But all they need to do is charge it to the buyer as a "use tax", which must be paid in advance (instead of at the end of the year as is now). The value of the use tax is known to the shipper, so the shipping agency needs to tell the state what the value of the package is. Pay the tax, and collect your goods.
They would need to produce molecules which are not destroyed by pollutants. Being able to generate those in a really short time is tough. Even for as big a laboratory as the earth.
The open source nv drivers work perfectly for me. I have to use the closed source binary stuff at work (because the dual monitor on a single card bit isn't supported by nv yet). My desktop crashes every time I switch to the console.
Considering that the biggest reason to use the GUI is the browser (needs Javascript) (all my real work gets done in the shell, and the 80x25 console is just easier to read), and the second biggest is the rss reader, I tend to switch to the console fairly often.
It isn't only about revenue growth. If OSS hits at infrastructure components, then a lot of vendors will find that their market is actually shrinking. So while value is being added, the actual size of the software market is no indicator of that value.
Economists have no idea of how to measure value not contributed in money, so a large sharing economy simply goes uncounted. The same phenomenon manifests itself in the (RI|MP)AA announcements of the notional loss due to copyright violations.
Writing software is a lot harder than any of the other professions. You need to be able to maintain incredible amounts of state in your brain. Routine processes are automated and farmed out to machines, you do not repeat problems (except in certain narrow sectors). Software is design, not engineering.
You need to be good at designing systems in a formal language, requiring you to know both the formal language (and it's toolkit(s)), and the application domain in massive detail. Only when you understand both fields, can you start becoming a good programmer.
Most people in the field understand one aspect of writing code, they don't usually understand maintainability, expressiveness and the applicability of the chosen toolkit to the application domain.
Actually writing code is one of the smaller complexities of the problem, the bigger one is understanding the problem well enough to be able to (nearly) completely express it in formal notation.
The market just happens to be global. The US has been pushing pretty hard on WIPO and Free Trade and stuff. Now you folks get to see what happens when other countries export labour and services instead of manufactured goods.
Actually, there are fairly big differences in admining a system, depending on whether it is Microsoft Windows, or a Unixy OS. Amongst the Unices, the big difference is between BSD style init scripts and Sys V style init scripts.
Microsoft systems are slightly more convoluted to manage from the command line, mostly because of the limitations of the default shell.
On the Unix side, you can use configuration management tools like Puppet, cfengine, BCFG2,. LCFG, etc to manage your systems, while there isn't an equivalent opensource toolkit on Windows. There is SMS from Microsoft, which has a fairly hefty price tag.
I can pretty much flip between Unix systems (Used to do AIX, do different Linux distros, OpenBSD and FreeBSD and have a tad of Solaris experience as well). Flipping onto Windows needs a massive mindshift in thought process though.
Most of the good ones I know have been on both sides. That includes large chunks of code (in multiple languages - C, Perl, Ruby, shell, SQL, plpgsql, plsql, C++).
I do mean programming -- Being able to choose algorithms, data structures (including complex ones), overall architecture, maintainability.... Not just small, one off scripts. I don't count the ones who can hack together a small script in the good programmers section, but if you can build a library of those, I would definitely consider you a programmer.
System administration isn't all that different from programming, you are just utilising a different set of libraries.
Administrators make terrible developers and developers make terrible administrators.
Bull. Every good administrator I know is also a good programmer. Most good programmers I know are also good administrators (the exceptions tend to be academic types).
But then, my experience is on the Unix side where scripting and programming are the norm, as opposed to the Windows side where point and click is the norm.
Nothing constrains events to be handled by a single process. You can just spawn off n processes, one of which is a queue manager for dispatching events to the rest. Each of those processes is then a shared nothing architecture, and independent of the rest of the processes involved. This isn't difficult, see Postfix for example.
Lots of simple applications, each doing one thing well and able to pipeline.
Additionally, locking resources tends to expose you to race conditions. Message passing and/or event driven, shared nothing architectures explicitly make the decision to copy data as opposed to sharing it, and avoid those race conditions. Non atomic access to shared structures is bad, and atomic access becomes the performance bottleneck.
Slashdot Mirror
10/17 France responds with nuclear strikes. The US suffers massive casualties, and retaliates in kind.
10/19 Nuclear winter: day 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog
http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html
'/' in common English is also used to indicate 'or'. BTW, are you the same MrNaz from #postgresql on freenode?
Where's the Cowboy Neal option?
Alternatively, the Ruby and Python programmers are 20/10 times as productive as the Java programmers, and you need fewer good programmers.
Hmmm, dunno if this world work: ?
But all they need to do is charge it to the buyer as a "use tax", which must be paid in advance (instead of at the end of the year as is now). The value of the use tax is known to the shipper, so the shipping agency needs to tell the state what the value of the package is. Pay the tax, and collect your goods.
They would need to produce molecules which are not destroyed by pollutants. Being able to generate those in a really short time is tough. Even for as big a laboratory as the earth.
.org isn't Network Solutions.
Think about customs duties. The state can simply hold the package until duties are paid.
It's fairly trivial. AOL, Outblaze, Google all do it for their regular mail. The blowback from Google is for googlegroups and blogger, not all of it.
Hell, here's my comment of that: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=279273&cid=20355389
person.add_attribute("make_reading_difficult") if (variable_names.get_style == camelCase);
Make a tetrahedron. Trivial.
Anecdote vs anecdote:
The open source nv drivers work perfectly for me. I have to use the closed source binary stuff at work (because the dual monitor on a single card bit isn't supported by nv yet). My desktop crashes every time I switch to the console.
Considering that the biggest reason to use the GUI is the browser (needs Javascript) (all my real work gets done in the shell, and the 80x25 console is just easier to read), and the second biggest is the rss reader, I tend to switch to the console fairly often.
It isn't only about revenue growth. If OSS hits at infrastructure components, then a lot of vendors will find that their market is actually shrinking. So while value is being added, the actual size of the software market is no indicator of that value.
Economists have no idea of how to measure value not contributed in money, so a large sharing economy simply goes uncounted. The same phenomenon manifests itself in the (RI|MP)AA announcements of the notional loss due to copyright violations.
Writing software is a lot harder than any of the other professions. You need to be able to maintain incredible amounts of state in your brain. Routine processes are automated and farmed out to machines, you do not repeat problems (except in certain narrow sectors). Software is design, not engineering.
You need to be good at designing systems in a formal language, requiring you to know both the formal language (and it's toolkit(s)), and the application domain in massive detail. Only when you understand both fields, can you start becoming a good programmer.
Most people in the field understand one aspect of writing code, they don't usually understand maintainability, expressiveness and the applicability of the chosen toolkit to the application domain.
Actually writing code is one of the smaller complexities of the problem, the bigger one is understanding the problem well enough to be able to (nearly) completely express it in formal notation.
The market just happens to be global. The US has been pushing pretty hard on WIPO and Free Trade and stuff. Now you folks get to see what happens when other countries export labour and services instead of manufactured goods.
Actually, there are fairly big differences in admining a system, depending on whether it is Microsoft Windows, or a Unixy OS. Amongst the Unices, the big difference is between BSD style init scripts and Sys V style init scripts.
Microsoft systems are slightly more convoluted to manage from the command line, mostly because of the limitations of the default shell.
On the Unix side, you can use configuration management tools like Puppet, cfengine, BCFG2,. LCFG, etc to manage your systems, while there isn't an equivalent opensource toolkit on Windows. There is SMS from Microsoft, which has a fairly hefty price tag.
I can pretty much flip between Unix systems (Used to do AIX, do different Linux distros, OpenBSD and FreeBSD and have a tad of Solaris experience as well). Flipping onto Windows needs a massive mindshift in thought process though.
It's called patronage.
Most of the good ones I know have been on both sides. That includes large chunks of code (in multiple languages - C, Perl, Ruby, shell, SQL, plpgsql, plsql, C++).
.... Not just small, one off scripts. I don't count the ones who can hack together a small script in the good programmers section, but if you can build a library of those, I would definitely consider you a programmer.
I do mean programming -- Being able to choose algorithms, data structures (including complex ones), overall architecture, maintainability
System administration isn't all that different from programming, you are just utilising a different set of libraries.
It's not all that more difficult to run binaries on those systems as well.
Administrators make terrible developers and developers make terrible administrators.
Bull. Every good administrator I know is also a good programmer. Most good programmers I know are also good administrators (the exceptions tend to be academic types).
But then, my experience is on the Unix side where scripting and programming are the norm, as opposed to the Windows side where point and click is the norm.
Nothing constrains events to be handled by a single process. You can just spawn off n processes, one of which is a queue manager for dispatching events to the rest. Each of those processes is then a shared nothing architecture, and independent of the rest of the processes involved. This isn't difficult, see Postfix for example.
Lots of simple applications, each doing one thing well and able to pipeline.
Additionally, locking resources tends to expose you to race conditions. Message passing and/or event driven, shared nothing architectures explicitly make the decision to copy data as opposed to sharing it, and avoid those race conditions. Non atomic access to shared structures is bad, and atomic access becomes the performance bottleneck.
This one perhaps? : Threads.pdf