I was wondering that too. I think Nokia and HP should have made a deal to put WebOS on Nokia's phones. This would be good for both companies. It would have instantly created a huge market for WebOS apps and created a real viable alternative to iOS and Android. I highly doubt HP on their own will be able to make much of a dent in the current market.
[OT: What's with the double/triple spacing of the comment text?]
As has been pointed out in many comments above, you do not have to distribute the source code with the binaries! Just put it up on your website. Microsoft doesn't have to do anything to support this.
I don't think there are really that many Libertarians here, its just that the ones who are here are very loud. Kinda like how whenever there is an article related to browsers the "use Opera" crowd comes out of the woodwork.
This is where you are mistaken - the users didn't enter it into the Bing toolbar search (which, as far as I know, isn't like the Firefox search bar - the Bing toolbar only searches Bing). Here's a quote from the article (bolding added by me):
It strongly suggests that Bing was copying Google’s results, by watching what some people do at Google via Internet Explorer.
So the Google engineers had the Bing toolbar installed and Suggested Sites turned on. Then they went to www.google.com, entered the honeypotted search terms and the Bing toolbar and/or Suggested Sites picked up the bogus association and added it to the Bing database.
Yeah, that's initially what I thought. But I read Nvidia's presentation on the Tegra 2 and they claim that there is power savings for various reasons. You can read it here (PDF).
Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased. In fact, what's happening is that the middle class is shrinking, the upper class is staying relatively stable, and the poor are growing.
It doesn't look like the growing income inequality in the U.S. is due to tax policy. See this Slate series (Part 5 discusses tax policy).
The second link is from the CBC. Submitter just copy-pasted that sentence from the article. The CBC mentions Canada because that their audience. Nothing to see here, move along...
Heh, heh, reminds me of the Whackbat rules from Fantastic Mr. Fox:
"Basically, there's three grabbers, three taggers, five twig runners, and a player at Whackbat. Center tagger lights a pine cone and chucks it over the basket and the whack-batter tries to hit the cedar stick off the cross rock. Then the twig runners dash back and forth until the pine cone burns out and the umpire calls hotbox. Finally, you count up however many score-downs it adds up to and divide that by nine."
Does anyone know why lower numbers give higher priority? Isn't it more intuitive to use higher numbers for higher priority? I'm curious as to why it was done this way...
Sure, they haven't hassled others with their "defensive" patents -- yet. What happens when they start losing money and market share (in fact its started already)? They might decide to leverage all their patents to generate more revenue.
I'm no economist but if I recall correctly, the true definition of a free market includes not only the free movement of capital (ie. companies are free to seek out the cheapest labour and build their factories there) but also the free movement of labour (ie. workers are free to move to wherever they can get the highest wages).
If that is correct, it becomes clear what the real problem is - the "globalization" and "free markets" that are currently being promoted are not being implemented correctly and are causing all kinds of problems.
Consider the implications of the current implementation of "free markets": (a) Big business gets to take advantage of low cost labour thereby enabling them to either sell their goods cheaper or increase their profits (guess which one most of them are choosing). (b) Workers are not allowed to seek out higher wages in participating countries, keeping their wages low.
For example, lets imagine there was a true free market in effect between the US and India. Initially, the IT labour in India is cheaper so US companies start outsourcing there. US IT pros, seeing their jobs starting to move to India start working for less in order to keep their jobs.
On the other side of the ocean, Indian IT professionals see that US IT professionals get paid more than they do so they start migrating to the US in search of the higher wages (they are automatically granted work visas due to the free movement of labour).
Big business, seeing all of their cheap Indian IT pros starting to move to the US start to increase wages in India (where there factories/offices are) in order to discourage Indians from leaving.
After awhile, an equilibrium should establish itself between the two countries at an optimum wage rate due to the increase in competition created by the addition of the Indian IT pros.
Obviously, in the current form of "free markets" this cannot happen and hence the reason for all those WTO, "anti-globalization" protests. The current form is effectively a way for rich people to get richer, poor people to stay poor, and the elimination of the middle class (the majority of which will join the ranks of the poor).
Thanks a lot America!! *Raises middle finger in direction of White House*
I don't understand this idea of giving the voter a receipt as a way of auditing...seems pretty flawed to me.
The solution seems pretty clear to me (I must be missing something). The impression I get from reading the replies to this post is that Americans want electronic voting machines because they have to vote for so many things all at once (as opposed to Canada where we pretty much just vote for one thing at a time). At the same time, they would like a paper trail so that they can verify that the machines are doing the right thing. So why not have your electronic voting machines print a *readable* receipt for the voter to verify. But instead of letting the voter take it home (and sell it, lose it, whatever), have them put it in a locked box on the way out. Then, if someone suspects that the machine is not doing the right thing, they can open up the box and count the receipts (with a bunch of officials/witnesses watching). E-voting with paper trail, non?
I setup an operating system lab at UBC a few years ago. It consisted of about 10 PCs connected to a serial port hub and a "reset controller". Basically, you interacted with them via the serial ports and telnet and the reset controller allowed the students to reboot them on command. I actually found the software and schematics for the controller at another university (can't remember which). The operating system (in this case Xinu - think simple Unix) was loaded via tftp. All of this was accessible from their lab workstations. Not sure if the same setup will work for you, but it might be handy for the students to remote reboot machines in case they get hung. I'm sure they will help you out if you contact the Comp Sci. department. Of course I'm pretty sure you can't tftp boot Windows, so if thats what you plan on using you're SOL:-)
If SQL doesn't stand for structured query language, what does it stand for? Or is this guy just full of sh*t? This also is mentioned in "The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02)" and is attributed to Allen G. Taylor. Can anyone clear this up?
The two technologies are really targeting different markets. J2EE is really aimed at large enterprises. As such, it was designed primarily for scalability (not performance). That means lots of layers, etc. so that they can be put on different machines and clusters and stuff like that. This makes J2EE more complex as well but once you learn it, you can do more with it. J2EE application servers also do a lot more for you than Microsofts application server technology..NET (as with all MS software) is really aimed at the small to medium sized enterprise. MS is focused mainly on making their stuff easy to use. So the learning curve isn't as steep, but once you start building more sophisticated applications,.NET is not as flexible.
Tool support is the biggest draw to.NET. Visual Studio is really easy to use. While the Java folks have spent the past few years focusing on refining the technology itself - tool support has suffered. However, that will soon change - Eclipse and Netbeans are coming along and Sun will soon be releasing new easier to use tools.
You also cannot ignore the proprietary nature of.NET. You will be locked in if you use it. Mono is coming along nicely but do you really think that MS will maintain compatibility with it in the long run? Given their history, I seriously doubt it. With Java and J2EE I can setup complete development and production environments without paying a single license fee. There is also healthy competition in the J2EE app server market so if you are using Websphere and IBM pisses you off, you can dump them and switch to BEA (with minimal porting effort).
Like you, I've also had to evaluate both technologies (I work for an enterprise consulting firm) and believe that J2EE is the way to go. Initially, it may cost more (if you use the proprietary software) but it is worth it since you have far more control over it and more options.
This is work experience just like any other job. The fact that you didn't get paid for it or that it was volunteer doesn't make any difference to someone looking at your resume. The point of the resume is to show what *related* work you have done in the past. So if you are applying for a software related position, your OS work is definately relevent work experience and should be listed with all your other work experience.
We also strip all executable attachements from all mail. Its the most effective way of dealing with e-mail bourne viruses. Even though it may sound kind of drastic, keep in mind that people don't generally need to be sending executable content via e-mail. In a business setting, you usually need to allow various Microsoft attachments but for discussion lists, binary attachments should not be necessary. Virus scanners are more trouble than they are worth since you have to keep them up-to-date and any new viruses will still get through until the AV vendor updates their scanner data.
MythTV and Freevo (links have been posted in earlier comments) are coming along nicely. I believe MythTV supports more than one capture card. MythTV will then allow you to watch live tv at the same time as its recording another channel.
I think the difficulty with openPVR systems right now is the lack of support for hardware encoding. If we had that, you wouldn't need a super fast CPU to do tv capture - reducing the cost of building one. Software wise, yes they are tricky to setup and lack some neato features, but the main feature are there and they haven't had time to mature yet so be patient.
No one is telling you that you must publish anything. However, if you do decide to publish it, the end users should be guaranteed certain freedoms. Please read the GPL at www.gnu.org before you comment on it.
Re:Interesting read, but you're forgetting one thi
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If I understand correctly, you actually don't have property rights with regards to software. That's the whole point of copyrights and patents - you don't own ideas, the public does, but you are granted a limited monopoly for a short period of time as an incentive. Remember, software is not really a physical thing like a car or a piece of beef jerky - its a bunch of information.
Re:My freedom of choice is most important.
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 1
You seem to have missed the point of Free Software and the GPL entirely.
There's nothing in the GPL or GNU or the Free Software movement that says you can 't sell code.
90% of all software is custom made software for which the GPL doesn't apply. The GPL only applies to *publicly* distributed software. Most programmers will never write a single piece of publically distributed software during their whole career. So you can stop worrying about not making any money:-)
If you write some code at home and want to keep it secret - go ahead. No one from the Free Software movement will bother you one bit. But if you decide to make that software available to the public (at some cost or no cost) then the Free Software movement wants to make sure that users (including other developers) will have the freedoms defined in the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently they are developing a Netflix plugin for Chrome that may work on Linux. See here.
I was wondering that too. I think Nokia and HP should have made a deal to put WebOS on Nokia's phones. This would be good for both companies. It would have instantly created a huge market for WebOS apps and created a real viable alternative to iOS and Android. I highly doubt HP on their own will be able to make much of a dent in the current market.
[OT: What's with the double/triple spacing of the comment text?]
As has been pointed out in many comments above, you do not have to distribute the source code with the binaries! Just put it up on your website. Microsoft doesn't have to do anything to support this.
I don't think there are really that many Libertarians here, its just that the ones who are here are very loud. Kinda like how whenever there is an article related to browsers the "use Opera" crowd comes out of the woodwork.
This is where you are mistaken - the users didn't enter it into the Bing toolbar search (which, as far as I know, isn't like the Firefox search bar - the Bing toolbar only searches Bing). Here's a quote from the article (bolding added by me):
It strongly suggests that Bing was copying Google’s results, by watching what some people do at Google via Internet Explorer.
So the Google engineers had the Bing toolbar installed and Suggested Sites turned on. Then they went to www.google.com, entered the honeypotted search terms and the Bing toolbar and/or Suggested Sites picked up the bogus association and added it to the Bing database.
Yeah, that's initially what I thought. But I read Nvidia's presentation on the Tegra 2 and they claim that there is power savings for various reasons. You can read it
here (PDF).
It doesn't look like the growing income inequality in the U.S. is due to tax policy. See this Slate series (Part 5 discusses tax policy).
The second link is from the CBC. Submitter just copy-pasted that sentence from the article. The CBC mentions Canada because that their audience. Nothing to see here, move along...
Heh, heh, reminds me of the Whackbat rules from Fantastic Mr. Fox:
"Basically, there's three grabbers, three taggers, five twig runners, and a player at Whackbat. Center tagger lights a pine cone and chucks it over the basket and the whack-batter tries to hit the cedar stick off the cross rock. Then the twig runners dash back and forth until the pine cone burns out and the umpire calls hotbox. Finally, you count up however many score-downs it adds up to and divide that by nine."
This looks like a project that is trying to do what you are talking about:
http://www.volatileminds.net/projects/clamav/
Does anyone know why lower numbers give higher priority? Isn't it more intuitive to use higher numbers for higher priority? I'm curious as to why it was done this way...
Sure, they haven't hassled others with their "defensive" patents -- yet. What happens when they start losing money and market share (in fact its started already)? They might decide to leverage all their patents to generate more revenue.
I'm no economist but if I recall correctly, the true definition of a free market includes not only the free movement of capital (ie. companies are free to seek out the cheapest labour and build their factories there) but also the free movement of labour (ie. workers are free to move to wherever they can get the highest wages).
If that is correct, it becomes clear what the real problem is - the "globalization" and "free markets" that are currently being promoted are not being implemented correctly and are causing all kinds of problems.
Consider the implications of the current implementation of "free markets":
(a) Big business gets to take advantage of low cost labour thereby enabling them to either sell their goods cheaper or increase their profits (guess which one most of them are choosing).
(b) Workers are not allowed to seek out higher wages in participating countries, keeping their wages low.
For example, lets imagine there was a true free market in effect between the US and India. Initially, the IT labour in India is cheaper so US companies start outsourcing there. US IT pros, seeing their jobs starting to move to India start working for less in order to keep their jobs.
On the other side of the ocean, Indian IT professionals see that US IT professionals get paid more than they do so they start migrating to the US in search of the higher wages (they are automatically granted work visas due to the free movement of labour).
Big business, seeing all of their cheap Indian IT pros starting to move to the US start to increase wages in India (where there factories/offices are) in order to discourage Indians from leaving.
After awhile, an equilibrium should establish itself between the two countries at an optimum wage rate due to the increase in competition created by the addition of the Indian IT pros.
Obviously, in the current form of "free markets" this cannot happen and hence the reason for all those WTO, "anti-globalization" protests. The current form is effectively a way for rich people to get richer, poor people to stay poor, and the elimination of the middle class (the majority of which will join the ranks of the poor).
Thanks a lot America!! *Raises middle finger in direction of White House*
I don't understand this idea of giving the voter a receipt as a way of auditing...seems pretty flawed to me.
The solution seems pretty clear to me (I must be missing something). The impression I get from reading the replies to this post is that Americans want electronic voting machines because they have to vote for so many things all at once (as opposed to Canada where we pretty much just vote for one thing at a time). At the same time, they would like a paper trail so that they can verify that the machines are doing the right thing. So why not have your electronic voting machines print a *readable* receipt for the voter to verify. But instead of letting the voter take it home (and sell it, lose it, whatever), have them put it in a locked box on the way out. Then, if someone suspects that the machine is not doing the right thing, they can open up the box and count the receipts (with a bunch of officials/witnesses watching). E-voting with paper trail, non?
I setup an operating system lab at UBC a few years ago. It consisted of about 10 PCs connected to a serial port hub and a "reset controller". Basically, you interacted with them via the serial ports and telnet and the reset controller allowed the students to reboot them on command. I actually found the software and schematics for the controller at another university (can't remember which). The operating system (in this case Xinu - think simple Unix) was loaded via tftp. All of this was accessible from their lab workstations. Not sure if the same setup will work for you, but it might be handy for the students to remote reboot machines in case they get hung. I'm sure they will help you out if you contact the Comp Sci. department. Of course I'm pretty sure you can't tftp boot Windows, so if thats what you plan on using you're SOL :-)
If SQL doesn't stand for structured query language, what does it stand for? Or is this guy just full of sh*t? This also is mentioned in "The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02)" and is attributed to Allen G. Taylor. Can anyone clear this up?
The two technologies are really targeting different markets. J2EE is really aimed at large enterprises. As such, it was designed primarily for scalability (not performance). That means lots of layers, etc. so that they can be put on different machines and clusters and stuff like that. This makes J2EE more complex as well but once you learn it, you can do more with it. J2EE application servers also do a lot more for you than Microsofts application server technology. .NET (as with all MS software) is really aimed at the small to medium sized enterprise. MS is focused mainly on making their stuff easy to use. So the learning curve isn't as steep, but once you start building more sophisticated applications, .NET is not as flexible.
.NET. Visual Studio is really easy to use. While the Java folks have spent the past few years focusing on refining the technology itself - tool support has suffered. However, that will soon change - Eclipse and Netbeans are coming along and Sun will soon be releasing new easier to use tools.
.NET. You will be locked in if you use it. Mono is coming along nicely but do you really think that MS will maintain compatibility with it in the long run? Given their history, I seriously doubt it. With Java and J2EE I can setup complete development and production environments without paying a single license fee. There is also healthy competition in the J2EE app server market so if you are using Websphere and IBM pisses you off, you can dump them and switch to BEA (with minimal porting effort).
Tool support is the biggest draw to
You also cannot ignore the proprietary nature of
Like you, I've also had to evaluate both technologies (I work for an enterprise consulting firm) and believe that J2EE is the way to go. Initially, it may cost more (if you use the proprietary software) but it is worth it since you have far more control over it and more options.
I believe X10 makes some cheap wireless video transmitter thingys that would probably work.
This is work experience just like any other job. The fact that you didn't get paid for it or that it was volunteer doesn't make any difference to someone looking at your resume. The point of the resume is to show what *related* work you have done in the past. So if you are applying for a software related position, your OS work is definately relevent work experience and should be listed with all your other work experience.
We also strip all executable attachements from all mail. Its the most effective way of dealing with e-mail bourne viruses. Even though it may sound kind of drastic, keep in mind that people don't generally need to be sending executable content via e-mail. In a business setting, you usually need to allow various Microsoft attachments but for discussion lists, binary attachments should not be necessary. Virus scanners are more trouble than they are worth since you have to keep them up-to-date and any new viruses will still get through until the AV vendor updates their scanner data.
MythTV and Freevo (links have been posted in earlier comments) are coming along nicely. I believe MythTV supports more than one capture card. MythTV will then allow you to watch live tv at the same time as its recording another channel.
I think the difficulty with openPVR systems right now is the lack of support for hardware encoding. If we had that, you wouldn't need a super fast CPU to do tv capture - reducing the cost of building one. Software wise, yes they are tricky to setup and lack some neato features, but the main feature are there and they haven't had time to mature yet so be patient.
MIT recently released the source code for DSpace. We are currently evaluating it for use by our company.
No one is telling you that you must publish anything. However, if you do decide to publish it, the end users should be guaranteed certain freedoms. Please read the GPL at www.gnu.org before you comment on it.
If I understand correctly, you actually don't have property rights with regards to software. That's the whole point of copyrights and patents - you don't own ideas, the public does, but you are granted a limited monopoly for a short period of time as an incentive. Remember, software is not really a physical thing like a car or a piece of beef jerky - its a bunch of information.
You seem to have missed the point of Free Software and the GPL entirely.
:-)
There's nothing in the GPL or GNU or the Free Software movement that says you can 't sell code.
90% of all software is custom made software for which the GPL doesn't apply. The GPL only applies to *publicly* distributed software. Most programmers will never write a single piece of publically distributed software during their whole career. So you can stop worrying about not making any money
If you write some code at home and want to keep it secret - go ahead. No one from the Free Software movement will bother you one bit. But if you decide to make that software available to the public (at some cost or no cost) then the Free Software movement wants to make sure that users (including other developers) will have the freedoms defined in the GPL.