Okay, this is a rah-rah post, and I generally hate those, but excellent, insightful, thank you for rescueing us from the other knee-jerk/don't read the article/don't try to understand what happened comments posted above and below your post.
I missed the part where the OS completely crashes? I thought they said the application was crashing...
Oh, that was a question you asked. Well, the article (and yes, before you gasp in shock, I, for one, read the article first, BEFORE posting), actually answers all your questions, so perhaps you should read it? Maybe I'm wrong to ask people to read an article, but hey, I'm only human. If you need a translation into smaller words, please let me know - I'll gladly comply.
Sorry, but to point to me and say - "You are an introvert, cause you've been hurt in social interactions" is like me pointing to you and saying "You are stupid because I hit you in the head with a rock". No wait. It's nothing like that. Nor would it be true, in either case. There are other, less obvious reasons for both facts.
Well, the article says it is being done by the Airforce, on heads up displays, right? If this is so, then yes, it can be done. As to a copyright, well, the HUD thing is prior art, right?
The suggestion was actually from the original proposal. I did, admittedly, say I don't have a big problem with it, but it originates with the article. Sorry for being unclear.
Seems like most early posters didn't really read the article. Okay, a summation:
1. Copyright law was never meant to apply to the individual
2. It does now
3. It is way too specific in some areas, but not specific enough in others.
4. It often stifles creativity, but when used correctly, it encourages it.
5. Copyright law is NOT BAD, just our implementation of it.
so... conclusion:
Add some sort of "fee" to our taxes (maybe just on ISPs, more like on everyone) that allows us, as individuals, to use any copyrighted material we want, as long as we don't try to sell it, without robbing the owners of the copyright - cause we are paying them.
I like it...
By the way... read the damn article before posting./. ain't for the ignorant, so stop letting yourself be excluded (aka ignored)!
Once upon a time, I could read through the comments on/. and actually see occasional good thoughts, and most of the time, see original material. When did everyone decide to post before looking at the other comments? Or are people reading the comments, going, "yeah, that's right!", and then pretending to post something new while just copying the original? I mean, if I read one more comment on this article that alludes to the fact that encrypting the drive doesn't help when the whole computer is taken (moot point if you read the frickin' article), I'm gonna puke. Then again, I think I'm done reading comments on this one.
That's interesting. Are you sure you actually worked with Office? Did you ever get anyone 's problems fixed? The reason I ask is because I've been supporting various Microsoft software (including Office) to smaller and larger degrees since 1995. And not only has the interface not changed appreciably in the majority of releases (though some new features are always added - even if they suck), but it has ALWAYS been able to read older versions of the various types of documents. Going the other direction can sometimes be difficult, sure, but if you are adding a feature that effects the formatting, and that feature is used, then why would it be surprising that old apps don't recognize the new feature?
I thought./ encourage people NOT to make things up?
Wow, until I read that last couple of sentences, I thought this guy was joking. Weird that people really believe this.... don't know how you can read/. for any length of time and be so incredibly uneducated....
Are you going to maintain the application? How much is it going to cost to refactor it for the next version? How much is it going to cost to NOT refactor it for the next version?
If you are not going to maintain the application, then quick & dirty is fine, as long as it works. Well, not fine - gross and icky, but no real long-term consequences, and a lot of short term gain.
If you are going to maintain the code, then you must consider how much it is going to cost to build the "next" version. If you are going to have to refactor the code to make a new version work, then how much is it going to cost? Is it more than the cost of doing it "right" in the first place? Believe it or not, the answer is often "no" - it'll be cheaper to refactor later. The only problem with this is that often the time needed to refactor isn't available for the next version, and so that needs to be taken into consideration.
Anyway, long story short, these are only a few of the considerations here. It's a balancing act, and you need to fully understand the situation before deciding. This doesn't require every detail, but it does require a lot of good experience on both sides.
Having recently read an amazing book called "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, the answer to this is very simple: what advantage do we get from understanding exactly how everything in the universe exists, and why? What use is it understanding exactly how things work? That is what this information will help us discover. Think we might be able to apply knowledge like that? I'm hoping these questions are rhetorical - if they aren't, and you consider yourself an engineer, well, please reconsider.
It amazes me that the school system is still producing students (read: half of the people who have posted on this subject) that honestly feel that a university (etc.) must spoon feed their students everything they need to know on a subject. Here's some real world training: spend some of your own time "applying" what you learned. Build the circuit yourself, smarty! I'm not saying that classes should be all theory - perhaps MIT has the balance wrong. But expecting to be taught everything you need to know, with no work outside your coursework, well, let's just say you won't be working with me any time soon...
I'm amazed - I didn't see TOO many people having the old, knee-jerk, "NUCLEAR IS BAD!" "NUCLEAR ENERGY KILLS SCHOOLCHILDREN" reaction that I usually see - people seem to be fairly realistic (with a few exceptions). Go./ readers! (for once).
Maybe the most economical - fine, but it isn't the only way. So your analogy is a bit faulty, don't you think? If natural gas isn't available, we can use hydro power, solar, etc., and many other sources of hydrogen to produce our hydrogen. So... what was your point?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, this is a rah-rah post, and I generally hate those, but excellent, insightful, thank you for rescueing us from the other knee-jerk/don't read the article/don't try to understand what happened comments posted above and below your post.
So, well, thanks!
I've been waiting for this so long, I think my face is going to be blue forever. Okay, maybe not. Why do I care? Oh yeah, I don't. Do you?
I mean, damn, how can anyone say we aren't the greatest generation?
I missed the part where the OS completely crashes? I thought they said the application was crashing...
Oh, that was a question you asked. Well, the article (and yes, before you gasp in shock, I, for one, read the article first, BEFORE posting), actually answers all your questions, so perhaps you should read it? Maybe I'm wrong to ask people to read an article, but hey, I'm only human. If you need a translation into smaller words, please let me know - I'll gladly comply.
There would be a hell of a lot more violent murders, there would.
hi
Sorry, but to point to me and say - "You are an introvert, cause you've been hurt in social interactions" is like me pointing to you and saying "You are stupid because I hit you in the head with a rock". No wait. It's nothing like that. Nor would it be true, in either case. There are other, less obvious reasons for both facts.
Well, the article says it is being done by the Airforce, on heads up displays, right? If this is so, then yes, it can be done. As to a copyright, well, the HUD thing is prior art, right?
Just some thoughts
The suggestion was actually from the original proposal. I did, admittedly, say I don't have a big problem with it, but it originates with the article. Sorry for being unclear.
I don't really understand how this refutes a straight-forward summation of an article...?
Seems like most early posters didn't really read the article. Okay, a summation:
/. ain't for the ignorant, so stop letting yourself be excluded (aka ignored)!
1. Copyright law was never meant to apply to the individual
2. It does now
3. It is way too specific in some areas, but not specific enough in others.
4. It often stifles creativity, but when used correctly, it encourages it.
5. Copyright law is NOT BAD, just our implementation of it.
so... conclusion:
Add some sort of "fee" to our taxes (maybe just on ISPs, more like on everyone) that allows us, as individuals, to use any copyrighted material we want, as long as we don't try to sell it, without robbing the owners of the copyright - cause we are paying them.
I like it...
By the way... read the damn article before posting.
Once upon a time, I could read through the comments on /. and actually see occasional good thoughts, and most of the time, see original material. When did everyone decide to post before looking at the other comments? Or are people reading the comments, going, "yeah, that's right!", and then pretending to post something new while just copying the original? I mean, if I read one more comment on this article that alludes to the fact that encrypting the drive doesn't help when the whole computer is taken (moot point if you read the frickin' article), I'm gonna puke. Then again, I think I'm done reading comments on this one.
That's interesting. Are you sure you actually worked with Office? Did you ever get anyone 's problems fixed? The reason I ask is because I've been supporting various Microsoft software (including Office) to smaller and larger degrees since 1995. And not only has the interface not changed appreciably in the majority of releases (though some new features are always added - even if they suck), but it has ALWAYS been able to read older versions of the various types of documents. Going the other direction can sometimes be difficult, sure, but if you are adding a feature that effects the formatting, and that feature is used, then why would it be surprising that old apps don't recognize the new feature?
./ encourage people NOT to make things up?
I thought
Okay, I can't resist: so what? Does it matter? Are you saying that we shouldn't allow this video thing because of this?
Wow, until I read that last couple of sentences, I thought this guy was joking. Weird that people really believe this.... don't know how you can read /. for any length of time and be so incredibly uneducated....
Are you going to maintain the application? How much is it going to cost to refactor it for the next version? How much is it going to cost to NOT refactor it for the next version?
If you are not going to maintain the application, then quick & dirty is fine, as long as it works. Well, not fine - gross and icky, but no real long-term consequences, and a lot of short term gain.
If you are going to maintain the code, then you must consider how much it is going to cost to build the "next" version. If you are going to have to refactor the code to make a new version work, then how much is it going to cost? Is it more than the cost of doing it "right" in the first place? Believe it or not, the answer is often "no" - it'll be cheaper to refactor later. The only problem with this is that often the time needed to refactor isn't available for the next version, and so that needs to be taken into consideration.
Anyway, long story short, these are only a few of the considerations here. It's a balancing act, and you need to fully understand the situation before deciding. This doesn't require every detail, but it does require a lot of good experience on both sides.
Good luck!
Having recently read an amazing book called "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, the answer to this is very simple: what advantage do we get from understanding exactly how everything in the universe exists, and why? What use is it understanding exactly how things work? That is what this information will help us discover. Think we might be able to apply knowledge like that? I'm hoping these questions are rhetorical - if they aren't, and you consider yourself an engineer, well, please reconsider.
and, as usual, so wrong. Simple solution = wrong answer. Of course, that is pretty simple. Betcha it isn't always right!
It amazes me that the school system is still producing students (read: half of the people who have posted on this subject) that honestly feel that a university (etc.) must spoon feed their students everything they need to know on a subject. Here's some real world training: spend some of your own time "applying" what you learned. Build the circuit yourself, smarty! I'm not saying that classes should be all theory - perhaps MIT has the balance wrong. But expecting to be taught everything you need to know, with no work outside your coursework, well, let's just say you won't be working with me any time soon...
Ya'all are aware that postal codes are different then addresses right?
For example, 99216 is a postal code. An address might be "6159 SW Valley Ave. Beaverton, OR 97008".
Anyone see the difference? So, do ya'all have a problem with changing the 99216 to a "universal code"?
True, however, natural gas doesn't necessarily get "produced" in the quantities required, and it isn't necessarily the most effecient source...
I'm amazed - I didn't see TOO many people having the old, knee-jerk, "NUCLEAR IS BAD!" "NUCLEAR ENERGY KILLS SCHOOLCHILDREN" reaction that I usually see - people seem to be fairly realistic (with a few exceptions). Go ./ readers! (for once).
Maybe the most economical - fine, but it isn't the only way. So your analogy is a bit faulty, don't you think? If natural gas isn't available, we can use hydro power, solar, etc., and many other sources of hydrogen to produce our hydrogen. So... what was your point?
Consider me suitably corrected & chastened. I appreciate the reply.
Thanks!
until a reputable source at LEAST mentions this. Seems very unlikely.