While carbon credits may sound like a good idea in theory, I had assumed from the start that they were doomed to fail in practice. How do you verify that a company that sells credits has really reduced their own carbon footprint by the requisite amount? It just seems too easy to game the system.
I hadn't considered the possibility of cyber-criminals simply stealing the credits outright; that makes matters even worse!
Shouldn't these credits be individually traceable, so that the stolen ones can simply be voided and re-issued? If not, then someone really f**ked up the implementation of this system.
Many non-Catholics are ambivalent towards the Pope, and a few are even outright hostile; the church sex scandal cover-ups don't help either. Most people probably don't know enough about the Dalai Lama to have a strong opinion. And Glenn Beck?! Jeez, get real...
I have a grudging respect for Gates and his business savvy, in much the way that one can respect the abilities of a ruthless predator. As an engineer it irks me tremendously that MS managed to become the dominant force in the software industry, with products whose quality has ranged from competent to cringe-inducingly awful. I applaud his philanthropy, but the cynic in me says that his motivation for the creation of his charities was not entirely altruistic, coming as it did in the midst of the DOJ anti-trust investigations into Microsoft's business practices. Still, whether his motivations were pure or not I believe he's doing some good things now, and is deserving of respect.
I wouldn't put him anywhere near as high as #5 though.
Ballmer and Allen on the other hand... well, let's not go there.
Re:Xfce seems to be a pretty good compromise...
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Picky, picky... if you're going to be that minimalist, you might as well just use something like screen.:D
Xfce seems to be a pretty good compromise...
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
...between functionality and bloat. I have not used it as my primary desktop environment, but I do sometimes install it when I want a reasonably full-featured desktop in a VM without causing the size of the VM disk image to balloon too much.
For a truly minimalist lightweight desktop, LXDE seems to be showing a lot of promise.
But unless there's a reward for those developers at the end of that tunnel, they should expect people to start jumping ship when the job market improves. Furthermore, developers who are being pressured to put in overtime to implement new features are not going to create the cleanest (or best documented) code; so when those developers leave, the company is going to have a maintenance mess on their hands.
You've all got it wrong. The author of the (almost) C version clearly intended it to loop; none of the allegedly simplified versions correctly emulate that functionality. What you need is:
$ while true; do echo World peace; done
or the shorter (but less obvious):
$ yes World peace
which is actually one character shorter than the last broken version above.
If not, then they can make future versions proprietary if they wish, since they presumably hold all of the copyrights. OTOH if there have been outside (community) contributions, then they can only take it proprietary if everyone who has touched the code consents. So we still don't know enough to say whether this is a violation or not.
Note that the above has absolutely no bearing on past versions; you can't "take back" existing code after it has been distributed under the GPL. If they are trying to go after people for distributing old versions (or derivatives thereof), then this is indeed a blatant GPL violation.
Depending on how bad the code is, it might be more cost-effective to rewrite it from scratch (assuming you've got the resources to do it right this time).
What a comprehensive test suite can do for you is verify that each new release of the product meets specs (i.e. prevent regressions). But for the tests to have real value, you need to do it right:
1. If you don't have a comprehensive system specification, create one. The system specification should be written with an eye towards verification -- e.g. it needs to be decomposed into simple, easily testable requirements of the form "When A occurs, the system does B." Make sure you cover what the system is supposed to do under unexpected conditions as well (invalid inputs, network connectivity problems, etc.).
2. For each requirement in your system specification, develop a test (or tests) that verify it. The tests should preferably be as automated as possible, because if they require too much manual labor they will get blown off.
3. Create a written test procedure. The tests are worthless if people don't understand how to run them and interpret the results!
4. Keep the system specification, tests, and test procedures up-to-date as the system evolves.
If it sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is! I'm not saying you shouldn't have formal tests, but incorporating them after the fact -- especially if the system specification is incomplete (or even non-existent) -- is going to require a lot of effort. Without knowing the state of the existing code, the complexity of the system, the approximate cost of finding/fixing bugs in the field (is this a mission critical app that results in significant lost productivity when it breaks?), and a myriad of other factors, I don't think anyone can conclusively answer the question "Is it worth it?"
I agree completely (and made a similar point a few posts up). I think interactivity was one of the reasons I immediately liked Python when I first tried it a few years back - it reminded me of those exciting days long ago when I was first learning how to program in BASIC!
I think it really helps to use an interpreted language with an "immediate" mode (just type a statement and it is executed on the spot) if you're trying to get non-programmers interested in programming. The first two languages I learned (back in 1976 or thereabouts) were BASIC and FORTRAN. Of the two, BASIC was easier to pick up and (quite frankly) more fun, precisely because it was more interactive.
These days most of my "real work" is done in C/C++ and Python. I would argue that today, Python is a reasonable first language. It is simple enough that someone can easily learn the fundamentals and make it "do something"; yet it is also powerful and expressive enough to build complex real-world production systems with.
I used 10% ethanol blend (since it is hard to find anything else here in Illinois) in my Sears lawn mower for 20 years; finally replaced that lawn mower last year. I'd say 20 years is a pretty good run for a lawn mower, ethanol blend or not. I didn't even take particularly good care of it -- I frequently left the gas in it over the winter, and changed the oil maybe once every 4 years or so. Given that Sears could make a small engine that ran fine on ethanol blend 20 years ago, I have a hard time understanding what everyone is whining about.
That said, I agree the economics of corn-based ethanol make no sense; the current system is little more than a subsidy to corn growers. IMO we should be pouring all that money into research on better ethanol production methods instead, and requiring engine manufacturers to produce ethanol-ready engines (many Chrysler vehicles have been E85-capable for years, so this isn't exactly rocket science).
Sounds like she got what was coming to her. Whether or not she had a legitimate grievance with her employer is irrelevant; you just don't pull shit like that. Period.
But that said, creating a game that is a blatant clone of Pac-Man, and using "Pac" in the name, and selling the game through a high-profile online store add up to the equivalent of hanging a huge "kick me" sign on your back. I would have been very surprised if they had not come after you. Even if none of the code or artwork has been literally copied, they may have a pretty strong case against you for trademark infringement based on the name alone.
...fear having its hard drive wiped? What about having its original hard drive wiped, after it had been imaged to another drive on a different system?
I think any entity which has a survival instinct will have a fear of death. But at some level of sentience you cross the line from a hard-wired instinctual "Don't get yourself killed!" reflexive fear to the more thoughtful "What is death like, and is there anything afterward?" realm.
I'm not a member of any organized religion, though I do not consider myself to be an atheist either. If pressed, I'd classify my beliefs as being closest to Deism; but if I don't feel like explaining what Deism is I just tell people I'm agnostic to save time! I don't believe in the supernatural; IMO all the stuff people ascribe to supernatural causes have a logical explanation, or are just our minds "playing tricks" on us.
My wife was brought up Catholic, but (possibly as a reaction to that strict upbringing) is actually fairly anti-Catholic now, and considers herself to be agnostic. She does believe in the supernatural (ghosts and such) though, which I find somewhat odd.
Personally, I'd say I fear the moment of death (as in, "How will I die and will it hurt?") a lot more than what might come afterwards. I don't believe there is an afterwards; death is the biological equivalent of having my hard drive wiped.
Novell's SEC 8K filing (which I hadn't seen yet when I started this subthread) explicitly states that the IP being sold to MS consists of patents. No mention of copyrights.
The rest of the world is still indirectly affected. If the FUD cloud descends again, it will slow adoption of Linux by businesses and have chilling effects on corporate donations of time, money, and code -- don't forget that a lot of Open Source development is backed by US corporations like IBM. So this potentially affects everyone, regardless of whether you're subject to US copyright/patent law!
Slashdot Mirror
While carbon credits may sound like a good idea in theory, I had assumed from the start that they were doomed to fail in practice. How do you verify that a company that sells credits has really reduced their own carbon footprint by the requisite amount? It just seems too easy to game the system.
I hadn't considered the possibility of cyber-criminals simply stealing the credits outright; that makes matters even worse!
Shouldn't these credits be individually traceable, so that the stolen ones can simply be voided and re-issued? If not, then someone really f**ked up the implementation of this system.
Many non-Catholics are ambivalent towards the Pope, and a few are even outright hostile; the church sex scandal cover-ups don't help either. Most people probably don't know enough about the Dalai Lama to have a strong opinion. And Glenn Beck?! Jeez, get real...
I have a grudging respect for Gates and his business savvy, in much the way that one can respect the abilities of a ruthless predator. As an engineer it irks me tremendously that MS managed to become the dominant force in the software industry, with products whose quality has ranged from competent to cringe-inducingly awful. I applaud his philanthropy, but the cynic in me says that his motivation for the creation of his charities was not entirely altruistic, coming as it did in the midst of the DOJ anti-trust investigations into Microsoft's business practices. Still, whether his motivations were pure or not I believe he's doing some good things now, and is deserving of respect.
I wouldn't put him anywhere near as high as #5 though.
Ballmer and Allen on the other hand... well, let's not go there.
Picky, picky... if you're going to be that minimalist, you might as well just use something like screen. :D
...between functionality and bloat. I have not used it as my primary desktop environment, but I do sometimes install it when I want a reasonably full-featured desktop in a VM without causing the size of the VM disk image to balloon too much.
For a truly minimalist lightweight desktop, LXDE seems to be showing a lot of promise.
But unless there's a reward for those developers at the end of that tunnel, they should expect people to start jumping ship when the job market improves. Furthermore, developers who are being pressured to put in overtime to implement new features are not going to create the cleanest (or best documented) code; so when those developers leave, the company is going to have a maintenance mess on their hands.
You've all got it wrong. The author of the (almost) C version clearly intended it to loop; none of the allegedly simplified versions correctly emulate that functionality. What you need is:
$ while true; do echo World peace; done
or the shorter (but less obvious):
$ yes World peace
which is actually one character shorter than the last broken version above.
If not, then they can make future versions proprietary if they wish, since they presumably hold all of the copyrights. OTOH if there have been outside (community) contributions, then they can only take it proprietary if everyone who has touched the code consents. So we still don't know enough to say whether this is a violation or not.
Note that the above has absolutely no bearing on past versions; you can't "take back" existing code after it has been distributed under the GPL. If they are trying to go after people for distributing old versions (or derivatives thereof), then this is indeed a blatant GPL violation.
50 MB is an awful lot. I can't imagine a legitimate reason to be sending that much data anywhere without the user's knowledge.
Depending on how bad the code is, it might be more cost-effective to rewrite it from scratch (assuming you've got the resources to do it right this time).
What a comprehensive test suite can do for you is verify that each new release of the product meets specs (i.e. prevent regressions). But for the tests to have real value, you need to do it right:
1. If you don't have a comprehensive system specification, create one. The system specification should be written with an eye towards verification -- e.g. it needs to be decomposed into simple, easily testable requirements of the form "When A occurs, the system does B." Make sure you cover what the system is supposed to do under unexpected conditions as well (invalid inputs, network connectivity problems, etc.).
2. For each requirement in your system specification, develop a test (or tests) that verify it. The tests should preferably be as automated as possible, because if they require too much manual labor they will get blown off.
3. Create a written test procedure. The tests are worthless if people don't understand how to run them and interpret the results!
4. Keep the system specification, tests, and test procedures up-to-date as the system evolves.
If it sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is! I'm not saying you shouldn't have formal tests, but incorporating them after the fact -- especially if the system specification is incomplete (or even non-existent) -- is going to require a lot of effort. Without knowing the state of the existing code, the complexity of the system, the approximate cost of finding/fixing bugs in the field (is this a mission critical app that results in significant lost productivity when it breaks?), and a myriad of other factors, I don't think anyone can conclusively answer the question "Is it worth it?"
Teaching a newbie how to program using Perl? Surely you jest...
I agree completely (and made a similar point a few posts up). I think interactivity was one of the reasons I immediately liked Python when I first tried it a few years back - it reminded me of those exciting days long ago when I was first learning how to program in BASIC!
I think it really helps to use an interpreted language with an "immediate" mode (just type a statement and it is executed on the spot) if you're trying to get non-programmers interested in programming. The first two languages I learned (back in 1976 or thereabouts) were BASIC and FORTRAN. Of the two, BASIC was easier to pick up and (quite frankly) more fun, precisely because it was more interactive.
These days most of my "real work" is done in C/C++ and Python. I would argue that today, Python is a reasonable first language. It is simple enough that someone can easily learn the fundamentals and make it "do something"; yet it is also powerful and expressive enough to build complex real-world production systems with.
I used 10% ethanol blend (since it is hard to find anything else here in Illinois) in my Sears lawn mower for 20 years; finally replaced that lawn mower last year. I'd say 20 years is a pretty good run for a lawn mower, ethanol blend or not. I didn't even take particularly good care of it -- I frequently left the gas in it over the winter, and changed the oil maybe once every 4 years or so. Given that Sears could make a small engine that ran fine on ethanol blend 20 years ago, I have a hard time understanding what everyone is whining about.
That said, I agree the economics of corn-based ethanol make no sense; the current system is little more than a subsidy to corn growers. IMO we should be pouring all that money into research on better ethanol production methods instead, and requiring engine manufacturers to produce ethanol-ready engines (many Chrysler vehicles have been E85-capable for years, so this isn't exactly rocket science).
Sounds like she got what was coming to her. Whether or not she had a legitimate grievance with her employer is irrelevant; you just don't pull shit like that. Period.
But that said, creating a game that is a blatant clone of Pac-Man, and using "Pac" in the name, and selling the game through a high-profile online store add up to the equivalent of hanging a huge "kick me" sign on your back. I would have been very surprised if they had not come after you. Even if none of the code or artwork has been literally copied, they may have a pretty strong case against you for trademark infringement based on the name alone.
...fear having its hard drive wiped? What about having its original hard drive wiped, after it had been imaged to another drive on a different system?
I think any entity which has a survival instinct will have a fear of death. But at some level of sentience you cross the line from a hard-wired instinctual "Don't get yourself killed!" reflexive fear to the more thoughtful "What is death like, and is there anything afterward?" realm.
I'm not a member of any organized religion, though I do not consider myself to be an atheist either. If pressed, I'd classify my beliefs as being closest to Deism; but if I don't feel like explaining what Deism is I just tell people I'm agnostic to save time! I don't believe in the supernatural; IMO all the stuff people ascribe to supernatural causes have a logical explanation, or are just our minds "playing tricks" on us.
My wife was brought up Catholic, but (possibly as a reaction to that strict upbringing) is actually fairly anti-Catholic now, and considers herself to be agnostic. She does believe in the supernatural (ghosts and such) though, which I find somewhat odd.
Personally, I'd say I fear the moment of death (as in, "How will I die and will it hurt?") a lot more than what might come afterwards. I don't believe there is an afterwards; death is the biological equivalent of having my hard drive wiped.
Maybe some of the people on the project are not satisfied with just "getting by".
...in an attempt to demonstrate that they're still relevant, now that they've been acquired by a company that nobody's heard of.
Heh... so basically the corporate merger version of ambulance chasing.
...because the engineers are trying to figure out a way around one of his pet earmarks!
Novell's SEC 8K filing (which I hadn't seen yet when I started this subthread) explicitly states that the IP being sold to MS consists of patents. No mention of copyrights.
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20101122005908/en/Kendall-Law-Group-Investigates-Novell-Acquisition-Shareholders
(came across that link in a Groklaw comment)
The rest of the world is still indirectly affected. If the FUD cloud descends again, it will slow adoption of Linux by businesses and have chilling effects on corporate donations of time, money, and code -- don't forget that a lot of Open Source development is backed by US corporations like IBM. So this potentially affects everyone, regardless of whether you're subject to US copyright/patent law!
Here's a link to the actual SEC 8K: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/000119312510265964/d8k.htm
If true, this is very, very bad.