Sure they might need to make some sort of passive sonar reflectors to keep whales from hitting them,
Cliffs, reefs, floating logs and other stationary or slow-moving obstacles are conspicuously devoid of sonar reflectors, but whales and other marine life have a pretty good track record of not swimming into them either.
It should also be said that technically not everyone gets the "real deal" with pension benefits and so on, but mostly anyone within engineering. The situation can be worse in for example biology in some places, and it's totally different in the social sciences.
It used to vary, but the rules changed some years back so they can't offer you a scholarship that isn't in the form of employment anymore (I guess there's still some people around in the system that got accepted into the a program before the new rules). Basically a department can't accept anybody into a PhD program and not beforehand guarantee those five years of real employment, and those departments that have tried to skirt the new rules (as in the case of some foreign PhD students) are getting beat up pretty good over it.
Just to be clear: that is doctoral studies (not a Masters), and while it's a full-time job it is time-limited (in practice to five years) and it's not very well paid compared to the kind of jobs many recent graduates can get if they go into the industry instead of doing a PhD.
I think it makes sense. Doctoral students are doing a job after all, with teaching, administration and a lot of the grunt work on some research project (and as they get closer to finishing, of course, more "real" research).
Heh, a "Japanese" wordprocessor with only katakana is like a spreadsheet with only subtraction. ^_^
You're right, diversity counts for something. Being bilingual is also an important skill; you're working with people in groups spread all over the world. But most important, I think, is that being just a programmer isn't enough for a lot of jobs. You need to really know the problem domain too. If you want to work on an accounting system, say, you really need to know business economy and accounting as well. If you're going to work on something technical you need to know the engineering too.
Too many programmers are in reality either self-learned or college graduates of some computer science program that was heavy on the "computer" part and light on the "science". They know how to program, but _only_ how to program. And that just isn't enough to fill many positions.
That's absolutely ridiculous. International students can afford these things but not American students? It all varies from country to country of course. In Sweden, for example, university enrollment is free. You still take student loans, but only for paying for room and board, and half the money isn't a loan, but a grant. Doctoral studies is a job; you get a salary, with pension benefits, vacation time and all.
to be completely "free of charge" for users while charging the author(s) for publishing is financially even worse for the scientist(s) in question.
Most research is funded and includes funds for this phase, including money for conferences and journal publication - some journals charge both the author (a per-page fee, and extra for every image or illustration) and reader, in case you didn't know that. PLOS do reduce or waive the fee for people that do not have funding, so it's not like good research would stay unpublished because of it.
I know that as a working scientist, unless I'm looking for one specific paper - and normally I'm really not, just any recent papers about some particular subject - I will tend to go with the ones I have reasonably easy access to, and those are the ones notching up another citation, while those behind heavy paywalls and that forbid the authors to put them online will not.
I do have a whitelist on my mobile phone (the only phone I have), for both mail and calls. Nifty thing is, if a number or email is in my addressbook, it'll automatically be on the whitelist. So anybody I've exchanged contact info with can reach me, no problem. I would like the phone to whitelist any number I've called as well; perhaps in the next one.
1. your stranded grandma from calling you
Where she's stranded, no phone calls will go through. If I get a call from my grandmother it's time to call Max von Sydow.
2. friends calling from their friends house
My friends all have mobile phones.
3. that cute girl you just met
I'm married.
4. various official phone calls that you really needed to receive
If it's _official_ and important it'll come through postal mail. If it's work I have that nubmer range listed. If it's neither, well, that's the kind of calls I'm screening against.
I am saying that the same money going into expanding, say, the Venezuelan economy on one hand or the US economy on the other, is going to improve the life of more people - and be more significant improvement - in the first case than in the second.
If you think acting on that observation is bad then so be it; I can't change that attitude and I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying.
Microsoft is a North American company bringing money into the U.S. from other countries
Not being from the US, I'm not torn at all. If I have to give money to a foreign economy I would much rather the money goes to a poor but aspiring economy where the work and the economic improvement makes a very significant improvement in the quality of life for a lot of people, than further feeding an economy that is already the largest in the world.
In fact, given the choice I certainly prefer getting stuff or services originating in China, India or the other aspiring economies than buying it from the US, Europe or Japan.
I have to say that when the whole of this is considered, it is a net negative for the U.S.
There's lots of possible devices out there, with lots of functionality. Some functionality is very important to me, while other is nice to have but not really important. And the lack of "pocket real estate" - the amount of devices I am able and willing to carry - is a very powerful limiting factor.
So, important functionality - for me, camera and electronic dictionary - are important enough for me to warrant their own devices. I am willing to sacrifice precious space in order to get the best possible function in these areas. It means carrying a DSLR in a small pack, and having a separate Casio dictionary.
Other functions are nice and I would not want to be without them, but they're not so important that I want to give up precious space for it. For me it includes things like a sound player and radio (covered by my mobile phone), GPS (I have one that I never bring along), text reader (dictionary), web surfing (phone). These functions need to be built in another device or I end up not using them (but still missing them if I lack it).
Of course, what constitutes essential and what is optional differs from person to person. You listen to music all the time, and just take the occasional snapshot? Get a iPod or other real player and just use the phonecam instead of getting a "real" camera that ends up gathering dust at home. Fortunately, many of these functions are low-cost addons to existing devices, and doesn't hurt a user that wants to be without. Besides, there's low-end phones and other stuff out there for those that absolutely do not want to be saddled with it. Notably, for all that people complain about all those extras, basic models just never sell well when a manufacturer actually tries to listen to the complaints.
Visiting the usa again got less desire-able. No i don't think i will be doing that conference in the US this year again.
My sentiments, exactly. Nowadays, if I can avoid a conference or symposium in the US in favor of one somewhere else I take it - and with the academic world so big, there's no shortage of high-level conferences to choose from either. There seems to be more widespread understanding of this problem lately; "roving" conferences are increasingly avoiding US venues.
This method works along essentially the same principles as the Watt Balance. In it, a superconductor of a known mass is placed within a superconducting coil.
If you have a lump of anything of a known mass, why bother with the rest?
Now there's a good idea, if this ever starts becoming common - reply to every challenge that you didn't originate yourself, thereby authenticating spam for the tool that's spamming you with bogus challenge requests.
I have setup an auto response to anyone not whitelisted.
I got a response like that once, when emailing a researcher about a paper of theirs. I just contacted another person instead and never mailed back to the guy - no point in trying to cooperate with someone like that when there's other, more approachable colleagues around.
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
Yes.
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
AFAIK, no. Static linking is incorporating code directly. If you link dynamically then any library that is LGPL (not GPL) is fine, but for static linking I believe you need to have an open license on your own code as well.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
It's your code - do anything you want. If you're not open-sourcing it, just don't ship the source.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
No. Again, when people have been found to have violated the terms of the license, they've had to stop selling and distributing the stuff. I can imagine cases where someone may have to retroactively pay for the illegal use of code. But I can't see a situation where'd you actually had to open your code.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Well, 1, 3 and 4 isn't a problem under Linux either. 2 - for BSD-licensed libraries you could link statically. But a lot of libs (user-interface stuff and higher-level libs) in BSD systems are LGPL as well - everything in a BSD-based system isn't BSD-licensed.
Well, your assumption is based on everybody who has ever contributed to the Linux kernel codebase adopting GPL v.3.
As several people have stated, the chances of the kernel adopting GPL3, no matter the content of the license is just about nil. And I never said they would or make any such assumptions - I replied to the parent poster about their mistaken belief that current GPL2 code in use would change license. Are you sure you didn't reply to the wrong message here?
Way to shaft all the people who bet their business on your software, bub, by changing the license terms. And the/. crowd complain about Microsoft licensing practices.
Existing software is all GPL version 2. That doesn't change. All they bellyache over is that new software, released under version 3, may not be useable by them. No license is being changed from under their feet.
For quite a lot of journals the submission format really doesn't matter as long as they can get the text and the images (which you often need to submit separately for final submission). The formatting you did is just used for reviewing (and as such only needs to be an approximation of the final format); the final submission is set from the raw text and images no matter what the original format was.
Conferences (and newer, smaller journals) tend to be different in that they really do use the author-submitted formatting, as a base or directly, as-is. Then exact formatting becomes an issue. Of course, look in any conference proceeding and you'll be astonished at the breadth of typographical design that still formally conforms to the same formatting instructions. It's often trivial to pick up the LaTeX-submitted papers (very strictly correct, but with a somewhat formal, old appearance) from early Word versions (thick-set fonts, spacing is all over the place, flush right never really is) and newer Word (OK; pretty neutral appearance though still with strange spacing variability between different elements).
Depends on what you think of when you think of a city
Wasn't thinking of North American cities. As far as public transportation and car dependency goes, they are often pretty dysfunctional. Just because you _can_ make a city come out well doesn't mean that all cities necessarily do.
The 50/50 tipping point doesn't have much other than symbolic value, of course, but it is another signpost on the road forward for humanity. Cities can be - and are - miserable hellholes, of course, but remember that even a bad slum is often a substantial step up compared to a life of rural landlessness.
A city is also quite a lot more efficient than having the same number of people spread out in small communities over a vastly larger area. This goes both for providing seeded services and for pollution - it's far easier and more efficient to process the concentrated waste water from a million people in one set of facilities than try to process the same amount spread out over many small, disconnected systems. Critical services like high-quality health care, communications infrastructure and so on is also much more efficient - or only doable at all in some cases - in an urban environment. Having 200k people taking public transport to work every morning (and an equivalent number walking or bicycling) is a lot better for everybody than having those same people take individual cars. Osaka is a good example, with just about a quarter driving, a quarter using public transport and a quarter walking or bicycling (the last quarter is split up into combinations of more than one mode). By contrast, in a rural environment, the vast majority would list car or motorbike as their mode.
So stop playing in the mud and come to the city! We're open all night!
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they might need to make some sort of passive sonar reflectors to keep whales from hitting them,
Cliffs, reefs, floating logs and other stationary or slow-moving obstacles are conspicuously devoid of sonar reflectors, but whales and other marine life have a pretty good track record of not swimming into them either.
It should also be said that technically not everyone gets the "real deal" with pension benefits and so on, but mostly anyone within engineering. The situation can be worse in for example biology in some places, and it's totally different in the social sciences.
It used to vary, but the rules changed some years back so they can't offer you a scholarship that isn't in the form of employment anymore (I guess there's still some people around in the system that got accepted into the a program before the new rules). Basically a department can't accept anybody into a PhD program and not beforehand guarantee those five years of real employment, and those departments that have tried to skirt the new rules (as in the case of some foreign PhD students) are getting beat up pretty good over it.
Just to be clear: that is doctoral studies (not a Masters), and while it's a full-time job it is time-limited (in practice to five years) and it's not very well paid compared to the kind of jobs many recent graduates can get if they go into the industry instead of doing a PhD.
I think it makes sense. Doctoral students are doing a job after all, with teaching, administration and a lot of the grunt work on some research project (and as they get closer to finishing, of course, more "real" research).
Heh, a "Japanese" wordprocessor with only katakana is like a spreadsheet with only subtraction. ^_^
You're right, diversity counts for something. Being bilingual is also an important skill; you're working with people in groups spread all over the world. But most important, I think, is that being just a programmer isn't enough for a lot of jobs. You need to really know the problem domain too. If you want to work on an accounting system, say, you really need to know business economy and accounting as well. If you're going to work on something technical you need to know the engineering too.
Too many programmers are in reality either self-learned or college graduates of some computer science program that was heavy on the "computer" part and light on the "science". They know how to program, but _only_ how to program. And that just isn't enough to fill many positions.
How do you get electricity out of your nuclear power plant?
Mr. Fusion.
to be completely "free of charge" for users while charging the author(s) for publishing is financially even worse for the scientist(s) in question.
Most research is funded and includes funds for this phase, including money for conferences and journal publication - some journals charge both the author (a per-page fee, and extra for every image or illustration) and reader, in case you didn't know that. PLOS do reduce or waive the fee for people that do not have funding, so it's not like good research would stay unpublished because of it.
I know that as a working scientist, unless I'm looking for one specific paper - and normally I'm really not, just any recent papers about some particular subject - I will tend to go with the ones I have reasonably easy access to, and those are the ones notching up another citation, while those behind heavy paywalls and that forbid the authors to put them online will not.
I do have a whitelist on my mobile phone (the only phone I have), for both mail and calls. Nifty thing is, if a number or email is in my addressbook, it'll automatically be on the whitelist. So anybody I've exchanged contact info with can reach me, no problem. I would like the phone to whitelist any number I've called as well; perhaps in the next one.
1. your stranded grandma from calling you
Where she's stranded, no phone calls will go through. If I get a call from my grandmother it's time to call Max von Sydow.
2. friends calling from their friends house
My friends all have mobile phones.
3. that cute girl you just met
I'm married.
4. various official phone calls that you really needed to receive
If it's _official_ and important it'll come through postal mail. If it's work I have that nubmer range listed. If it's neither, well, that's the kind of calls I'm screening against.
logarithms functions approach a asymptote
No they don't.
Nope. Logarithmic growth generally means it's growing slower and slower, though never actually stopping.
I am saying that the same money going into expanding, say, the Venezuelan economy on one hand or the US economy on the other, is going to improve the life of more people - and be more significant improvement - in the first case than in the second.
If you think acting on that observation is bad then so be it; I can't change that attitude and I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying.
Microsoft is a North American company bringing money into the U.S. from other countries
Not being from the US, I'm not torn at all. If I have to give money to a foreign economy I would much rather the money goes to a poor but aspiring economy where the work and the economic improvement makes a very significant improvement in the quality of life for a lot of people, than further feeding an economy that is already the largest in the world.
In fact, given the choice I certainly prefer getting stuff or services originating in China, India or the other aspiring economies than buying it from the US, Europe or Japan.
I have to say that when the whole of this is considered, it is a net negative for the U.S.
But a net positive for the world.
no touchscreen
Real keys, in other words, with tactile feedback. Much preferable.
There's lots of possible devices out there, with lots of functionality. Some functionality is very important to me, while other is nice to have but not really important. And the lack of "pocket real estate" - the amount of devices I am able and willing to carry - is a very powerful limiting factor.
So, important functionality - for me, camera and electronic dictionary - are important enough for me to warrant their own devices. I am willing to sacrifice precious space in order to get the best possible function in these areas. It means carrying a DSLR in a small pack, and having a separate Casio dictionary.
Other functions are nice and I would not want to be without them, but they're not so important that I want to give up precious space for it. For me it includes things like a sound player and radio (covered by my mobile phone), GPS (I have one that I never bring along), text reader (dictionary), web surfing (phone). These functions need to be built in another device or I end up not using them (but still missing them if I lack it).
Of course, what constitutes essential and what is optional differs from person to person. You listen to music all the time, and just take the occasional snapshot? Get a iPod or other real player and just use the phonecam instead of getting a "real" camera that ends up gathering dust at home. Fortunately, many of these functions are low-cost addons to existing devices, and doesn't hurt a user that wants to be without. Besides, there's low-end phones and other stuff out there for those that absolutely do not want to be saddled with it. Notably, for all that people complain about all those extras, basic models just never sell well when a manufacturer actually tries to listen to the complaints.
Visiting the usa again got less desire-able. No i don't think i will be doing that conference in the US this year again.
My sentiments, exactly. Nowadays, if I can avoid a conference or symposium in the US in favor of one somewhere else I take it - and with the academic world so big, there's no shortage of high-level conferences to choose from either. There seems to be more widespread understanding of this problem lately; "roving" conferences are increasingly avoiding US venues.
This method works along essentially the same principles as the Watt Balance. In it, a superconductor of a known mass is placed within a superconducting coil.
If you have a lump of anything of a known mass, why bother with the rest?
Now there's a good idea, if this ever starts becoming common - reply to every challenge that you didn't originate yourself, thereby authenticating spam for the tool that's spamming you with bogus challenge requests.
I have setup an auto response to anyone not whitelisted.
I got a response like that once, when emailing a researcher about a paper of theirs. I just contacted another person instead and never mailed back to the guy - no point in trying to cooperate with someone like that when there's other, more approachable colleagues around.
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
Yes.
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
AFAIK, no. Static linking is incorporating code directly. If you link dynamically then any library that is LGPL (not GPL) is fine, but for static linking I believe you need to have an open license on your own code as well.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
It's your code - do anything you want. If you're not open-sourcing it, just don't ship the source.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
No. Again, when people have been found to have violated the terms of the license, they've had to stop selling and distributing the stuff. I can imagine cases where someone may have to retroactively pay for the illegal use of code. But I can't see a situation where'd you actually had to open your code.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Well, 1, 3 and 4 isn't a problem under Linux either. 2 - for BSD-licensed libraries you could link statically. But a lot of libs (user-interface stuff and higher-level libs) in BSD systems are LGPL as well - everything in a BSD-based system isn't BSD-licensed.
Well, your assumption is based on everybody who has ever contributed to the Linux kernel codebase adopting GPL v.3.
As several people have stated, the chances of the kernel adopting GPL3, no matter the content of the license is just about nil. And I never said they would or make any such assumptions - I replied to the parent poster about their mistaken belief that current GPL2 code in use would change license. Are you sure you didn't reply to the wrong message here?
Way to shaft all the people who bet their business on your software, bub, by changing the license terms. And the /. crowd complain about Microsoft licensing practices.
Existing software is all GPL version 2. That doesn't change. All they bellyache over is that new software, released under version 3, may not be useable by them. No license is being changed from under their feet.
For quite a lot of journals the submission format really doesn't matter as long as they can get the text and the images (which you often need to submit separately for final submission). The formatting you did is just used for reviewing (and as such only needs to be an approximation of the final format); the final submission is set from the raw text and images no matter what the original format was.
Conferences (and newer, smaller journals) tend to be different in that they really do use the author-submitted formatting, as a base or directly, as-is. Then exact formatting becomes an issue. Of course, look in any conference proceeding and you'll be astonished at the breadth of typographical design that still formally conforms to the same formatting instructions. It's often trivial to pick up the LaTeX-submitted papers (very strictly correct, but with a somewhat formal, old appearance) from early Word versions (thick-set fonts, spacing is all over the place, flush right never really is) and newer Word (OK; pretty neutral appearance though still with strange spacing variability between different elements).
Depends on what you think of when you think of a city
Wasn't thinking of North American cities. As far as public transportation and car dependency goes, they are often pretty dysfunctional. Just because you _can_ make a city come out well doesn't mean that all cities necessarily do.
Sounds like you just need a better class of city. ^_^
The 50/50 tipping point doesn't have much other than symbolic value, of course, but it is another signpost on the road forward for humanity. Cities can be - and are - miserable hellholes, of course, but remember that even a bad slum is often a substantial step up compared to a life of rural landlessness.
A city is also quite a lot more efficient than having the same number of people spread out in small communities over a vastly larger area. This goes both for providing seeded services and for pollution - it's far easier and more efficient to process the concentrated waste water from a million people in one set of facilities than try to process the same amount spread out over many small, disconnected systems. Critical services like high-quality health care, communications infrastructure and so on is also much more efficient - or only doable at all in some cases - in an urban environment. Having 200k people taking public transport to work every morning (and an equivalent number walking or bicycling) is a lot better for everybody than having those same people take individual cars. Osaka is a good example, with just about a quarter driving, a quarter using public transport and a quarter walking or bicycling (the last quarter is split up into combinations of more than one mode). By contrast, in a rural environment, the vast majority would list car or motorbike as their mode.
So stop playing in the mud and come to the city! We're open all night!