I don't know about the GP, but my gripes with windows and office aren't about it crashing, although it does occaisionally, but more about how difficult it is to do anything slightly different to the way microsoft expect it to be done.
The two examples which piss me off the most (because I use them the most) are the "Search" function that replaced the old "Find Files", and the mail merge tool in Word. They keep reducing functionality by dumbing it down and locking you in to using wizards that don't do what you need.
If it wasn't that I need compatibility with our customers, I'd roll everything back to NT4 and Office 97.
"To be a good scientist you have to be open minded and willing to accept others theorys."
You don't have to "accept" anything. You have to be willing to "examine" everything. In practice there is too much to personally examine everything , so you end up using others' theories and data until there is some evidence to the contrary, or controversy over their results.
Umm, then how does the GPL work? How can Linus impose a continuing obligation on anyone who re-distributes Linux, or *any* derived work? (Remember, BTW, that the creator of a derived work owns the copyright on it. So if I build some new kernel modules based on Linux, I own the copyright, but Linus can still tell me that I have to GPL them!)
I think that the reason no software company wants to break the GPL in court is because that would set a precedent that breaks all EULAs.
Copyright laws on their own don't prevent reverse engineering, decompiling or writing different but compatible replacements for software. Those things are what the companies desperately want to avoid, and they are forbidden by EULAs, not the law.
Excellent point sir. I had not considered that you would also be recording context. But in that case you would probably want to record 360 degree hi-res video, hi-fi audio and subchannels as to smells, tastes, temp. and anything else you are capable of perceiving.
What we need now are the sensors to feed the damn thing:)
This is not completely true either. While hydrogen will not explode randomly under confinement it is a gas at any reasonable temperature and pressure. In the gaseous state it has a far greater range of combustible concentrations in air. Basically if there is any source of ignition at all a ruptured hydrogen tank will burn violently and completely. As gasoline will only burn in the gaseous state it will only burn as it evaporates, and it is much less likely to ignite. If you think that gasoline is as likely to explode as hydrogen then you have been watching too many american movies. (This doesn't apply to creation on demand schemes, but then why not just use the energy source directly?)
Keeping the IP clean only works to guard against copyright infringement. You don't have to know about a patent to infringe, you just have to use the technology described in the patent. It doesn't matter if it was independently developed, you are still infringing. This is one of the main reasons companies try to get software patents, as well as copyrights.
"Software engineers aren't interested in "a nasty grubby unmaintainable hack" because they know that in the long run it will do more harm than good."
Software engineers might not be interested but real companies are interested in whatever gets the job done the quickest, and costing the least. Part of my job is preparing variable data print jobs. I get the data out of the file and onto the press as quickly as possible. I don't stuff around writing comments or getting a little extra performance out the scripts that I write to run things. Most of these jobs are run once and then never seen again and shaving three seconds of computer time off the processing is not worth my time. Welcome to the world of business:)
If you limit the number of patents what's to stop companies crap-flooding the system with applications in the hope of getting a bigger share of the quota? If you limit the number of applications where do you set the limit? Does Joe Bloggs in his backyard shed get as many applications/patents as e.g. a large aerospace company with 30,000 employees?
"I'll let you in on a secret: she's either an idiot, or a non-technical person who won't stop doing that until she understands the impact. Chances are that in neither case will she ever stop doing it. Just like most users.
When she catches a worm or a virus, explain how she did it, then take the computer away to fix it. Keep it for at least a couple of hours. You need to have an impact on her, for her to understand why she shouldn't do it. If you just go "delete, delete, click, click, run cleaner, reboot, system's ok" then she gets the impression that it's no big deal and she won't believe you no matter how many times you say how serious it is.
How about another variation on that idea - only allow a certain number of patents in each field, but rather than limiting the number granted, expire the oldest patents to keep the number constant. The faster a field is innovating, the faster a patent expires.
Still not quite right. Yes the sound will still reach his ears, but it will effectively be chasing him and will have to travel further through the air. As the intensity decreases with the square of the distance even a moderate forward speed will lower the sound level. Quick example :
Speed of sound 340 m/s. Speed of Harley ~ 34 m/s (120 k/hr) Effective increase in distance = 1/9th
Sound level drop about 20% due to speed.
Hmmm. Some drop, but that's not very significant when dealing with loudness. I think the fact that the exhaust is pointing away is probably a lot more important.
It is my understanding that copyright infringement is actually a civil matter, roughly equivalent to breech of contract, and not a criminal matter at all.
Therefore, no it is not illegal, but it is sue-able.
The docutechs have been through a few changes and upgrades since then though. These days its a dt6180, (which prints at 180 pages/min), and is controlled by a sun blade running xerox software on unix. Most of the parts are still interchangeable with the original dt135's though.
Aassuming something like a xerox docutech the marginal cost to the printer of just the printing is about 3 cents per double-sided b/w leaf, and about 50 cents for a s/sided colour cover (on a paperback). Add to that the cost of binding, handling, and possibly shipping, and POD books are way dearer than traditionally printed books. It's not just the three cents, it's the overheads that kill this sort of scheme. Formatting a text for print on demand is not cheap or quick, and you need to recoup that as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with Einstein on this. :)
I accept that QM is currently the most accurate model of the very small, I just don't like it.
I don't know about the GP, but my gripes with windows and office aren't about it crashing, although it does occaisionally, but more about how difficult it is to do anything slightly different to the way microsoft expect it to be done.
The two examples which piss me off the most (because I use them the most) are the "Search" function that replaced the old "Find Files", and the mail merge tool in Word.
They keep reducing functionality by dumbing it down and locking you in to using wizards that don't do what you need.
If it wasn't that I need compatibility with our customers, I'd roll everything back to NT4 and Office 97.
Two.
One thin one (the edge)
One wide one(the side)
"To be a good scientist you have to be open minded and willing to accept others theorys."
You don't have to "accept" anything. You have to be willing to "examine" everything.
In practice there is too much to personally examine everything , so you end up using others' theories and data until there is some evidence to the contrary, or controversy over their results.
Umm, then how does the GPL work? How can Linus impose a continuing obligation on anyone who re-distributes Linux, or *any* derived work? (Remember, BTW, that the creator of a derived work owns the copyright on it. So if I build some new kernel modules based on Linux, I own the copyright, but Linus can still tell me that I have to GPL them!)
I think that the reason no software company wants to break the GPL in court is because that would set a precedent that breaks all EULAs.
Copyright laws on their own don't prevent reverse engineering, decompiling or writing different but compatible replacements for software. Those things are what the companies desperately want to avoid, and they are forbidden by EULAs, not the law.
anachromism" is a noun , not an adjective. Therefor an article is required. Perhaps you should learn english better before posting.
That's a rather colourless comment.
Excellent point sir.
:)
I had not considered that you would also be recording context. But in that case you would probably want to record 360 degree hi-res video, hi-fi audio and subchannels as to smells, tastes, temp. and anything else you are capable of perceiving.
What we need now are the sensors to feed the damn thing
60 degree ultra hi-res ?
Angle of view is about 150 degrees, but hi-res is only about 2 degrees in the middle.
The rest you could cover with a low-res mpeg.
This is not completely true either.
While hydrogen will not explode randomly under confinement it is a gas at any reasonable temperature and pressure. In the gaseous state it has a far greater range of combustible concentrations in air. Basically if there is any source of ignition at all a ruptured hydrogen tank will burn violently and completely. As gasoline will only burn in the gaseous state it will only burn as it evaporates, and it is much less likely to ignite.
If you think that gasoline is as likely to explode as hydrogen then you have been watching too many american movies.
(This doesn't apply to creation on demand schemes, but then why not just use the energy source directly?)
You store hydrogen gas at room temp and atmospheric pressure and I guarantee you'll get lift !!
(about 10 newtons per cubic metre)
Secondly, why don't more people move back to city and thus not need cars as much?
I keep seeing this type of comment. Why doesn't anyone ever suggest that they move the jobs out to the suburbs?
Keeping the IP clean only works to guard against copyright infringement. You don't have to know about a patent to infringe, you just have to use the technology described in the patent. It doesn't matter if it was independently developed, you are still infringing.
This is one of the main reasons companies try to get software patents, as well as copyrights.
"Software engineers aren't interested in "a nasty grubby unmaintainable hack" because they know that in the long run it will do more harm than good."
:)
Software engineers might not be interested but real companies are interested in whatever gets the job done the quickest, and costing the least.
Part of my job is preparing variable data print jobs. I get the data out of the file and onto the press as quickly as possible. I don't stuff around writing comments or getting a little extra performance out the scripts that I write to run things.
Most of these jobs are run once and then never seen again and shaving three seconds of computer time off the processing is not worth my time.
Welcome to the world of business
If you limit the number of patents what's to stop companies crap-flooding the system with applications in the hope of getting a bigger share of the quota? If you limit the number of applications where do you set the limit? Does Joe Bloggs in his backyard shed get as many applications/patents as e.g. a large aerospace company with 30,000 employees?
How about:
1. Make noises about downsizing,
2. Employees go write viruses in spare time
3. Work picks up
4. Jobs saved!!
It's not necessarily the official company policy, but anyone who benefits from something should at least be suspected of being in favour of it.
"I'll let you in on a secret: she's either an idiot, or a non-technical person who won't stop doing that until she understands the impact. Chances are that in neither case will she ever stop doing it. Just like most users.
When she catches a worm or a virus, explain how she did it, then take the computer away to fix it. Keep it for at least a couple of hours. You need to have an impact on her, for her to understand why she shouldn't do it. If you just go "delete, delete, click, click, run cleaner, reboot, system's ok" then she gets the impression that it's no big deal and she won't believe you no matter how many times you say how serious it is.
How about another variation on that idea - only allow a certain number of patents in each field, but rather than limiting the number granted, expire the oldest patents to keep the number constant. The faster a field is innovating, the faster a patent expires.
You shouldn't put coffee in the freezer, it affects the oils/water in the beans and changes the flavour. Putting it in the fridge is good though.
Still not quite right. Yes the sound will still reach his ears, but it will effectively be chasing him and will have to travel further through the air. As the intensity decreases with the square of the distance even a moderate forward speed will lower the sound level. Quick example :
Speed of sound 340 m/s.
Speed of Harley ~ 34 m/s (120 k/hr)
Effective increase in distance = 1/9th
Sound level drop about 20% due to speed.
Hmmm. Some drop, but that's not very significant when dealing with loudness. I think the fact that the exhaust is pointing away is probably a lot more important.
I don't think we should be interested in marketshare though.
If we can get more people to understand and use free software, then we're doing good.
Is it just my screwy way of looking at things or are these two statements in direct opposition ?
And both replies would be assuming I'm from the USA. Ha.
It is my understanding that copyright infringement is actually a civil matter, roughly equivalent to breech of contract, and not a criminal matter at all. Therefore, no it is not illegal, but it is sue-able.
The docutechs have been through a few changes and upgrades since then though. These days its a dt6180, (which prints at 180 pages/min), and is controlled by a sun blade running xerox software on unix. Most of the parts are still interchangeable with the original dt135's though.
Aassuming something like a xerox docutech the marginal cost to the printer of just the printing is about 3 cents per double-sided b/w leaf, and about 50 cents for a s/sided colour cover (on a paperback). Add to that the cost of binding, handling, and possibly shipping, and POD books are way dearer than traditionally printed books. It's not just the three cents, it's the overheads that kill this sort of scheme.
Formatting a text for print on demand is not cheap or quick, and you need to recoup that as well.
However, for the dwindling read population such as you and me, it is a neat thing.
However, for the dwindling reading population such as you and I, it is a neat thing.