No, it fits. This is a PopularMechanics list. They are quite proud of the fact that guns are a significant topic with their readership. they run ads for gunmakers, and don't apologize. they print both sides of letters to the editor about guns, gun control, gun ads, etc. gun control as a topic is likely high on the list of interest to the readership, along with tech/science/etc.
funny. how do you afford to drive a car that you have to throw out when the tank runs dry? I'm shocked that you would ever even buy such a thing.
Recharge = refill.
common reason given: the printer manufacturer doesn't know how long of a cable you'll need, so come over to Aisle 3 and we'll show you all of the different options available...
translation: we're severely pricecutting the printers to make them competitive because it locks you into a long cycle of ink purchases. But, while we're at it, lets gouge the unsuspecting customer on a USB cable too. It helps us shave $0.50 in cost off the printer, and more often than not we can sell a grossly overpriced one to grandma. We win.
the battery doesn't hold any more energy than the other batteries (more or less). There'd be the same energy release in a failure. NOW, if there's a charging fault when you're connected to that monster circuit... watch out.
hmmm... but wasn't that the whole point of the current extensions? According to Disney, et al, some stuff IS still salable much longer than 14 years. They will drag out Steamboat Willie as their prime example, I believe. Now, that being one case, what about those NES games? We're starting to see a resurgence in retro gaming. Wii virtual console anyone? If the mobile industry would actually standardize in some way (BREW and J2ME ain't there yet) I wouldn't be suprised if nintendo et al would release mobile ports of their old libraries. The cellphone toting sheeple will pay $3 for a ringtone, why not for a mobile version of Excitebike?
So, if salability is supposed to be the 'ready to pass into the public domain' metric, in some cases it does make sense for it to be longer than 14 years. 1993 is 14 years ago. That's when Jurassic Park was released. I believe copies are still selling acceptably well (no numbers to back that up. the-numbers.com only gives box office sales and recent dvd sales... anyone?) The book was in 1990, and I know that's still on Amazon.com under the 'buy new' column. sales rank ~27,000, but paperback is 5th best Michael Crichton seller. So, should those be public domain? Should anyone be able to go print out a copy of Jurassic Park for nothing, or sell my own copies now for whatever people will pay me? Should I be able to record an audio copy to (plug warning) www.librivox.org for anyone to download and listen to? Maybe I should. Maybe 30 years would be okay. can anyone come up with a 30 year equivalent analogy? (sorry, I was in diapers then)
Not arguing that current state is no good. But what would be good in a marketplace with what might be much more product longevity than existed a few hundred years ago?
Re:virtual instrument editor?
on
Hacking VIM
·
· Score: 1
your first problem is that you just tried to call Labview a programming language. My dad always told me not to use a screwdriver to open a paint can. Use the right tool for the right job.
Labview is meant to 'easily' automate a front panel control for discrete hardware. the minute I need to do anything that doesn't involve reading input x from device y, it's time to pull out another tool for 'programming'. If you really need to, Labview let's you have C-code function blocks. Quick and dirty, even pretty, lab control environments. not programming. there's a separation there that must be made.
virtual instrument editor?
on
Hacking VIM
·
· Score: 1
I personally prefer NI labview, but that's just me. no open source equivalent 'there' yet.:)
3D parametric solid modeling. I.e., solidworks, pro/engineer, etc. I'm still waiting on a 'close to usable' open source alternative.
And a Labview equivalent. OpenVI has started i think, but it's still pre-alpha
Ok, at that point I punt. Looking at the bottom of the article, where it mentions software, I note that it shows that a Matlab function "princomp" gives the principal component. No mention of octave. I would guess that since the Octave dev's push for Matlab compatibility, they'd have inclusion of functions like that on their to-do list.
just to round out discussion, regarding opensource PCA, the wiki article points out SciLab and "the open source statistical package 'R'" as having PCA capabilities.
\
ok, took a few seconds to google. Came upon this Octave Help discussion thread where the person gives what seems to be a rather simple script " to compute principal component analysis". The discussion is primarily about compiler issues, and differing PCA results with different compiles, but the discussion is from 2004.
Most recent Octave wiki matlab-compatibility page doesn't mention it at all, so no certainty there. From the same year, however, the following was also posted, giving a (seemingly) more complete PCA script: another PCA Octave thread
agreed. things change. industries evolve. they only stop doing so when they're able to impose a status quo through legislation or market control. I disagree about the theaters though. I think they're going the way of the dodo bird. Used to be theaters were the only way to get high quality cinematic entertainment. Theaters were everywhere, and going to the movies was a common 'hey, i got a few bucks' kind of event. If I recall from my history classes of the not so distant past, opera/live theater/concert houses used to be the same way. Now, all that's left of those are a few extremely high quality venues that cater to a specific pricey market where people can pay for the atmosphere as much as the actual entertainment. It's been a very slow change for the film industry, but who knows, maybe in 40 years all you'll have left are a few scattered Imax theaters with very limited seating.
I don't know. I assume from your question that Matlab can? If so, what was limiting octave from doing so, and in what version had you noted that deficiency? I'd be happy to peek through release notes if they'd shed light on an answer to your question. If matlab can't do it, I would be suprised if Octave could. (note, I have no idea what you are referring to by 'pca')
Depends on how far you want the person to leap. If the person's already a Matlab user, switching to Octave would be a no-brainer. Moving to a full Python dev. environment could intimidate some people, as you've gotten a good deal closer to 'real' hard-core programming. I believe the OP mentioned not being able to get the person to use C, so there could be hesitation there. Matlab/Octave use nice dummy scripting and it's users are rarely overly concerned about speed. (if they get to the point where they're really worried about speed, they need to learn to hard code the algorithm)
Ok, as an Engineer using it now, let me throw a recommendation for GNU Octave. It's basically an open source equivalent to Matlab. (scripts are ~95% compatible between the two, well documented where they aren't) Gotta start getting away from closed source math, especially where science and technology needing peer review are concerned. Windows version is a Cygwin implementation, but they have a standalone installer that makes it transparent to the user. http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/
I have used Matlab at work for years, recently switched to Octave, and haven't had any problems. That, and there's the free, open source thing. Save the taxpayers a few grand on another Matlab license.
Hmmm... where's the button for me to bury this headline/summary as misleading/inaccurate???
A really digg-worthy headline though. I must commend whoever put it together. Would have hit frontpage on digg in 3 seconds with misleading garbage like that.
"Are we down to mob rule where if the mob doesn't want to pay then they don't have to?"
Yes. We've been there. Prior to 'now' there were physical restrictions in place holding the mob (or, general public) at bay from getting what they want for nothing (shoplifting laws and penalties, quality degradation from analog copies, etc.). Those restrictions have been largely removed. The legal threat is now akin to the speed limit. Once someone buys any one thing, and shares it, it will be available to everyone for nothing. No pricing scheme can defeat that. "come on, after you download it, buy the album/movie anyway, support the artist" is a lame attempt at rationalizing the freeloading. Soon, the entire music 'industry' will consist of charity donations to the artist from dedicated fans, while the majority get whatever they want for nothing. Something akin to 'abuse of the commons' will take over. Music for profit or as a viable career/industry will seriously diminish. Money will only be made through live performance, maybe songwriters could get money from licensing their songs to live performers, but recording music will likely go the way of long distance telephone rates.
Giving customers what the REALLY want right away would eliminate one of the industry's profit models. (i.e., the cinema) I assume it's currently a profitable method for the movie makers, or they'd be releasing movies on DVD sooner to recoup costs sooner. Also, before the DVD's out, there exists a temporary, 'copyright enforced' monopoly on the film that can actually be maintained to some extent despite P2P. If you want to just see the movie, sure, you could do that really quick via bittorrent. But, it'll be some guy with a camera. If you want a quality viewing of the film, you'll have to pay for it. But, only until the DVD's released. Once that's out, people will upload the DVD (or better) quality version of the movie. At that point, their competition model changes drastically. Until the delay stops being profitable in one sense or another, it will exist. As P2P keeps getting more and more popular, and the 'sharing generation' displaces the older population, the companies will need to fight harder and harder to maintain what profit models remain, and the 'temporary monopoly' on quality content will be the focus. that, or they'll stop profiting, and stop producing.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't call it a main focus, but a not insignificant one.
No, it fits. This is a PopularMechanics list. They are quite proud of the fact that guns are a significant topic with their readership. they run ads for gunmakers, and don't apologize. they print both sides of letters to the editor about guns, gun control, gun ads, etc. gun control as a topic is likely high on the list of interest to the readership, along with tech/science/etc.
funny. how do you afford to drive a car that you have to throw out when the tank runs dry? I'm shocked that you would ever even buy such a thing. Recharge = refill.
common reason given: the printer manufacturer doesn't know how long of a cable you'll need, so come over to Aisle 3 and we'll show you all of the different options available... translation: we're severely pricecutting the printers to make them competitive because it locks you into a long cycle of ink purchases. But, while we're at it, lets gouge the unsuspecting customer on a USB cable too. It helps us shave $0.50 in cost off the printer, and more often than not we can sell a grossly overpriced one to grandma. We win.
the battery doesn't hold any more energy than the other batteries (more or less). There'd be the same energy release in a failure. NOW, if there's a charging fault when you're connected to that monster circuit... watch out.
"due to lack of salability"
hmmm... but wasn't that the whole point of the current extensions? According to Disney, et al, some stuff IS still salable much longer than 14 years. They will drag out Steamboat Willie as their prime example, I believe. Now, that being one case, what about those NES games? We're starting to see a resurgence in retro gaming. Wii virtual console anyone? If the mobile industry would actually standardize in some way (BREW and J2ME ain't there yet) I wouldn't be suprised if nintendo et al would release mobile ports of their old libraries. The cellphone toting sheeple will pay $3 for a ringtone, why not for a mobile version of Excitebike?
So, if salability is supposed to be the 'ready to pass into the public domain' metric, in some cases it does make sense for it to be longer than 14 years. 1993 is 14 years ago. That's when Jurassic Park was released. I believe copies are still selling acceptably well (no numbers to back that up. the-numbers.com only gives box office sales and recent dvd sales... anyone?) The book was in 1990, and I know that's still on Amazon.com under the 'buy new' column. sales rank ~27,000, but paperback is 5th best Michael Crichton seller. So, should those be public domain? Should anyone be able to go print out a copy of Jurassic Park for nothing, or sell my own copies now for whatever people will pay me? Should I be able to record an audio copy to (plug warning) www.librivox.org for anyone to download and listen to? Maybe I should. Maybe 30 years would be okay. can anyone come up with a 30 year equivalent analogy? (sorry, I was in diapers then)
Not arguing that current state is no good. But what would be good in a marketplace with what might be much more product longevity than existed a few hundred years ago?
your first problem is that you just tried to call Labview a programming language. My dad always told me not to use a screwdriver to open a paint can. Use the right tool for the right job.
Labview is meant to 'easily' automate a front panel control for discrete hardware. the minute I need to do anything that doesn't involve reading input x from device y, it's time to pull out another tool for 'programming'. If you really need to, Labview let's you have C-code function blocks. Quick and dirty, even pretty, lab control environments. not programming. there's a separation there that must be made.
I personally prefer NI labview, but that's just me. no open source equivalent 'there' yet. :)
We have always been at war with Eurasia, and Eastasia is our ally...
I'm sure the Princeton engineering program thumbs its collective nose at you, good sir.
3D parametric solid modeling. I.e., solidworks, pro/engineer, etc. I'm still waiting on a 'close to usable' open source alternative. And a Labview equivalent. OpenVI has started i think, but it's still pre-alpha
please, let's not make this about you...
/me takes his small stakes ass home...
well, are you playing with an ante or a blind? c'mon.
Ok, at that point I punt. Looking at the bottom of the article, where it mentions software, I note that it shows that a Matlab function "princomp" gives the principal component. No mention of octave. I would guess that since the Octave dev's push for Matlab compatibility, they'd have inclusion of functions like that on their to-do list.
just to round out discussion, regarding opensource PCA, the wiki article points out SciLab and "the open source statistical package 'R'" as having PCA capabilities.
\ok, took a few seconds to google. Came upon this Octave Help discussion thread where the person gives what seems to be a rather simple script " to compute principal component analysis". The discussion is primarily about compiler issues, and differing PCA results with different compiles, but the discussion is from 2004.
Most recent Octave wiki matlab-compatibility page doesn't mention it at all, so no certainty there. From the same year, however, the following was also posted, giving a (seemingly) more complete PCA script: another PCA Octave thread
agreed. things change. industries evolve. they only stop doing so when they're able to impose a status quo through legislation or market control. I disagree about the theaters though. I think they're going the way of the dodo bird. Used to be theaters were the only way to get high quality cinematic entertainment. Theaters were everywhere, and going to the movies was a common 'hey, i got a few bucks' kind of event. If I recall from my history classes of the not so distant past, opera/live theater/concert houses used to be the same way. Now, all that's left of those are a few extremely high quality venues that cater to a specific pricey market where people can pay for the atmosphere as much as the actual entertainment. It's been a very slow change for the film industry, but who knows, maybe in 40 years all you'll have left are a few scattered Imax theaters with very limited seating.
I don't know. I assume from your question that Matlab can? If so, what was limiting octave from doing so, and in what version had you noted that deficiency? I'd be happy to peek through release notes if they'd shed light on an answer to your question. If matlab can't do it, I would be suprised if Octave could. (note, I have no idea what you are referring to by 'pca')
Depends on how far you want the person to leap. If the person's already a Matlab user, switching to Octave would be a no-brainer. Moving to a full Python dev. environment could intimidate some people, as you've gotten a good deal closer to 'real' hard-core programming. I believe the OP mentioned not being able to get the person to use C, so there could be hesitation there. Matlab/Octave use nice dummy scripting and it's users are rarely overly concerned about speed. (if they get to the point where they're really worried about speed, they need to learn to hard code the algorithm)
Ok, as an Engineer using it now, let me throw a recommendation for GNU Octave. It's basically an open source equivalent to Matlab. (scripts are ~95% compatible between the two, well documented where they aren't) Gotta start getting away from closed source math, especially where science and technology needing peer review are concerned. Windows version is a Cygwin implementation, but they have a standalone installer that makes it transparent to the user. http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/
I have used Matlab at work for years, recently switched to Octave, and haven't had any problems. That, and there's the free, open source thing. Save the taxpayers a few grand on another Matlab license.
A really digg-worthy headline though. I must commend whoever put it together. Would have hit frontpage on digg in 3 seconds with misleading garbage like that.
and it's soooo close to actually being there...
"Are we down to mob rule where if the mob doesn't want to pay then they don't have to?"
Yes. We've been there. Prior to 'now' there were physical restrictions in place holding the mob (or, general public) at bay from getting what they want for nothing (shoplifting laws and penalties, quality degradation from analog copies, etc.). Those restrictions have been largely removed. The legal threat is now akin to the speed limit. Once someone buys any one thing, and shares it, it will be available to everyone for nothing. No pricing scheme can defeat that. "come on, after you download it, buy the album/movie anyway, support the artist" is a lame attempt at rationalizing the freeloading. Soon, the entire music 'industry' will consist of charity donations to the artist from dedicated fans, while the majority get whatever they want for nothing. Something akin to 'abuse of the commons' will take over. Music for profit or as a viable career/industry will seriously diminish. Money will only be made through live performance, maybe songwriters could get money from licensing their songs to live performers, but recording music will likely go the way of long distance telephone rates.
I would like to summarize you're well thought out, but long-winded post.
See: Lawful Neutral
Compare. Discuss.See: Neutral Good
Giving customers what the REALLY want right away would eliminate one of the industry's profit models. (i.e., the cinema) I assume it's currently a profitable method for the movie makers, or they'd be releasing movies on DVD sooner to recoup costs sooner. Also, before the DVD's out, there exists a temporary, 'copyright enforced' monopoly on the film that can actually be maintained to some extent despite P2P. If you want to just see the movie, sure, you could do that really quick via bittorrent. But, it'll be some guy with a camera. If you want a quality viewing of the film, you'll have to pay for it. But, only until the DVD's released. Once that's out, people will upload the DVD (or better) quality version of the movie. At that point, their competition model changes drastically. Until the delay stops being profitable in one sense or another, it will exist. As P2P keeps getting more and more popular, and the 'sharing generation' displaces the older population, the companies will need to fight harder and harder to maintain what profit models remain, and the 'temporary monopoly' on quality content will be the focus. that, or they'll stop profiting, and stop producing.
hmmmm... so, who's gonna sue first?