comix (so it's a comment on comics in general); and it's a carrier wave for the overall thesis of The Watchmen about being careful when fighting monsters, lest ye become a monster yourself. In the pirate comic, the hero becomes a monster while trying to get back to civilization to warn them of the approach of the pirate ship; in the book, superheroes who's ostensible purpose is protecting humanity end up murdering 3,000,000 of them and vaporizing the character, Rorschach, who's arguably the most morally pure among them in order to cover up the conspiracy.
Part of what was so important about Watchmen was simply the fact that it achieved a maturity and depth that had never been seen before; however, that depth and maturity is relative to other comics, which aren't that tough to beat. So it's a relatively great work, but it's no Moby Dick.
The horde of packages in the average distro are hoarded by some.
Re:No room to complain
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
$60K isn't a lot if you're living in a major urban center like Silicon Valley--it's only a little more than $30K in the sticks. And the $120K in options is only good if EA's stock price *quadruples*, something that's totally unlikely; the actual amount will end up being more like $30K, which, spread over the four years it takes to vest, is less than $10K a year.
So what we're really talking about here is about $70K/year in a high-cost-of-living environment for 80 hour weeks in a highly skilled environment. You're right, things could be a lot worse, but they could also be a lot better. My salary's around that, and I only work 40 hours a week.
Re:Yep, this guy's an idiot
on
Joel On Software
·
· Score: 3, Funny
There's definitely an idiot in there somewhere, but I don't think it's Spolsky...
of something a friend told me. She's a producer for a series of disaster specials on TV (in syndication). She's hates it whenever the disaster she's doing is in the south because every disaster needs scientific experts to explain it, and as she puts it "it doesn't how many PhDs he has, the minute he starts talking about how it's like a chuckhole full of angry hedgehogs in a tornado, all his credibility goes out the window."
Can you imagine a code review with these people? "Well, this function right here, it's like an Alabama wildcat with big Ns."
Slashdot Mirror
why must they insist on it being a real marriage instead of a civil union?
Not knowing what you said, you said it.
you're already equal to the rest of us, just like women and blacks
Not knowing what you said, you said it.
In fact, it *is* criminal--it's called extortion. Have the charity talk to their lawyers.
Advocacy is to free software what marketing is to commercial software: the driver to bring in currency. In free software, that currency is warm bodies, both users and people who actively contribute to the product. Free software projects benefit mightily from community involvement, to the point where a lack of involvement can kill an otherwise promising project.
Because anyone capable of maintaining it is also capable of putting their own in orbit at a smaller cost.
1) Bugs should not have owners. This is th approach taken by Joel (thy joelonsoftware.com guy) when creating Fozbug.
You have this exactly wrong. From here:"...every bug needs to be assigned to exactly one person at all times, until it is closed."
It was supposed to be several things:
The reason no one really knows, or will ever know, is because, first, every business unit at MS was ordered to find some way, any way, to label themselves as .NET, thus diluting the whole brand before anyone even knew what it was; and second, MS couldn't commit itself to .NET 100%, and as result, many developers are already planning on skipping .NET because Avalon, XAML et al are already in the pipeline for Longhorn.
It's too bad, in a way. .NET and C# have a lot of good points (if only by fixing Java's obvious shortcomings); a really good standard library to simplify win32 programming is always to be desired. But .NET will never have the ubiquity it needs for the higher order benefits to really pay off. What they should have done with Longhorn was call it "the native .NET OS" or something like that (and announce Longhorn technologies as additions to .NET), so that developers feel that .NET has both longevity and ubiquity. As it stands, MS has fatally undercut .NET by announcing the technologies that will replace it.
As for what will happen now, .NET will survive for a decade or so as a major but never dominant technology because of points #1 and #2. #3 will see some token uses but never really become a selling point for anything. With Passport's demise, #4 is already dead, and its market is being eaten by things like federated identity management.
Are you suggesting that the theory of evolution isn't very strong in the scientific world? Virtually the entire field of biology depends on it.
Off the top of my head, string theory isn't nearly as well established.
The judge recognized that singling out evolution for the "theory, not fact" treatment was prejudicial to it. Gravitation is a theory, not a fact, but it wasn't noted as a sticker on the front, which makes evolution appear more speculative and hypothetical, when in fact the basics of evolution are as solid as any other "theory, not fact".
The judge recognized the sticker as a subtle play on the common misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is, and rightly quashed it.
As a man of science, you should be able to tell when a theory offers a viable alternative to explaining the evidence, and when that theory is nothing but a doctrinaire response to an external threat.
The reality of the word of God doesn't impact the quality of a scientific theory.
Would you prefer judges to rule that science is invalid because it conflicts with preconceived religious notions? I prefer that the judiciary knock down religious limitations on science, myself.
But that's just me.
I didn't say it was a stumbling block, I said it wasn't "obvious". And questions about the designer's plan necessarily make the existence of the designer non-obvious in the face of a competing theory that, by Occam's Razor, explains the existence of cancer, tsunamis, and humanity's flirtation with self-destruction more sensible without positing a supreme being.
It's not "clearly visible" to me that an intelligent designer is responsible for the current state of affairs. In fact, the indifference to human life of the Indian Ocean tsunami makes more sense to me as a product of a mechanistic, unintelligent universe. Until you can explain the tsunami in a simple, self-evident way, I can't accept that an intelligent designer is behind it. That you accept it on its face is not convincing to me, either of a designer's handiwork or his existence.
I'm not saying that the tsunami proves that God doesn't exist; only that it's not obvious or self-evident except by your uncritical appraisal.
What would be perfect would be the clear teaching in the science classroom that all scientific theories are just "theories": that all are falsifiable, and that in the presence of a theory that better explains the evidence, the current theory is in question or disproven. Any science student, before being presented with actual theories, should understand the scientific process.
The problem with the sticker is that, by singling out evolution for this special caution about it's theoretical status, it unfairly prejudiced the teaching of evolution in the classroom. Gravitation is "only" a theory, but you don't see the parents clamoring for Aristotle's theory of natural motion to be taught, do you?
Because the judge correctly perceived that the sticker was playing on a common misunderstanding of the term "theory" to attack the credibility of evolution. The sticker implied, for the purposes of religious reinforcement by conservative Christian parents, that evolution is somehow a dubious hypothesis rather than one of the strongest scientific theories around.
Any decent scientist will tell you that evolution is a totally falsifiable theory, and that in 100 years, it will almost certainly be different than what we think it is now. The same would be said for any facet of science by anyone who actually understands the practice.
The reason you think that there's certainty about evolution is that there's an almost perfect absence of *viable* alternative theories--meaning theories that offer, or may in the future offer, a better explanation of the existing evidence and more predictive power.
Intelligent design isn't a viable alternative to evolution because it's not a better, or possibly better, scientific theory. There's no value at all to teaching it alongside evolution except to shield those who's faith might be weakened by failing to be reinforced by unrelated authorities.
It's not obvious that an itelligent designer would allow for 9.0 earthquakes creating tsunamis that kill 100,000+. It's not obvious that an itelligent designer would include cancer in his creation. It's not obvious that an intelligent designer would create a race of beings capable of destroying themselves in their immaturity.
The only way to rationalize those things with an intelligent designer is to imagine that they comply with some sort of divine plan, and if there is a divine plan, it's far from obvious what it is or why it should be that way.
You can't really argue with this, since by arguing, you're acknowledging that an intelligent designer is not self-evident. If it's truly obvious, then no argument is necessary.
Having worked with a lot of Japanese people who lived with their parents for extended periods of time, I can tell you that the typical Japanese is not someone suffering for want of a strong work ethic. You might not be able to picture it working for yourself, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for them.
Your dysfunction is their norm. A Japanese parent would probably say that you're being wasteful of money living on your own when you *could* live with your parents.
That's the solution for a previous challenge, dumbass. If you'd read it you'd know that.
Obviously some posters don't user their brains. It's routine for residents in hospital emergency rooms to work 80+ hours a week, and to stand triple shifts. It's not about body clocks, it's about cash-strapped hospitals exploiting young doctors in order to keep functioning.
The point of the comic-within-a-comic was twofold: It carried the thesis that humanity's ambivelance to real, live superheros in its midst would have allowed comics to explore a lot of other areas that get crowded out by superhero comix (so it's a comment on comics in general); and it's a carrier wave for the overall thesis of The Watchmen about being careful when fighting monsters, lest ye become a monster yourself. In the pirate comic, the hero becomes a monster while trying to get back to civilization to warn them of the approach of the pirate ship; in the book, superheroes who's ostensible purpose is protecting humanity end up murdering 3,000,000 of them and vaporizing the character, Rorschach, who's arguably the most morally pure among them in order to cover up the conspiracy.
Part of what was so important about Watchmen was simply the fact that it achieved a maturity and depth that had never been seen before; however, that depth and maturity is relative to other comics, which aren't that tough to beat. So it's a relatively great work, but it's no Moby Dick.
The horde of packages in the average distro are hoarded by some.
$60K isn't a lot if you're living in a major urban center like Silicon Valley--it's only a little more than $30K in the sticks. And the $120K in options is only good if EA's stock price *quadruples*, something that's totally unlikely; the actual amount will end up being more like $30K, which, spread over the four years it takes to vest, is less than $10K a year.
So what we're really talking about here is about $70K/year in a high-cost-of-living environment for 80 hour weeks in a highly skilled environment. You're right, things could be a lot worse, but they could also be a lot better. My salary's around that, and I only work 40 hours a week.
There's definitely an idiot in there somewhere, but I don't think it's Spolsky...
of something a friend told me. She's a producer for a series of disaster specials on TV (in syndication). She's hates it whenever the disaster she's doing is in the south because every disaster needs scientific experts to explain it, and as she puts it "it doesn't how many PhDs he has, the minute he starts talking about how it's like a chuckhole full of angry hedgehogs in a tornado, all his credibility goes out the window."
Can you imagine a code review with these people? "Well, this function right here, it's like an Alabama wildcat with big Ns."