I have money. I am not a business. I would pay to not be automatically trackable just because I use higher bandwidth (business class) services. Where is this a problem. Are you saying I must be fully trackable at all times just on the grounds that I might do something criminal? Are you sure you want to take (and live by in all ways yourself) that position?
All taxes are legalized thievery. Quibbling over who the victims are and how much each victim is transgressed against is what allow these things to continue. Such quibbling sanctions the fundamental wrong.
I feel so much better. They already had a law to force me to bend over with or without lube applied. But they deferred it. So they only removed the deferral they didn't make a *new* decision to rape me. What a relief!
No multi-tasking; No new APIs for background processes; Keyboard is just as lame as iPhone and badly scaled to larger screen; no path for Kindle users except iPhone kindle app; no file system access to organize all the stuff you can cram into one of these; no wireless sync whatsoever; only a pound lighter than my macbook air; only 3 hours more battery life than my new macbook pro; no new apps just rework of iWork when all its components are apple proprietary non-industry standard crap.
That which cannot be found with search is not relevant. Murdoch just confessed he is incompetent to figure out how to make money unless he can monopolize news and even the finding of news. Goodbye Mr. Murdoch. Please retire and watch your grandchildren.
Simply scaring people about P2P may be one goal. But I doubt it. Scare them, pass legislation, then more regulation to ensure the bugaboo, largely made up to begin with, does not happen. It is a wedge to allow the government more control of software. And, considering the source, thoroughly in the interest of the movie and record industry. It also makes the control-freaks unhappy about anything that gives any real power to the "consumer" happy. It is worded so that oppose seem to be in favor of insecure computers. Clever but OPPOSE anyway.
The architects are usually uber coders that design entire systems. You can't be a really ace architect without understanding deeply what can be coded, the ways it can be coded and the implications of different approaches. An architect may or may not write some of the actual code. But very often they do.
3) automatic code refactoring and retargeting software;
4) Intelligence Augmentation via new software and systems.
5) Making lisp (or lisp like) language and environment so obviously and unquestionably superior and easy to use that no one would wish to use a lesser language.:)
I so much want this to happen. I left college in 1981 in my sophomore year to work in the field I love, software engineering. I have done many projects that would be worth a PhD if done in the academic context. Much of my career I have worked with PhD credentialed peers. Yet I have no such paper. Beyond the paper, there are things particularly in the more theoretical and research areas that I would like to know much more of. Many of these I do explore with online resources and in books. However I get no credit for these things. I can't use them to gain admittance to say a PhD program. I can't use them to be admitted to a more research oriented project.
I have checked what it would take to pick up this paper in an accredited way many times. The answer with brick and mortar is to take many years off earning an good income and sit in a desk. The online options are not sufficiently accredited. If there were online options with no mandatory time duration and testing out on an all required courses and full accreditation that would be ideal. I suspect it would be ideal to millions of others also.
As the need for continuous re-education and learning increases how can we as a society afford to not make it as efficient and accessible and fully accredited as possible?
What I really want is digital versions of all books in my library and all books I will ever care to read. I have no use anymore for dead trees and unsearchable text. I hope someone offers a reasonable price on digital versions of all books I already own.
Quite a leap there. Out of print books are not available digitally for the vast majority at all. Someone makes them available digitally and charges a fee to some commercial users. That it no way says the fee will always be there or that it will apply to those who are merely readers. Actually I would be very suprised if they did not drop this fee and only proposed it to have something else to give away as a negotiation point. I am continually amazed when people do not see a step toward much better as good because it isn't an immediate leap to their ideal paradisical situation. They see the step in the right direction as evil. Odd lot these humans.
Google's goal is to make all the world's data accessible computationally - indexable, searchable, findable and available to any other computation that can be performed on it such as data mining, concept extraction, knowledge extraction, translation, and so on. It in no way needs to be the sole access path to the data in order to do this. So there is no logical reason it would not offer access te the digitized books through non-google channels. Its plan is much broader and not nearly so evil as trying to own all the information/data.
Why would Apple want Twitter? Is Apple a server/webapp company particularly? No. Is there any great value add in owning Twitter? No. Is the idea of twitter particularly well protected. No. So why would anyone take this random noise seriously?
If you can demonstrably code and as a sysadmin demonstrate you know your systems then that is WAY more important than a piece of paper. I have interviewed a lot of people w/ degrees that can't code and have little real interest in or knowledge about building software or infrastructure or much of anything else actually needed. Getting that first job may be a challenge. But doing well on one is the doorway to other interviews. Successful involvement in an Open Source project is a good entry for programmer types. If nothing else works then do some volunteer sysadmin stuff for some non-profit for a while.
I always and only consider the person and what they demonstrably know and/or have a passion for. The degree is nearly irrelevant to me except in the negative sense of "I can't believe they have CS degree blah-blah and can't even code up a very simply b-tree walker".
Mind control devices have been researched by the US government (possibly others) since the 60s. This much is historical fact. What is at best conjecture as such would be classified is the current state of such techniques and how widely they are or were deployed. Believing one is under mind control without evidence is pretty undermining but not necessarily delusional.
It is certainly possible to mess with someone's mind in lot of nifty ways with modern technology. One of my faves is the technology that allows a voice to project to only a single person in a crowd. That could put many people into a very bizarre state quickly. "You're hearing voices no one else hears? Classic delusion."
So if the many believe something patently false in reality it is "culture" but if only a few believe it then it is "delusion"? Then is there no such thing as a "popular delusion"? Isn't the important thing correspondence with reality / evidence rather than popularity?
Bill "We should relinquish several types of technology" Joy for national technological czar? No freaking way. This is not stepping up to the future. Don't get me wrong. I have tons of respect and admiration for Bill Joy. But the man has some opinions that I believe utterly disqualify him for such a role.
Secondly, I don't believe there should be any such role. The government, let us not forget, managed to get us into this current mess. Despite nearly unlimited power including the power to take roughly 50$ (counting everything) of all our life productivity that pays, the government has managed to put us $10 trillion to $50 trillion (depending on the accounting method) in the hole, embroil us in a war even more senseless than Vietnam (never ending war with no possible victory), removed sensible laws against dangerous financial practices, ignored the evil of new more dangerous practices, and created the housing bubble blowing up in the world's face. This same government acts as if it owns all of our lives and livelihood and can dictate how much we retain and what we may or may not do in more areas of "our" lives every day. So sorry if I am not too excited by a "national CTO". It is time to give these power-lusting yahoos a huge and very deserved vote of NO CONFIDENCE!
Unfortunately as Lawrence Lessig has pointed out repeatedly the laws concerning IP are increasingly whatever various media and other entrenched "rights" holders want to impose to maximize profits. The "laws" are not even run through a legislative process but may be enshrined in software code and hardware that "laws" are then passed for us to be forbidden to even look at. What seems simple on the face of it is actually very complex. Who claims I violate who's rights and are those claimed "rights" valid and what best serves the people including the creators of the content?
In the face of corrupt or lagging legislative processes the people do what they think best for them or simply what they wish. Do we really want to yank their access to what is increasingly the connection to most communication, knowledge, computation and access to variety of non-state/corporate controlled information and opinion on the basis of so shaky a charge and without defense? How is this remotely just? How does it remotely fit the "crime" of downloading a few tunes without paying the media middlement by so draconian a punishment?
Those provisions are sick and a perversion of law to start with. The electronic devices are increasingly extension of our most private and sensitive thoughts and knowledge. Perusing them is nothing less than mind rape. I don't give a damn what those old dudes in bad drag have approved. This is utterly unacceptable.
Yes indeedy. The "land of the free" ain't what it used to be, to say the least. What do they think they are going to find on these external minds they insist on raping? Plans to blow up the White House or something? Would any remotely competent "terrorist" be that stupid? No, there are only two purposes as I see it. The first is to acclimate the people to one atrocity against freedom after another. The second is to accustom us to the idea that the Bill of Rights does not include our mind extensions into computers. The second is far more dangerous imho.
What ShieldW0lf said. If you care about OS, your rep and this project then don't do it. I am guessing your company needs/wants to retain your expertise. So I think you have room to ask for what you want without even risking the gig. If not then hey, it is just a gig. Your skills and knowledge are still yours if the gig doesn't work out.
Slashdot Mirror
No IP laws are good IP laws. So called intellectual property isn't.
I have money. I am not a business. I would pay to not be automatically trackable just because I use higher bandwidth (business class) services. Where is this a problem. Are you saying I must be fully trackable at all times just on the grounds that I might do something criminal? Are you sure you want to take (and live by in all ways yourself) that position?
There is no evidendence whatsover of any severe climate crisis. So this is not motivated by saving the world unless the man is a gullible idiot.
All taxes are legalized thievery. Quibbling over who the victims are and how much each victim is transgressed against is what allow these things to continue. Such quibbling sanctions the fundamental wrong.
I feel so much better. They already had a law to force me to bend over with or without lube applied. But they deferred it. So they only removed the deferral they didn't make a *new* decision to rape me. What a relief!
No multi-tasking;
No new APIs for background processes;
Keyboard is just as lame as iPhone and badly scaled to larger screen;
no path for Kindle users except iPhone kindle app;
no file system access to organize all the stuff you can cram into one of these;
no wireless sync whatsoever;
only a pound lighter than my macbook air;
only 3 hours more battery life than my new macbook pro;
no new apps just rework of iWork when all its components are apple proprietary non-industry standard crap.
That which cannot be found with search is not relevant. Murdoch just confessed he is incompetent to figure out how to make money unless he can monopolize news and even the finding of news. Goodbye Mr. Murdoch. Please retire and watch your grandchildren.
Simply scaring people about P2P may be one goal. But I doubt it. Scare them, pass legislation, then more regulation to ensure the bugaboo, largely made up to begin with, does not happen. It is a wedge to allow the government more control of software. And, considering the source, thoroughly in the interest of the movie and record industry. It also makes the control-freaks unhappy about anything that gives any real power to the "consumer" happy. It is worded so that oppose seem to be in favor of insecure computers. Clever but OPPOSE anyway.
The architects are usually uber coders that design entire systems. You can't be a really ace architect without understanding deeply what can be coded, the ways it can be coded and the implications of different approaches. An architect may or may not write some of the actual code. But very often they do.
I would work on and pay others to work on:
1) Artificial General Intelligence;
2) AI programmers;
3) automatic code refactoring and retargeting software;
4) Intelligence Augmentation via new software and systems.
5) Making lisp (or lisp like) language and environment so obviously and unquestionably superior and easy to use that no one would wish to use a lesser language. :)
I so much want this to happen. I left college in 1981 in my sophomore year to work in the field I love, software engineering. I have done many projects that would be worth a PhD if done in the academic context. Much of my career I have worked with PhD credentialed peers. Yet I have no such paper. Beyond the paper, there are things particularly in the more theoretical and research areas that I would like to know much more of. Many of these I do explore with online resources and in books. However I get no credit for these things. I can't use them to gain admittance to say a PhD program. I can't use them to be admitted to a more research oriented project.
I have checked what it would take to pick up this paper in an accredited way many times. The answer with brick and mortar is to take many years off earning an good income and sit in a desk. The online options are not sufficiently accredited. If there were online options with no mandatory time duration and testing out on an all required courses and full accreditation that would be ideal. I suspect it would be ideal to millions of others also.
As the need for continuous re-education and learning increases how can we as a society afford to not make it as efficient and accessible and fully accredited as possible?
What I really want is digital versions of all books in my library and all books I will ever care to read. I have no use anymore for dead trees and unsearchable text. I hope someone offers a reasonable price on digital versions of all books I already own.
Quite a leap there. Out of print books are not available digitally for the vast majority at all. Someone makes them available digitally and charges a fee to some commercial users. That it no way says the fee will always be there or that it will apply to those who are merely readers. Actually I would be very suprised if they did not drop this fee and only proposed it to have something else to give away as a negotiation point. I am continually amazed when people do not see a step toward much better as good because it isn't an immediate leap to their ideal paradisical situation. They see the step in the right direction as evil. Odd lot these humans.
Google's goal is to make all the world's data accessible computationally - indexable, searchable, findable and available to any other computation that can be performed on it such as data mining, concept extraction, knowledge extraction, translation, and so on. It in no way needs to be the sole access path to the data in order to do this. So there is no logical reason it would not offer access te the digitized books through non-google channels. Its plan is much broader and not nearly so evil as trying to own all the information/data.
Why would Apple want Twitter? Is Apple a server/webapp company particularly? No. Is there any great value add in owning Twitter? No. Is the idea of twitter particularly well protected. No. So why would anyone take this random noise seriously?
I have Comcast internet service but not TV service or a landline phone. What's the problem?
If you can demonstrably code and as a sysadmin demonstrate you know your systems then that is WAY more important than a piece of paper. I have interviewed a lot of people w/ degrees that can't code and have little real interest in or knowledge about building software or infrastructure or much of anything else actually needed. Getting that first job may be a challenge. But doing well on one is the doorway to other interviews. Successful involvement in an Open Source project is a good entry for programmer types. If nothing else works then do some volunteer sysadmin stuff for some non-profit for a while.
I always and only consider the person and what they demonstrably know and/or have a passion for. The degree is nearly irrelevant to me except in the negative sense of "I can't believe they have CS degree blah-blah and can't even code up a very simply b-tree walker".
Mind control devices have been researched by the US government (possibly others) since the 60s. This much is historical fact. What is at best conjecture as such would be classified is the current state of such techniques and how widely they are or were deployed. Believing one is under mind control without evidence is pretty undermining but not necessarily delusional.
It is certainly possible to mess with someone's mind in lot of nifty ways with modern technology. One of my faves is the technology that allows a voice to project to only a single person in a crowd. That could put many people into a very bizarre state quickly. "You're hearing voices no one else hears? Classic delusion."
So if the many believe something patently false in reality it is "culture" but if only a few believe it then it is "delusion"? Then is there no such thing as a "popular delusion"? Isn't the important thing correspondence with reality / evidence rather than popularity?
Bill "We should relinquish several types of technology" Joy for national technological czar? No freaking way. This is not stepping up to the future. Don't get me wrong. I have tons of respect and admiration for Bill Joy. But the man has some opinions that I believe utterly disqualify him for such a role.
Secondly, I don't believe there should be any such role. The government, let us not forget, managed to get us into this current mess. Despite nearly unlimited power including the power to take roughly 50$ (counting everything) of all our life productivity that pays, the government has managed to put us $10 trillion to $50 trillion (depending on the accounting method) in the hole, embroil us in a war even more senseless than Vietnam (never ending war with no possible victory), removed sensible laws against dangerous financial practices, ignored the evil of new more dangerous practices, and created the housing bubble blowing up in the world's face. This same government acts as if it owns all of our lives and livelihood and can dictate how much we retain and what we may or may not do in more areas of "our" lives every day. So sorry if I am not too excited by a "national CTO". It is time to give these power-lusting yahoos a huge and very deserved vote of NO CONFIDENCE!
Unfortunately as Lawrence Lessig has pointed out repeatedly the laws concerning IP are increasingly whatever various media and other entrenched "rights" holders want to impose to maximize profits. The "laws" are not even run through a legislative process but may be enshrined in software code and hardware that "laws" are then passed for us to be forbidden to even look at. What seems simple on the face of it is actually very complex. Who claims I violate who's rights and are those claimed "rights" valid and what best serves the people including the creators of the content?
In the face of corrupt or lagging legislative processes the people do what they think best for them or simply what they wish. Do we really want to yank their access to what is increasingly the connection to most communication, knowledge, computation and access to variety of non-state/corporate controlled information and opinion on the basis of so shaky a charge and without defense? How is this remotely just? How does it remotely fit the "crime" of downloading a few tunes without paying the media middlement by so draconian a punishment?
Those provisions are sick and a perversion of law to start with. The electronic devices are increasingly extension of our most private and sensitive thoughts and knowledge. Perusing them is nothing less than mind rape. I don't give a damn what those old dudes in bad drag have approved. This is utterly unacceptable.
How do we fight and win against this? How do we successfully demand that the government cease and desist from such depredations NOW?
Yes indeedy. The "land of the free" ain't what it used to be, to say the least. What do they think they are going to find on these external minds they insist on raping? Plans to blow up the White House or something? Would any remotely competent "terrorist" be that stupid? No, there are only two purposes as I see it. The first is to acclimate the people to one atrocity against freedom after another. The second is to accustom us to the idea that the Bill of Rights does not include our mind extensions into computers. The second is far more dangerous imho.
What ShieldW0lf said. If you care about OS, your rep and this project then don't do it. I am guessing your company needs/wants to retain your expertise. So I think you have room to ask for what you want without even risking the gig. If not then hey, it is just a gig. Your skills and knowledge are still yours if the gig doesn't work out.