Yep, I tether it with my Droid X too, but I'm paying the $20/month sucker fee for it instead of rooting the phone. Still better than carrying the MiFi around though -- at least I have my Droid with me whenever I use the iPad.
I don't know if the study corrected for gender differences, but that's a possible explanation of the correlation. More women have cats, and more men have dogs or no pets. Men die earlier.
Not legal advice, but if a shitty patent really is keeping you from innovating - then gather sufficient prior art to kill the patent.
How many programmers want to (or should) spend their time looking for prior art, submitting their complaints to the patent office, hiring lawyers to argue for them, in the hopes that a year or two later they can implement a one-click purchase option in their website due this month? The many small features that go into a complex program are all patentable in the current system. If you see an interesting new feature in a commercial program, like tabbed browsing, should all other software developers have to wait 17 years (or whatever the patent duration is) before they can build that feature into their own programs? Even when it's obvious how to do it as soon as you see the idea? If you do think other programmers should wait 17 years, how is that advancing the pursuit of science and the useful arts, as the whole patent process was intended to do in the Constitution?
Warning - your prior art search just might find that your innovation is already old. Is stifled innovation worse than proof of not being innovative?
This is the thinking that makes it clear why software should not be patented. You are expecting my program to be useful for one innovative feature. But whether or not a program is considered innovative, it has to incorporate dozens of once-innovative features to be useful, like password protection, maintaining user sessions, right-click menus, on-the-fly compression and decompression, and so on. Software patents stop software development from advancing.
I'm currently trying to hire LAMP developers, and am seeing a glut of Java programmers in the applicant pool. Speaking as one employer, I would like to see more people strong in PHP, Perl, C, and C++. These languages have a lot of shared syntax and they interoperate well. You can pick the best tool for the job (C or C++ for execution speed, Perl or PHP for development speed). Java is sort of a general-purpose language, but will never be as fast as compiled languages, or as easy to write as scripting languages.
Your choice of computer languages will be like choosing a religion: other people will judge you based on your choice, and it can determine a lot of other decisions in your work life, so choose wisely.
My job is purely bioinformatics, and I love it. It's exciting research, and it pays well. Our group has been trying to hire more people, but there are not many candidates out there with the right qualifications. It's best to have a Ph.D. in one of the life sciences (mine is in Biochemistry) and a lot of practical experience with programming, data analysis, and application development.
I think bioinformatics is now an accepted research specialty, like X-ray crystallography or proteomics. You need to collaborate with people generating real data to make strong contributions, but those labs are often looking for a bioinformatics expert anyway, so there are many opportunities to collaborate.
I attended a talk on the Sonic hedgehog pathway last week, and the "SoNiC" explanation offered in the parent post has nothing to do with it. Fruit flies with a mutation in one gene have a hunched-over shape that makes them look like hedgehogs, so the gene was named "hedgehog". Research in mice and humans has revealed that there is actually a whole family of genes of this kind, and one of them was given the name "Sonic hedgehog" as a reference to the video game character.
By the way -- Sonic hedgehog (or "Shh") is a protein, having nothing to do with the element nickel (Ni) or the non-existent chemical element "So". Carbon (C) is the basis of all proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and basically everything having to do with living things and polymers, but Shh has no special relation to it.
The current version of the Apple Public Source License (APSL) does not have any of these problems. You can read our current position on the APSL elsewhere. This document is kept here for historical purposes only.
In particular, the three bulleted items discussed in other posts here (APSL allows linking with proprietary code, gives Apple extra rights, is incompatible with GPL) do not apply to 2.0.
Based on my reading of these links, Kuhn is being quite consistent. He had objections to past versions of the APSL but accepts the current one.
Lewis Epstein wrote two very good physics books that are enjoyable and easy to read while remaining scientifically sound. One is "Thinking Physics", and the other is "Relativity Visualized". I used examples from Thinking Physics in a college physics lab I taught, and the students responded well.
Personally I much prefer overall the Windows XP experience with a close second the ones of MacOSX and BeOS. In fact, a DE that could have the best values found on these three operating systems, plus the power of Unix underneath, would make my utopian desktop environment. But there isn't such a DE...
He rates Mac OS X among his favorites, but then wishes one of them had "Unix underneath" -- duh, it does! Did this seem odd to anyone else?
(For the record, I'm a Penguinista rather than a Mac fan.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, I tether it with my Droid X too, but I'm paying the $20/month sucker fee for it instead of rooting the phone. Still better than carrying the MiFi around though -- at least I have my Droid with me whenever I use the iPad.
"There's free software, and then there's open source"...
I don't know if the study corrected for gender differences, but that's a possible explanation of the correlation. More women have cats, and more men have dogs or no pets. Men die earlier.
Not legal advice, but if a shitty patent really is keeping you from innovating - then gather sufficient prior art to kill the patent.
How many programmers want to (or should) spend their time looking for prior art, submitting their complaints to the patent office, hiring lawyers to argue for them, in the hopes that a year or two later they can implement a one-click purchase option in their website due this month? The many small features that go into a complex program are all patentable in the current system. If you see an interesting new feature in a commercial program, like tabbed browsing, should all other software developers have to wait 17 years (or whatever the patent duration is) before they can build that feature into their own programs? Even when it's obvious how to do it as soon as you see the idea? If you do think other programmers should wait 17 years, how is that advancing the pursuit of science and the useful arts, as the whole patent process was intended to do in the Constitution?
Warning - your prior art search just might find that your innovation is already old. Is stifled innovation worse than proof of not being innovative?
This is the thinking that makes it clear why software should not be patented. You are expecting my program to be useful for one innovative feature. But whether or not a program is considered innovative, it has to incorporate dozens of once-innovative features to be useful, like password protection, maintaining user sessions, right-click menus, on-the-fly compression and decompression, and so on. Software patents stop software development from advancing.
I'm currently trying to hire LAMP developers, and am seeing a glut of Java programmers in the applicant pool. Speaking as one employer, I would like to see more people strong in PHP, Perl, C, and C++. These languages have a lot of shared syntax and they interoperate well. You can pick the best tool for the job (C or C++ for execution speed, Perl or PHP for development speed). Java is sort of a general-purpose language, but will never be as fast as compiled languages, or as easy to write as scripting languages.
Your choice of computer languages will be like choosing a religion: other people will judge you based on your choice, and it can determine a lot of other decisions in your work life, so choose wisely.
My job is purely bioinformatics, and I love it. It's exciting research, and it pays well. Our group has been trying to hire more people, but there are not many candidates out there with the right qualifications. It's best to have a Ph.D. in one of the life sciences (mine is in Biochemistry) and a lot of practical experience with programming, data analysis, and application development.
I think bioinformatics is now an accepted research specialty, like X-ray crystallography or proteomics. You need to collaborate with people generating real data to make strong contributions, but those labs are often looking for a bioinformatics expert anyway, so there are many opportunities to collaborate.
I attended a talk on the Sonic hedgehog pathway last week, and the "SoNiC" explanation offered in the parent post has nothing to do with it. Fruit flies with a mutation in one gene have a hunched-over shape that makes them look like hedgehogs, so the gene was named "hedgehog". Research in mice and humans has revealed that there is actually a whole family of genes of this kind, and one of them was given the name "Sonic hedgehog" as a reference to the video game character.
By the way -- Sonic hedgehog (or "Shh") is a protein, having nothing to do with the element nickel (Ni) or the non-existent chemical element "So". Carbon (C) is the basis of all proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and basically everything having to do with living things and polymers, but Shh has no special relation to it.
Reading the link on the FSF's page, Kuhn says that none of their objections apply to version 2.0 of the APL:
m l), Kuhn repeats that he has no objections to APSL 2.0:
The problems described in this page are still potential issues for other possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL.
On another page (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.ht
The current version of the Apple Public Source License (APSL) does not have any of these problems. You can read our current position on the APSL elsewhere. This document is kept here for historical purposes only.
In particular, the three bulleted items discussed in other posts here (APSL allows linking with proprietary code, gives Apple extra rights, is incompatible with GPL) do not apply to 2.0. Based on my reading of these links, Kuhn is being quite consistent. He had objections to past versions of the APSL but accepts the current one.
Lewis Epstein wrote two very good physics books that are enjoyable and easy to read while remaining scientifically sound. One is "Thinking Physics", and the other is "Relativity Visualized". I used examples from Thinking Physics in a college physics lab I taught, and the students responded well.
Personally I much prefer overall the Windows XP experience with a close second the ones of MacOSX and BeOS. In fact, a DE that could have the best values found on these three operating systems, plus the power of Unix underneath, would make my utopian desktop environment. But there isn't such a DE ...
He rates Mac OS X among his favorites, but then wishes one of them had "Unix underneath" -- duh, it does! Did this seem odd to anyone else?
(For the record, I'm a Penguinista rather than a Mac fan.)