In management learning actualy hinders your career? How does that work, exactly? If you learn, you can still pretend to be ignorant, but it doesn't work the other way around.
When it comes to buzzwords, I take a "just in time" approach. I'll learn it when I actually have a use for it, but not on a purely speculative basis. Otherwise I'd be learning buzzwords all day and never get any programming done.
I don't know Ruby, but my days aren't numbered. Today, I don't need it. If I need it tomorrow, I'll learn it.
The conclusion was that you don't get what you pay for. If you pay 0.10 you do about as well as if you pay 1.00. But if you pay 1.00 and then reduce it to 0.40, you do far worse then if you had always payed 0.10.
I'm surprised they didn't take the accessories. That thumbdrive idea doesn't seem very reliable to me, since the next squad of the keystone cops you encounter may be more thorough.
And I'd prefer to see a 200GB drive there filled with randomly generated files, just for the satisfaction that it will actually cost them something to copy images and analyse the "data".
If it was a level playing field, they would simply use Ariane, or perhaps the Russian/Indian/Chinese launchers. There's already a competive space market out there.
A problem is that it may take less work to create the patent application than to examine it, these days. It seems to be so easy to write an application that simply combines a few vaguely related ideas, while the prior art takes time to find, and deciding what is worthy of a patent is purely subjective.
If the government actually devoted the resources required to examine patents properly, they would probably be employing most of those people who would otherwise be writing the applications. Not exactly a boost to the national research productivity.
Such an example is unlikely to exist. The patent system is based on the fantasy that inventions are works of genius and if the inventors are not somehow persuaded to reveal their inventions then they will be impossible to rediscover.
In practice, advances are generally inevitable once their time has come, and if somebody discovers it this year and keeps it to themselves, then it is almost certain to be rediscovered within the term of any patent that could have been issued.
If an invention is put to use in a product, the idea will most likely be revealed even faster. This would be even more the case if the patent system was abolished, so that the only way to profit from an invention was to get it into production before somebody else thinks of it. Unlike the current situation, where it's safer to register a patent but produce nothing.
Only hard scientific information can be truely independently verified. There's no way I can independently verify the behaviour of a person 40 years ago. All I can do is listen to what other people have said about it.
Five different accounts that say the same thing may just imply a conspiracy.
Yes, in fact it's not clear to me what point he's trying to make exactly. He would like to make it possible for any person, at the slightest whim, to track down the identity of any other random person on the net?
The event in this case happened months before it was discovered. The ISPs wouldn't need to keep records that long, and perhaps have no good reason to keep such records at all. It would save them some hassle if they didn't do it.
Of course the EU is preparing legislation to deal with this "problem", by forcing ISPs to record the actions of their users.
Yes, these standards are not as valuable as they could be, in practice. End users don't care what the standard says, they only care if the documents can be used by the dominant product.
Since there will no doubt be countless files that conform to the standard by are rejected by MS Office, or were written by MS Office but don't conform to the standard, software that wants to be compatible still needs to spend the time to reverse engineer MS products.
This is not much different to the situation where anybody writing a complex commercial web site is forced to examine the behaviour of MS Internet Explorer. Reading the specifications alone is not generally sufficient.
The latter example shows that it's the dominance of the product that's the real problem, not the origin of the specification.
This is surely a meaningless comparison. There's no such thing as an "Asian PhD" or an "American PhD", since neither area is homogenous. Consider that Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, India, Japan and most of Russia are part of Asia.
You can't write software without looking things up. You need to look up function definitions and semantics, you need to look up structure definitions. Even if Hungarian manages to avoid a small percentage of these lookups, it's not enough to justify turning the code into unreadable crap, in my opinion.
One minute. That's how long it takes from the posting of a story until the first off-topic mention of religion in the comments. What is it with this site?
Right, I learned to be wary of people bearing food and drink. The safest thing may be to direct conversation away from important matters until the good feelings have worn off.
Slashdot Mirror
Every government in the world differs. Who do you think defines what "theft" means, legally?
Yes, sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with for a moment.
Perhaps they will have a theory that polar bears have a natural cycle of extinction and re-evolution every few hundred years.
When it comes to buzzwords, I take a "just in time" approach. I'll learn it when I actually have a use for it, but not on a purely speculative basis. Otherwise I'd be learning buzzwords all day and never get any programming done.
I don't know Ruby, but my days aren't numbered. Today, I don't need it. If I need it tomorrow, I'll learn it.
I think structure is the key to programming, not buzzwords. The buzzwords just get in the way of genuine learning.
I don't know if links in slashdot postings help with pagerank, but here's how you do one - http://www.karpathos.net/pigadiabay.
The conclusion was that you don't get what you pay for. If you pay 0.10 you do about as well as if you pay 1.00. But if you pay 1.00 and then reduce it to 0.40, you do far worse then if you had always payed 0.10.
And I'd prefer to see a 200GB drive there filled with randomly generated files, just for the satisfaction that it will actually cost them something to copy images and analyse the "data".
Status for themselves, or status for all copyright holders? How is the law written exactly?
If this comes in, I intend to generate as many connections as possible. Running webcollage 24hrs per day would be a good start.
If it was a level playing field, they would simply use Ariane, or perhaps the Russian/Indian/Chinese launchers. There's already a competive space market out there.
If the government actually devoted the resources required to examine patents properly, they would probably be employing most of those people who would otherwise be writing the applications. Not exactly a boost to the national research productivity.
In practice, advances are generally inevitable once their time has come, and if somebody discovers it this year and keeps it to themselves, then it is almost certain to be rediscovered within the term of any patent that could have been issued.
If an invention is put to use in a product, the idea will most likely be revealed even faster. This would be even more the case if the patent system was abolished, so that the only way to profit from an invention was to get it into production before somebody else thinks of it. Unlike the current situation, where it's safer to register a patent but produce nothing.
4. The number of times the wheel has been reinvented.
Five different accounts that say the same thing may just imply a conspiracy.
Yes, in fact it's not clear to me what point he's trying to make exactly. He would like to make it possible for any person, at the slightest whim, to track down the identity of any other random person on the net?
Of course the EU is preparing legislation to deal with this "problem", by forcing ISPs to record the actions of their users.
Since there will no doubt be countless files that conform to the standard by are rejected by MS Office, or were written by MS Office but don't conform to the standard, software that wants to be compatible still needs to spend the time to reverse engineer MS products.
This is not much different to the situation where anybody writing a complex commercial web site is forced to examine the behaviour of MS Internet Explorer. Reading the specifications alone is not generally sufficient.
The latter example shows that it's the dominance of the product that's the real problem, not the origin of the specification.
This is surely a meaningless comparison. There's no such thing as an "Asian PhD" or an "American PhD", since neither area is homogenous. Consider that Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, India, Japan and most of Russia are part of Asia.
You can't write software without looking things up. You need to look up function definitions and semantics, you need to look up structure definitions. Even if Hungarian manages to avoid a small percentage of these lookups, it's not enough to justify turning the code into unreadable crap, in my opinion.
It's what happens if you put technical questions to a vote instead of finding the right answer.
Are you all completely obsessed with religion, or what? Are you ADDICTED to religious discussion?
One minute. That's how long it takes from the posting of a story until the first off-topic mention of religion in the comments. What is it with this site?
A good start, but not quite enough to tempt me. It should be possible to do it without unusual browser plugins or flash animation - it's just text.
Right, I learned to be wary of people bearing food and drink. The safest thing may be to direct conversation away from important matters until the good feelings have worn off.