If I replaced the engine with a better performer every two years and replaced every part that broke with an permanent upgrade, would I care that it was a nine year old car?
no. There is no analogy to be made here. The other guy was flat wrong to conflate today's XP with yesterday's Linux.
Uh, XP from 2001 is a nine year old operating system. It's pretty bad.
XP in 2010 is a what? 2 year old operating system? 2008 was the last major kernel revision, if that's how you want to count.
I can't even begin to count the components that have been upgraded, patched, replaced in XP; the process continues, first Tuesday of every month, like clockwork.
Your comparison is a total bogey strawman. If I were running XP RTM 1, and NEVER upgraded, it might hold some water, and then may I remind you of the INTENSE user-friendlyness and broad, professional service and support available in Linux distros in 2001?
XP is an operating system that has been around for 9 years. It is NOT a nine year old operating system. An operating system is also not a car.
In fact, I'd say they've hammered out quite a few of its problems pretty satisfactorily, which is why so few people are switching.
Its the difference in thinking about it like a nerd person and thinking about it like a business person, then. All I quibble with is your assertion, correct from one perspective, that one should think about what the client is willing to spend on what you are giving them.
"Your time is worth what they think it's worth, and I assure you, you're a hell of a lot cheaper than the alternatives. (And provide better value, considering that half the time you're sitting fixing stuff you're providing a computer class in how to not have this happen again.)"
this is true; its just that to a business person, this is the wrong end of the snake to grab. the right end is "how much money do you want to make?" and then you derive the answer from that point by weighing your skills, what the market is willing to pay, etc., and arrive at a) a target market segment or b) the realiztion you need to make some changes to reach your goal.
see? this is an ontological difference here, and it's why business people succeed despite have little or no actually useful or interesting skills and contributing nothing to mankind, and why geeks fail, despite being bright and competent and doing interesting and valuable things.
we're not in disagreement over the issue, we're is disagreement over how to give advice on it. My advice is, learn fundamental business practices to a high level of competency and follow them, just like you do in app dev. Don't muddle through it by experimenting; learn the rules and apply some rigor to your process when you set up a business.
Good coders don't fumble around trying different shit until it just kind of works, they know how to organize, explain, attack and solve the problem in a structured way. same thing in the money world.
This is categorically untrue. One does in fact set the value of one's time.
You think you're worth $100/hour, you don't take $50. this is an iron law in service work from hairdressers to auto mechanics to software consultants.
the client doesn't set your rates, or you'll work for free. YOU set your rates.
whether or not you have accurately valued your skills, your market and your costs determines how much work you have.
this is why so many, many, many geeks fail at businesses, esp. small businesses. You have no idea how stuff like this works and you end up working for free or or blowing your earnings out of the water with costs.
Medicine is currently more or less based on science, but that only because science has taken such a large role in our brave new society.
Medicine has always been more art than science, famously so; a doctor is not a scientist, even if he researchs and publishes, he's a different animal from a clinical researcher.
Doctors make, and have always made, and will always make, medical decisions on far less verity than any scientist would accept, for obvious reasons. Thanks to modern science, you can almost count on him(or her- new times indeed) not to kill you with the treatment. Our modern doctor has a vast arsenal of sceince based medicine at his disposal, but you may trust that every decision he makes is grounded in nothing more or less than his own hubris, and if you're lucky, his brains and experience and his expertise. Nothing whatsoever to do with science. In point of fact, our medical educational system is mostly designed to weed out the unintelligent, the fools and the irresponsible- aside from basic scientific literacy, that is your guarantee that your doctor won't fuck you up even worse- a general merit system. Works pretty well, actually! Science? Nothing to do with it.
Thanks to, again, modern science, and medical institutions, he is right more often than not, or has the tools to attack a problem he may not be right about, but he is not a scientist. He is an artist.
Picasso has more in common with a doctor than Neil Bohrs by a large margin. Sleep on that before your next checkup, o my brothers.
female: "crafty chick turns out clever "invention", wants to "help people" - awwww!"
hypothetical:
male: "a thrifty, socially motivated boy genius has turned industry on its head with an astounding demonstration of scientific innovation and prowess beyond his years."
not to be too much of a pollyanna, but why not let them figure it out for themselves? the african subcontinent mastered metallurgy, hi-rise constructon and airports in fifty years- i'd be enthralled to see what they could make of a boatload of free processors and assorted gadgetry.
at a generous reserve, ship over a few "teach english in singapore for a year" types, only with comp sci/doowhicklee engineering degrees instead of english.
they all talk in sparks and numbers anyway, and kids are great at learning - that's $50K for a year's shipping and handling, $500K for a "program" to farm out gullible young college students to benighted hick villages, and bingobango- progress!
can we just mark down a pile of old engineering calculators and call it a day? I remember watching some smarty-pants play Mario on his calculator during enviromental engineering classes lo these many years ago.
or cell phones, for gods' sake, my cell phone has a 314MHz processor in it, I played duke nukem 3D and watched streaming video on PCs that were slower, this cannot be that difficult.
figure it out, people and stop cluttering up/. with these endless utopian woolgathering snipehunts; please, and thank you.
I never said these photos were entered as evidence. They were used in the sentencing phase to sway the judge, which is all as it should be.
Anyway, relevance is the prevailing standard for entering a photograph as evidence- all a judge has to do is look at a photo, decide if it's relevant to the case, and bingobango, it's entered. chian of possesion is fairly moot these days, although the defense can certainly challenge.
If those photos had cropped up during trial, the only problem the prosecutor would have had would have been not popping the champagne too soon.
This is a categoric misapprehension, and specious, not only to say astoundingly wrong. the Department of Justic administrates the application of federal law. It is NOT an arm of the executive branch.
The executive branch retains the privilege of installing administrative heads of cabinet, secretarys, and etc. it does not exercise operational or even policy control over departments.
I sincerely hope you are not, as your.sig implies, a lawyer for anyone, or at least for anyone involved in litigating a federal case.
making fun of the legal system and the fact that he maimed another human being by his terrible, irresponsible behavior before he was finished with trial seems like an excellent reason to punish him more harshly. what's the problem?
and yes, he should be solemn, mournful, unhappy, grevious, penitent. he should not be "partying". he is a bad person, and shameful person, any expression of mirth or glee from him before his due punishment is inappropriate, hurtful, demonstrative of low character, and deserving of harsh recompense.
put yourself in the victim's shoes- how would you feel if you knew that while you writhed in agony for months in a hospital bed, the jackass who put you there through no fault of your own is yukking it up and making fun of your suffering?
you'd probably want him dead, not just slammed up for 2 years.
I think discovery will be the more pressing issue.
in court, in this enlightened time and place, the defense has full access to all the evidence that the prosecutor has, beforehand, to make a reasonable case, which is just and proper.
now, is the defense going to be appeal to file appeals based on incomplete discovery, or even withholding (an offense that can cost an attorney his bar, let alone criminal charges), if the prosecutor showboats stuff like this late in a trial?
how will "victim impact statements"(ugh) come to bear in sentencing with stuff like this? surely old/unrelated photos and MySpace testimony are not out of bounds for that, even if not applicable in trial....
it's a picture of a man, laughing it up about his time in court, which was supposedly the solemn justice meted out for his terrible crime, which left a fellow man in crippled and maimed for life.
the alchohol is not the issue, and the judge's comments accurately reflect this.
This is correct use of technology- hands down, a winning proposition.
Now, it may not be so when prosecutors dredge up photos unrelated to, older, than, or from a different person with the same name, so this only argues for more transparent ways for hosts, services, and users to find unshakeable ways to authenticate what happens under their aegis. opt-in automatic encrypted transmission watermarks, anyone?
I'm glad of this: It means that a few years down the road, I can visit the Space Museum and my sturdy young son will see with his new eyes, under the fierce and optimistic Florida sun, another step in the hopes of man to go further than their birth.
He'll be just as mad as I was, all those years ago, smelling the hot dusty grass and the tarmac and sea, looking at those mighty silver birds, purpose built by the best we hade within us, that he can't climb in the real one, and has to go inside to the mockup.
I hope what he sees was what I saw, so far away and yet so close to hand, all those years ago. I hope the shuttle means to him what the moon lander meant to me- untrammelled hope and faith in human endeavour.
Rest in peace, big old bird; even parked on the forever runway, we'll always look at you with untarnished eyes and souls full of wonder.
So the future is giant databases running in RAM, backed up to nearby RAM and only written to disk on schedule or in extremis? sounds... kind of cyberspace?
It has not. it has been settled law since 1977-79 or so, cf Torres v PR, US v Ramsey. those decisions were based in an understanding of common law that weights national sovreignty over individual rights while at a national border.
it may well have been a common understanding of the law, but precedent for this, in the US, starts in 1977.
so, in a qualified manner, that's *a* century ago...:)
Seriously, just a few tweaks to the WP:CIO and WP:NPOV and problem solved- think of the labor that could be saved astroturfing your preferred talk pages, managing your socks and generating those irritating reports to management about your viral marketing efforts or penny pump-and-dumps.
Bonus for cult members: no more flagellation, starvation, or extended co-ordination for wiki-raids. Just tell Dear Leader or Most Holy to budget some coin out of his Malibu/Lear/Bentley/cocaine/hooker/caucasian trophy wife fund and you can breathe easy.
it makes my phsycially ill to think of a another Clinton in the White House. What the devil in going here? Are these people the goddamned Stuarts and the Burgundys?
the next step from Hillary in the White House is Chelsea marrying one of Jeb's boys to reconcile the bloodlines. I may need to go throw up now.
help keep America free of hereditary rulers- vote against Clinton.
No. genius, the steelworker is cursing the engineer because he has asked for impossible work under present conditions, with no regard to the final outcome. He's making just as much, if not more, than the engineer; der. that's 'der'. as in, "deeeerrrrrrrreeererer, i am missing the obvious."
Were you under the impression, that, somehow, the steel worker knew less about the process than the quoteunquote designer? Or the architect, or the engineer?
I assure you, they don't, and neither do you, espcially- you've put yourself in a special category of bald-faced, ham-handed ignorance, by being the "CEO"- you might as well be an oven-mitted retard with a special helmet on waiting for the short bus as regards any actual work being performed in your vincinity.
You get in the way. You are a drag on the system. you provide nothing but the motivation to hate. You are, in short, the problem, not the solution. No bullshit formula you cook up in the trivial hours you spend at your desk will make a difference. Other people are already doing your job, in your name, and your job is simply to smile. laugh hearty, and hopefully, go to jail and get pounded in the ass by Bubba when your accountant's filthy schemes fall through.
That's it- look pretty, shut the fuck up, and try not getting the way of real men and real women doing real work. 'Cause you're not real. You're fake.
I don't wish to smack around an otherwise fantastic post -- something rarely seen here -- but it's probably not wise for a Lawyer to lecture on logic in a forum full fo computer scientists.:-) What you're describing isn't remotely logic. None of the items are proofs, and none of them relies on proof of a previous lemma.
QED the nature of the misunderstanding- in law, as in politics, sex, and spiritual endeavour, truth is relative, with good reason.
To a nerd, truth is absolute. This is why nerds make lousy lawyers, and worse politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
no. There is no analogy to be made here. The other guy was flat wrong to conflate today's XP with yesterday's Linux.
XP in 2010 is a what? 2 year old operating system? 2008 was the last major kernel revision, if that's how you want to count.
I can't even begin to count the components that have been upgraded, patched, replaced in XP; the process continues, first Tuesday of every month, like clockwork.
Your comparison is a total bogey strawman. If I were running XP RTM 1, and NEVER upgraded, it might hold some water, and then may I remind you of the INTENSE user-friendlyness and broad, professional service and support available in Linux distros in 2001?
XP is an operating system that has been around for 9 years. It is NOT a nine year old operating system. An operating system is also not a car.
In fact, I'd say they've hammered out quite a few of its problems pretty satisfactorily, which is why so few people are switching.
this is true; its just that to a business person, this is the wrong end of the snake to grab. the right end is "how much money do you want to make?" and then you derive the answer from that point by weighing your skills, what the market is willing to pay, etc., and arrive at a) a target market segment or b) the realiztion you need to make some changes to reach your goal.
see? this is an ontological difference here, and it's why business people succeed despite have little or no actually useful or interesting skills and contributing nothing to mankind, and why geeks fail, despite being bright and competent and doing interesting and valuable things.
we're not in disagreement over the issue, we're is disagreement over how to give advice on it. My advice is, learn fundamental business practices to a high level of competency and follow them, just like you do in app dev. Don't muddle through it by experimenting; learn the rules and apply some rigor to your process when you set up a business.
Good coders don't fumble around trying different shit until it just kind of works, they know how to organize, explain, attack and solve the problem in a structured way. same thing in the money world.
This is categorically untrue. One does in fact set the value of one's time.
You think you're worth $100/hour, you don't take $50. this is an iron law in service work from hairdressers to auto mechanics to software consultants.
the client doesn't set your rates, or you'll work for free. YOU set your rates.
whether or not you have accurately valued your skills, your market and your costs determines how much work you have.
this is why so many, many, many geeks fail at businesses, esp. small businesses. You have no idea how stuff like this works and you end up working for free or or blowing your earnings out of the water with costs.
Medicine is currently more or less based on science, but that only because science has taken such a large role in our brave new society.
Medicine has always been more art than science, famously so; a doctor is not a scientist, even if he researchs and publishes, he's a different animal from a clinical researcher.
Doctors make, and have always made, and will always make, medical decisions on far less verity than any scientist would accept, for obvious reasons. Thanks to modern science, you can almost count on him(or her- new times indeed) not to kill you with the treatment. Our modern doctor has a vast arsenal of sceince based medicine at his disposal, but you may trust that every decision he makes is grounded in nothing more or less than his own hubris, and if you're lucky, his brains and experience and his expertise. Nothing whatsoever to do with science. In point of fact, our medical educational system is mostly designed to weed out the unintelligent, the fools and the irresponsible- aside from basic scientific literacy, that is your guarantee that your doctor won't fuck you up even worse- a general merit system. Works pretty well, actually! Science? Nothing to do with it.
Thanks to, again, modern science, and medical institutions, he is right more often than not, or has the tools to attack a problem he may not be right about, but he is not a scientist. He is an artist.
Picasso has more in common with a doctor than Neil Bohrs by a large margin. Sleep on that before your next checkup, o my brothers.
Why were you suprised you can't hammer in a nail with a tablesaw?
headline:
female: "crafty chick turns out clever "invention", wants to "help people" - awwww!"
hypothetical:
male: "a thrifty, socially motivated boy genius has turned industry on its head with an astounding demonstration of scientific innovation and prowess beyond his years."
not to be too much of a pollyanna, but why not let them figure it out for themselves? the african subcontinent mastered metallurgy, hi-rise constructon and airports in fifty years- i'd be enthralled to see what they could make of a boatload of free processors and assorted gadgetry.
at a generous reserve, ship over a few "teach english in singapore for a year" types, only with comp sci/doowhicklee engineering degrees instead of english.
they all talk in sparks and numbers anyway, and kids are great at learning - that's $50K for a year's shipping and handling, $500K for a "program" to farm out gullible young college students to benighted hick villages, and bingobango- progress!
can we just mark down a pile of old engineering calculators and call it a day? I remember watching some smarty-pants play Mario on his calculator during enviromental engineering classes lo these many years ago.
or cell phones, for gods' sake, my cell phone has a 314MHz processor in it, I played duke nukem 3D and watched streaming video on PCs that were slower, this cannot be that difficult.
figure it out, people and stop cluttering up /. with these endless utopian woolgathering snipehunts; please, and thank you.
this is clearly copyright infringement.
I never said these photos were entered as evidence. They were used in the sentencing phase to sway the judge, which is all as it should be.
Anyway, relevance is the prevailing standard for entering a photograph as evidence- all a judge has to do is look at a photo, decide if it's relevant to the case, and bingobango, it's entered. chian of possesion is fairly moot these days, although the defense can certainly challenge.
If those photos had cropped up during trial, the only problem the prosecutor would have had would have been not popping the champagne too soon.
This is a categoric misapprehension, and specious, not only to say astoundingly wrong. the Department of Justic administrates the application of federal law. It is NOT an arm of the executive branch.
The executive branch retains the privilege of installing administrative heads of cabinet, secretarys, and etc. it does not exercise operational or even policy control over departments.
I sincerely hope you are not, as your .sig implies, a lawyer for anyone, or at least for anyone involved in litigating a federal case.
making fun of the legal system and the fact that he maimed another human being by his terrible, irresponsible behavior before he was finished with trial seems like an excellent reason to punish him more harshly. what's the problem?
and yes, he should be solemn, mournful, unhappy, grevious, penitent. he should not be "partying". he is a bad person, and shameful person, any expression of mirth or glee from him before his due punishment is inappropriate, hurtful, demonstrative of low character, and deserving of harsh recompense.
put yourself in the victim's shoes- how would you feel if you knew that while you writhed in agony for months in a hospital bed, the jackass who put you there through no fault of your own is yukking it up and making fun of your suffering?
you'd probably want him dead, not just slammed up for 2 years.
I think discovery will be the more pressing issue.
in court, in this enlightened time and place, the defense has full access to all the evidence that the prosecutor has, beforehand, to make a reasonable case, which is just and proper.
now, is the defense going to be appeal to file appeals based on incomplete discovery, or even withholding (an offense that can cost an attorney his bar, let alone criminal charges), if the prosecutor showboats stuff like this late in a trial?
how will "victim impact statements"(ugh) come to bear in sentencing with stuff like this? surely old/unrelated photos and MySpace testimony are not out of bounds for that, even if not applicable in trial....
it's a picture of a man, laughing it up about his time in court, which was supposedly the solemn justice meted out for his terrible crime, which left a fellow man in crippled and maimed for life.
the alchohol is not the issue, and the judge's comments accurately reflect this.
This is correct use of technology- hands down, a winning proposition.
Now, it may not be so when prosecutors dredge up photos unrelated to, older, than, or from a different person with the same name, so this only argues for more transparent ways for hosts, services, and users to find unshakeable ways to authenticate what happens under their aegis. opt-in automatic encrypted transmission watermarks, anyone?
responsibility, what a concept!
(or learn 2 anon, use 7 proxies, etc)
I'm glad of this: It means that a few years down the road, I can visit the Space Museum and my sturdy young son will see with his new eyes, under the fierce and optimistic Florida sun, another step in the hopes of man to go further than their birth.
He'll be just as mad as I was, all those years ago, smelling the hot dusty grass and the tarmac and sea, looking at those mighty silver birds, purpose built by the best we hade within us, that he can't climb in the real one, and has to go inside to the mockup.
I hope what he sees was what I saw, so far away and yet so close to hand, all those years ago. I hope the shuttle means to him what the moon lander meant to me- untrammelled hope and faith in human endeavour.
Rest in peace, big old bird; even parked on the forever runway, we'll always look at you with untarnished eyes and souls full of wonder.
So the future is giant databases running in RAM, backed up to nearby RAM and only written to disk on schedule or in extremis? sounds... kind of cyberspace?
say what now? where did you get the idea that Exchange uses decentralized storage?
also Lotus--->Exchange is not exactly new frontiers. there's even built in tools to make it a snap.
It has not. it has been settled law since 1977-79 or so, cf Torres v PR, US v Ramsey. those decisions were based in an understanding of common law that weights national sovreignty over individual rights while at a national border.
it may well have been a common understanding of the law, but precedent for this, in the US, starts in 1977.
so, in a qualified manner, that's *a* century ago...:)
Seriously, just a few tweaks to the WP:CIO and WP:NPOV and problem solved- think of the labor that could be saved astroturfing your preferred talk pages, managing your socks and generating those irritating reports to management about your viral marketing efforts or penny pump-and-dumps.
Bonus for cult members: no more flagellation, starvation, or extended co-ordination for wiki-raids. Just tell Dear Leader or Most Holy to budget some coin out of his Malibu/Lear/Bentley/cocaine/hooker/caucasian trophy wife fund and you can breathe easy.
it makes my phsycially ill to think of a another Clinton in the White House. What the devil in going here? Are these people the goddamned Stuarts and the Burgundys?
the next step from Hillary in the White House is Chelsea marrying one of Jeb's boys to reconcile the bloodlines. I may need to go throw up now.
help keep America free of hereditary rulers- vote against Clinton.
bravo.
how do the fellows operating the SCADA use it? from a desktop computer via client or dedicated machines?
No. genius, the steelworker is cursing the engineer because he has asked for impossible work under present conditions, with no regard to the final outcome. He's making just as much, if not more, than the engineer; der. that's 'der'. as in, "deeeerrrrrrrreeererer, i am missing the obvious."
Were you under the impression, that, somehow, the steel worker knew less about the process than the quoteunquote designer? Or the architect, or the engineer?
I assure you, they don't, and neither do you, espcially- you've put yourself in a special category of bald-faced, ham-handed ignorance, by being the "CEO"- you might as well be an oven-mitted retard with a special helmet on waiting for the short bus as regards any actual work being performed in your vincinity.
You get in the way. You are a drag on the system. you provide nothing but the motivation to hate. You are, in short, the problem, not the solution. No bullshit formula you cook up in the trivial hours you spend at your desk will make a difference. Other people are already doing your job, in your name, and your job is simply to smile. laugh hearty, and hopefully, go to jail and get pounded in the ass by Bubba when your accountant's filthy schemes fall through.
That's it- look pretty, shut the fuck up, and try not getting the way of real men and real women doing real work. 'Cause you're not real. You're fake.
QED the nature of the misunderstanding- in law, as in politics, sex, and spiritual endeavour, truth is relative, with good reason.
To a nerd, truth is absolute. This is why nerds make lousy lawyers, and worse politicians.