In assessing the upward movement of MS stock, you have to take into account this dividend's effect on future revenue. MS currently makes a lot of money from Interest on their cash. The loss of that revenue will discount the upward movement potential.
You also need to consider the less tangible impacts of a payout like this. MS is essentially saying that they cannot beat the markets rate of return with this money (i.e. their potential expansion and growth opportunities are not very lucrative or simply non-existent). The perception that MS might not be able to expand much more will also discount an upward swing on the share price.
I would be surprised to see MS rise much more than $1, maybe $1.50.
I know a lot of people with modded X-Boxes and I can say that among everyone, only one person uses the modded x-box to watch movies or play media. Of course, he downloads the movies off eMule, and he also pirates every single game he plays. Everyone else I know pirates the games. I am the only person I know who actually buys the games. I would like to mod my xbox to play around with it, but I know if I do it I would just pirate games and that stops me since I believe that doing so is theft (what can I say, I was raised with morals).
Who honestly knows someone that uses modding for anything other than pirating games or watching pirated movies? Don't just surmise that it's possible, think if you know people who are doing it.
I agree with the writer's feeling about writing code on paper, but I think you have to be pragmatic about it and realize that testing is never perfect. There are probably people out there who would object to writing the same test on a computer (although this wouldn't make much sense if you were a CS student). Ultimately I think most professors/TA's will realize that paper is a disadvantage and mark accordingly.
I think resources are also an issue. I don't know how it works at other schools, but I go to the University of Waterloo, which has a pretty well established CS program, and we don't have the resources to have exams on computers... not when you have classes of 80+ people. To construct a closed environment for exams would be a nightmare for the school.
Also, marks are never really the point of a University education. The valuable part of a CS degree (IMHO) is that you are forced to actually code.. to figure out complex problems and work your way through them. Unless you are shooting for graduate degree, or want to work at MS, I think life is too short to stress about the format of tests.
I have a problem with your line of thought here. It is admirable and often beneficial to be a self-learner. Those who can only learn from others will never go very far becuase they are unable to forge new paths. However, education does not exist in a vacuum. The most valuable things i have found in university were not in the classes themselves, but the people I met, the things I saw. If you are alone in your room, you might be able to learn complexity theory better than anyone else. But you miss that chance to associate with other people who might say something like "So and so has some interesting thoughts on Complexity theory you might want to check out" or "If you like that, try this", etc.
When I came to univeristy, I was dead set in my path. I wanted to take CS, wanted to become the best damned programmer I could. I relished the challenges ahead. I got here, and while I enjoyed many of my courses, I quickly discovered that CS was not for me. I did well in my classes, but I found that the courses I wanted to take were never in CS. I eventually moved into Mathematical Sciences, where I now study Pure Math, Statistics, and Computer Science (the CS was becuase I had enough credits to satisfy one portion of my program using CS already). I took some economics classes where I met a friend Dave. He turned me onto the writings of Ayn Rand. That in turn spurred my intrest in philosophy, and also encouraged me to make more of my life than simply going to school.
Now I intend on doing graduate work in Economics, and persuing a career in finance. A pretty far leap from being a programmer i would say.
Would I have made that leap, or even seen that there was one to make, if I had of just picked up some CS & math texts from the library and studied them?
Anyways, a degree is a credential, just like anything else. All things being equal, I would hire someone with a degree becuase it speaks of their perseverance and ability to put up with large amounts of beaurocratic BS for long periods of time. It says to me as an employer that this person was able to achieve a goal, whatever that goal may be.
Not having a degree doesn't say anything bad about you, but it doesn't say anything good either. And in a world as competetive as ours, isn't it a good idea to get anything that speaks well of oneself? Pascal's wager : If it's useless, having it won't hurt you. If it's usefull, having it will be beneficial, not having it will be detrimental. Odds are with the guy who has it.
Funny thing is, the two most brilliant programmers I know, one went to Waterloo for CS, the other dropped out after first term. Were I was working for the last year, they came together to work on a project, and butted heads a lot. Neither was right (as you see all the time in programming, many ways do solve a problem are all equally right) but guess who always ended up winning with management? The degree. That told me something.
One other problem is that Human Resources people don't care how smart you are, if a degree is asked for as a requirement of the job, they toss ALL the resumes that don't list one. Often your degree is a great door stop. It doesn't get you in, it just keeps you from being shut out.
Besides, the trend is that people with degrees on average make more, and are employed for longer periods of time.
All this adds up to a pretty strong argument to get a degree. But it doesn't say that a degree makes you this or that.. just says you have a degree.
question though : would you let someone operate on you who said "I don't have my medicine degree, but gosh, I have read a lot of books about medicine and I know I can do it" or would you ask for a doctor with a degree?
It is my experience as a student that computer science graduates are some of the least rounded people in the world. I go to the university of waterloo, and the people here scare me. it seems like the students in the math faculty (Computer Science at Waterloo is a Math program, you graduate with a B.Math degree) have little understanding of the world around them. It's kind of sad... I have seen so many graduates of this school become voiceless-spineless code-monkeys who do nothing but churn out code 10-5-4-52 for their lives. They never move up except to a more senior level of code-monkey .
Seeing this made me leave CS. I figured.. there are enough people REALLY GOOD AT CODE, but the real skill is going to be the bridge between the coders and the suits. Someone technologically proficient enough to converse with the technical elite, but human enough to talk with everyone else.
Anyways, making a rambling story shorter... you don't get breadth from your degree unless you choose to. you have to actually have the intrest in literature, philosophy, science, etc. in order to get anything out of it. Simply taking a course in shakespear will make you no more well-cultured than anyone else.
A degree is a paper credential, it's something the suits want. The qualities that you seek here (abstract thought & reason, breadth of knowledge, etc) are characters that people bring with them to university.
I so strongly agree with the first comment. The whole point of programming is to embody a solution to a problem in a language the computer can understand. Writing a language to conform to "ease of compilation" is regressive. If we did that we'd all still be coding assembler, OS's would all be command line based, and computers would only be used in scientific institutions by a select few people who can master them.
As for your complaint about windows. I have the misfortune of writing windows code occasionally, and it's not that bad. If you use the ClassWizzard and Resource Designer of MSDev, then all the skeleton code is written for you. I downloaded a Resize-Manager library that allowed me to make my dialogs/windows fully resize-friendly in another 15 lines of code.
The problem is that you use API calls. Use MFC classes, MUCH EASIER. If you are coding for windows, you might as well take advantage of every ease of use feature you can (given you know your code is not going to be cross-platform).
Otherwise, use QT. It's really no better other than being cross platform.
"Quite frankly I'm amazed that these advertising companies haven't been able to buy that functionality out of the IE6."
I think that on this issue, MS would value the positive public perception of being pro privacy than the money doubleclick or others would pay. It's not like Doubleclick has a whole whack of cash to pay MS.
I am salaried where I work as a "software engineer". Hours around here are pretty much flexible, getting your work done on time is the rule.
On a slow week, I might come in around 10:30 and leave at 5pm. On a heavy week I would 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week.
So my work week can range from 30 to 90 hours, depending on the workload. So I guess I average out to a 60 hour work week.
Source Code is expresive becuase it shows specific style which is usually unique to the author. Much the same as each person has a somewhat unique style of handwriting, each programmer has a unique style of coding.
For instance:
int main (int argc, char** argv) {} and
int main (int argc, char* argv[]) {}
are similar and legal definitions for entry in C/C++ applications. However, different programmers will usually stick to one style, becuase it either makes more sense to them (for me, it is easier to think of char * argv[] as a two dimensional char array than char**, even though I KNOW they are functionally similar.
Other differences arise all over the place. Some people prefer passing ref values with pointers, some through references (C++ specific).
Code is free speech because it is the the result of a human's interpretation of an idea or theory. If I asked you to describe a sunset, everyone would give a distinct written answer. If I asked you to write me a webserver, everyone would return with a distinct solution.
To assume otherwise, that all code is essentially boilerplate, is to demean the truly intelligent people who distinguish themselves from their peers by finding clearer, more concise ways to solve problems. It is to box all programmers into one mold by claiming problems and answers exist in one to one mappings.
I do however think the following point should be raised: If you support that computer code is free speech (thus copyrightable under law) then you also argue for things like Amazon's one click patent. You argue that a novel solution to an idea can be patented, that I can write a strange type of tree structure and patent the idea and algorithms to work on it.
Making DeCSS illegal is along the lines of making it illegal to know how to pick locks, or how to make bombs. But it's SO much easier for the government to slap restrictions on your thought than to catch the specific offenders.
I live in Canada though, and we are a little more apathetic to this kind of thing. No draconian DMCA here (Although our own CanCon laws are pretty dumb).
Why would an artist want to give rights to their music away to everyone? How do you expect people to enrichen the world with their artistic talents if there is no outlet for them to make a living doing so?
People might have artistic talent, but it still takes work and devotion to their work to make it "just right". Think of bands like Tool, who spend years working on their albums, re-record their tracks, and expend increadible effort so that the product is something they are happy with. Can they do this if they cannot keep rights to their music? Would they want to? (Probably not considering today's little faked-leak)
Why does everyone want everyone to give away everything they labour to produce? Why does the public need/require/deserve rights to other artists work? If you want to cover another bands song, you are free to do so as long as you don't do it to make money. What is wrong with this? It wasn't your work that created the song. It was the original artist. Why should you be entitled to make money from someone else's work without compensating the person who expended the original effort??
I would not say it's a prevailing attitude at MS, I would say it's a prevailing world attitude about anything. Look at what governments do... Here is canada they have an enforced nation pension plan (CPP) becuase "people are too stupid to plan for their retirement". Enforced medicare/medicaid is there. Welfare is ultimatly there for people who are too stupid to make their own choices in life to allow for their own self-sufficiency.
MS does not think people are stupid, they do extensive user-testing of interfaces.. they probably spend as much on focus groups as they do on each incremental software release. I can guarantee you that the interface change for WinXP was a HUGE effort at MS. These are not people who just say "this would be cool" and put it in. If you wanted to change the X in the upper right corner to an O or something, you'd better have a good reason supported by user/focus groups.
This is not a bad thing. Most people don't care about the window-dressing. They want to get work done. I use Windows & Exceed at work not becuase I can't have a windows box, but becuase I can work faster with Exceed and Xterms under windows than in CDE alone. Not to knock GNOME/KDE, but the windows interface is easy like candy. I don't expend thought about the interface, I just use it.
From a user perspective, the GUI is there to help you accomlish your tasks more easily. But GUI is not a feature. If you design it as a feature it means you want it to be noticed... and if I notice the GUI, I am annoyed by it.
I wouldn't care if I had to choice under Unix or Not, and I would rather have EVERY COMPUTER IN THE WORLD have the exact same, non-obtrusive GUI than have the choice.
I see your points, but here are a couple thoughts I had:
First of all, I don't think it is a valid example to quote programs like Softimage, LightWave and KPT, since those tools appeal to a small segment of the market which is usually more tech savvy. Among common desktop applications, browsers, office progs, and MOST media software a consistent look and feel is kept.
That said, I agree that MS cannot really claim "look and feel" to be standard since they rework their own widget set with each new release of the OS or Office... this is fine by me though, since what I think IS important is that I know that in Windows, ALT-F4 will close the currently focused window, that CTRL-X/C/V will cut/copy/paste... etc.
This is what windows offers in terms of standard interface. This is what I would like to see in Xwindows under unix (currently I find my most productive mix is to use exceed under windows for all my unix needs since I know the windows keybindings... and am too lazy to learn another set.
I see both sides of the argument here... and I don't see as though it would kill MS to make windows Themeable/Skinable. On the other hand, I use my computer for work, so I care about as much as I care about the colour of my monitor.
I find that too many people are hung up on the "look" of the desktop. Isn't the whole point of a GUI to make it easier for you to get your work done? To lower the learning curve for newbies? Is the new user, or the standard work user benefitted by having 2 vastly different widget sets exist on the same machine. So that when one app pops up as QT look, and the other GTK+ look... will that be as easy as if they looked the same?
For that matter, most users will expect stuff like cut and paste and basic keybindings to remain the same. Why? Becuase they are in windows... and that is what most people cut their teeth on.
Obviously enough people find value in that person hitting a ball with a bat to support the salaries they make. I have a problem with tax-support for sports, but otherwise athletes salaries are not expropriated from the public. You don't pay any athletes salary unless you go to the games to see them play.
Perhaps you are just jealous that the world finds such value in what someone like Mark McGuire does compared to what you do? Do you know how much dedication it takes to play professional sports? Do you know the hours these people spent as children and teens practicing? Maybe baseball is not the prime example, but a lot of atheletes forsake things we indulge in like drink and food.
And the fact that you worked your way up in the world from nothing does not give you any right to judge what everyone else should value. I came from nothing (white-trailer-trash) and now have a good job, am taking my MBA part time, and live quite comfortably. Am I any more entitled to my opinion than a kid who grew up in wealth and privledge? Absolutly not. I don't use my past as an excuse, a crutch, or in any way attempt to leverage it against my future.
People think that a "poor point of view" is noble, that somehow being thankful for having ANYTHING is how we should all live. Sure.. all anyone needs is a cave, an animal skin, and a hunk of raw meat. I would prefer more myself. I would prefer having the choice to listen to a game if I find value in it.
Really, with a 160 game season, that payment works out to about 6 cents a game. That does not seem like robbery to me.
Right, the record company has rights to my work, which are granted in exchange for their money put up to pay for studio time, marketing, and so forth.
I don't doubt that bands get pretty raped at first, but the fact is, under the system in place, many more artists are able to make a living from their work than say, 100 years ago. This is in part because 100 years ago, the proper channels didn't exist for artists to gain widespread exposure quickly.
"In that case you could proabably use any form of distro you can get (even those that dont pay)"
Yes, but the choice is still mine. And just becuase I "sell" my rights to the label in exchange for "development" (read above) doesn't mean their rights are any less valid.
I should not have just said artist though. This goes further than "artist" and should include anyone who produces/creates new property. The producers have rights over their work, until they decide otherwise, or the work is moved into the Public Domain.
If we destroy the concept of property rights, we become a communist society. It's that simple. That's the difference between capitalism and communism. Capitalist believe in individual rights, Communists believe in group rights.
Personally, I would rather see a society where everyone has rights, than one where your rights are dictated by the political whims of common mobs.
"And since the record industry sold more CDs then ever last year, that of course proves what all these lawsuits are about *cough*"
The lawsuits have little to do with actual record sales. Sure, that may be the immediate motivation, but the moral issue at stake is the artists right to their own work.
If I make an album, I am the only person who has any rights over my work. I alone can choose where I want that work distributed, and I alone can choose whether I want to share my work. When an artist signs to a record label, they give up some right to their work in exchange for the distribution and development support provided by the label. This gives the label incentive to put their financial backing behind bands, as they will ultimatly receive a reward (money) for their risk. Now when a band starts, they get raped by the label, but the label is usually fronting all the money for the album to be created and produced. As the artist becomes more successful, the label knows there is less of a risk, and they usually only need pay for the production and distribution of the final product, so they can afford to re-negotiate a better contract with the company.
What CmdrTaco suggests, by saying that unit sales should be the ultimate guide to the validity of the napster model, is that bands and companies should not care if their rights are invaded just because somebody waves some green in front of them.
People argue about the how tragic that inventor/researcher is whose work is being included in a broad property patent, but most realize that the company has the right to do it becuase that was part of the contract. How is this any different?
Oh wait, the record companies and a handful of the artists are rich, so their rights in modern society are have been automatically abdicated in favour of those who claim looting rights to their work becuase they are not as rich.
You paid 18.00 for a CD becuase that's what it was worth to you. Why should a company sell something for less than people are willing to pay for it? What sense does that make. The demand for music dictates the price.
This is the way I look at it. I pay $20 for the "A Perfect Circle" album that just came out. Now I DID have the album on MP3 before it came out, but bought the CD the day it was released. I paid for it, and have listened to it maybe 50-60 times since I bought it. Counting the 50-60 times I listened to the album on MP3, that makes my cost around 20 cents for each listening. Now if I told you that you could listen to any album once for a quarter, you'd think it was a great deal. I mean, you pay $11 (CDN) for a movie you see once in the theatre.
The fact of the matter is that CD's are WORTH that much becuase they provide long-term value. A CD lasts 10yrs+, and does not really degrade it quality. So the record company gets a one time profit from your purchase.
If you don't think $18 is fair for the CD. DON'T BUY IT. Why should it be cheaper just becuase you don't want to pay for it? I want to buy a car for $10 but that's not going to happen. Should I use that for justification to steal?
I think the whole Napster debate is pretty funny. Everyone thinks that becuase the internet exists, property rights no longer exist, and the artist is not entitled to control of their work.
Being a musician myself, I find it rather offensive that people assume that I have to relinquish control of my music, and how it's distributed, to any idiot with a new idea on how that work can be mass-replicated to everyone.
Don't get me wrong, MP3 and online delivery of content is a GREAT evolution, and will eventually benefit the ARTISTS greatly. It will allow for lower consumer prices through lower distrobution costs, and allow more bands to gain easier exposure of their work on their own terms.
People assume though that recond companies are all bad. But the fact of the matter is that record companies can do a lot for a band on the rise. With much more substantial moneies than the bands many have, a record label can work to promote a band they believe will succeed. Of course it's to their own benefit to see the band see well, but there is nothing wrong with that.
I think efforts like MyMP3 represent the future of online music. If someone could establish an online record store, where I could setup an account with my credit card, etc, and be able to purchase the right to access an album online. Have the media and player work through a public key encryption scheme (so my purchases cannot be played by others without my consent) and make possible the ability for me to make CD "hardcopies" of this music (like an audio ISO file or something that I can burn to CD).
But Napster has no real moral ground to stand on. What the looters and rotters call "Sharing" the producers and artists call "Theft". Everybody applaunds Fred Durst for making a stand for Napster, but how much do you think he's getting paid to make that stand? I wonder if Fred's message would change if their new album sold only 500,000 copies becuase everyone could get it for free over the internet?
Like Lars to eloquently stated on the MTV Video awards, sharing is only fun when it's not your stuff.
Also, linux is moving into some of the spots where otherwise solaris or HP/UX might be used. But do HP and Sun *really* care if they don't sell copies of Solaris and HP/UX? Sure, that's revenue that they're losing but at the same time, they make their money selling HARDWARE not software. So it's really not that much of a tragedy if some of their software gets pushed a bit to the side.
I think you are way wrong on this one. Sun is very much afraid of Linux. They sell HARDWARE. Who will buy their HARDWARE if generic off the shelf components are cheaper and easier to come by, and are supported in linux?
The company I work for has already stopped buying new Sun Workstations in favour of Intel based machines running Linux. We have rougewave for Linux, and all the other tools we use under Solaris, and what is Solaris specific, we just log into one of the SunServers and work/compile there. But the goal is to replace those servers with Linux when the time is right.
You are right, sun cares little for Solaris as an OS, they care for Solaris becuase it means you are running Sun Hardware. (why do you think they have Community Sourced Solaris? )
First, I really don't see what the big deal is with this. It should not feel any different than when a doctor has to see you for a physical, except the guys won't have to "cough"
I feel more sorry for the people who have to watch these screens. I mean, do YOU want to be watching the screen when some fat greasy people walk through?
Maybe this will be more incentive for the overly obese and fat to slim down a little.
I don't know where you get your information, but ANY reproduction of copywritten media is illegal in the US. You are not even legally allowed to make a copy of a CD to tape so that you can listen to it in your car, you are supposed to by in on Tape as well.
I think that with the commitment that Redhat has shown to the community, this can only benefit. Cygnus gives Redhat a great technology portfolio, and provided redhat continues their trend of making their contribution free, we shoudl see some cool new things for linux from this...
Cowpland's name has long been ruined. I was not surprised in the least when I read of his charges. I mean, the guy is like a snake-oil salesman from the 1800's. He radiates an aura of greed and self-intrest.
It would be different if he at least showed some ability to lead the company, but he doesn't. He DOES show a remarkable ability to grind it into the ground.
This is not the first time he has been charged with securities violations either, and I don't think that it's just an unlucky co-incidence.
I think Corel is much better off without cowpland. He has shown time and time again that he has no long term vision for the company, and it only ever interested in being "just Like Bill" and running the next MS.
Corel's support of linux is simply Cowpland thinking that if he can't win on windows, maybe he can domineer a different platform entirely, and right now it looks like windows will lose in time.
Also, cowpland and his wife must be embarrasing to the company's image, especially when they are losing money, yet she flaunts her 1 million dollar lambskin jumpsuit with diamond nipple and gold breast plate.
Slashdot Mirror
In assessing the upward movement of MS stock, you have to take into account this dividend's effect on future revenue. MS currently makes a lot of money from Interest on their cash. The loss of that revenue will discount the upward movement potential.
You also need to consider the less tangible impacts of a payout like this. MS is essentially saying that they cannot beat the markets rate of return with this money (i.e. their potential expansion and growth opportunities are not very lucrative or simply non-existent). The perception that MS might not be able to expand much more will also discount an upward swing on the share price.
I would be surprised to see MS rise much more than $1, maybe $1.50.
I know a lot of people with modded X-Boxes and I can say that among everyone, only one person uses the modded x-box to watch movies or play media. Of course, he downloads the movies off eMule, and he also pirates every single game he plays. Everyone else I know pirates the games. I am the only person I know who actually buys the games. I would like to mod my xbox to play around with it, but I know if I do it I would just pirate games and that stops me since I believe that doing so is theft (what can I say, I was raised with morals).
Who honestly knows someone that uses modding for anything other than pirating games or watching pirated movies? Don't just surmise that it's possible, think if you know people who are doing it.
I agree with the writer's feeling about writing code on paper, but I think you have to be pragmatic about it and realize that testing is never perfect. There are probably people out there who would object to writing the same test on a computer (although this wouldn't make much sense if you were a CS student). Ultimately I think most professors/TA's will realize that paper is a disadvantage and mark accordingly. I think resources are also an issue. I don't know how it works at other schools, but I go to the University of Waterloo, which has a pretty well established CS program, and we don't have the resources to have exams on computers... not when you have classes of 80+ people. To construct a closed environment for exams would be a nightmare for the school. Also, marks are never really the point of a University education. The valuable part of a CS degree (IMHO) is that you are forced to actually code.. to figure out complex problems and work your way through them. Unless you are shooting for graduate degree, or want to work at MS, I think life is too short to stress about the format of tests.
I have a problem with your line of thought here. It is admirable and often beneficial to be a self-learner. Those who can only learn from others will never go very far becuase they are unable to forge new paths. However, education does not exist in a vacuum. The most valuable things i have found in university were not in the classes themselves, but the people I met, the things I saw. If you are alone in your room, you might be able to learn complexity theory better than anyone else. But you miss that chance to associate with other people who might say something like "So and so has some interesting thoughts on Complexity theory you might want to check out" or "If you like that, try this", etc.
When I came to univeristy, I was dead set in my path. I wanted to take CS, wanted to become the best damned programmer I could. I relished the challenges ahead. I got here, and while I enjoyed many of my courses, I quickly discovered that CS was not for me. I did well in my classes, but I found that the courses I wanted to take were never in CS. I eventually moved into Mathematical Sciences, where I now study Pure Math, Statistics, and Computer Science (the CS was becuase I had enough credits to satisfy one portion of my program using CS already). I took some economics classes where I met a friend Dave. He turned me onto the writings of Ayn Rand. That in turn spurred my intrest in philosophy, and also encouraged me to make more of my life than simply going to school.
Now I intend on doing graduate work in Economics, and persuing a career in finance. A pretty far leap from being a programmer i would say.
Would I have made that leap, or even seen that there was one to make, if I had of just picked up some CS & math texts from the library and studied them?
Anyways, a degree is a credential, just like anything else. All things being equal, I would hire someone with a degree becuase it speaks of their perseverance and ability to put up with large amounts of beaurocratic BS for long periods of time. It says to me as an employer that this person was able to achieve a goal, whatever that goal may be.
Not having a degree doesn't say anything bad about you, but it doesn't say anything good either. And in a world as competetive as ours, isn't it a good idea to get anything that speaks well of oneself? Pascal's wager : If it's useless, having it won't hurt you. If it's usefull, having it will be beneficial, not having it will be detrimental. Odds are with the guy who has it.
Funny thing is, the two most brilliant programmers I know, one went to Waterloo for CS, the other dropped out after first term. Were I was working for the last year, they came together to work on a project, and butted heads a lot. Neither was right (as you see all the time in programming, many ways do solve a problem are all equally right) but guess who always ended up winning with management? The degree. That told me something.
One other problem is that Human Resources people don't care how smart you are, if a degree is asked for as a requirement of the job, they toss ALL the resumes that don't list one. Often your degree is a great door stop. It doesn't get you in, it just keeps you from being shut out.
Besides, the trend is that people with degrees on average make more, and are employed for longer periods of time.
All this adds up to a pretty strong argument to get a degree. But it doesn't say that a degree makes you this or that.. just says you have a degree.
question though : would you let someone operate on you who said "I don't have my medicine degree, but gosh, I have read a lot of books about medicine and I know I can do it" or would you ask for a doctor with a degree?
Chad.
It is my experience as a student that computer science graduates are some of the least rounded people in the world. I go to the university of waterloo, and the people here scare me. it seems like the students in the math faculty (Computer Science at Waterloo is a Math program, you graduate with a B.Math degree) have little understanding of the world around them. It's kind of sad... I have seen so many graduates of this school become voiceless-spineless code-monkeys who do nothing but churn out code 10-5-4-52 for their lives. They never move up except to a more senior level of code-monkey .
Seeing this made me leave CS. I figured.. there are enough people REALLY GOOD AT CODE, but the real skill is going to be the bridge between the coders and the suits. Someone technologically proficient enough to converse with the technical elite, but human enough to talk with everyone else.
Anyways, making a rambling story shorter... you don't get breadth from your degree unless you choose to. you have to actually have the intrest in literature, philosophy, science, etc. in order to get anything out of it. Simply taking a course in shakespear will make you no more well-cultured than anyone else.
A degree is a paper credential, it's something the suits want. The qualities that you seek here (abstract thought & reason, breadth of knowledge, etc) are characters that people bring with them to university.
Anyways, this is going nowhere.
From Slashdot?
Wow! The sky really is falling!
I so strongly agree with the first comment. The whole point of programming is to embody a solution to a problem in a language the computer can understand. Writing a language to conform to "ease of compilation" is regressive. If we did that we'd all still be coding assembler, OS's would all be command line based, and computers would only be used in scientific institutions by a select few people who can master them.
As for your complaint about windows. I have the misfortune of writing windows code occasionally, and it's not that bad. If you use the ClassWizzard and Resource Designer of MSDev, then all the skeleton code is written for you. I downloaded a Resize-Manager library that allowed me to make my dialogs/windows fully resize-friendly in another 15 lines of code.
The problem is that you use API calls. Use MFC classes, MUCH EASIER. If you are coding for windows, you might as well take advantage of every ease of use feature you can (given you know your code is not going to be cross-platform).
Otherwise, use QT. It's really no better other than being cross platform.
"Quite frankly I'm amazed that these advertising companies haven't been able to buy that functionality out of the IE6."
I think that on this issue, MS would value the positive public perception of being pro privacy than the money doubleclick or others would pay. It's not like Doubleclick has a whole whack of cash to pay MS.
I am salaried where I work as a "software engineer". Hours around here are pretty much flexible, getting your work done on time is the rule.
On a slow week, I might come in around 10:30 and leave at 5pm. On a heavy week I would 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week.
So my work week can range from 30 to 90 hours, depending on the workload. So I guess I average out to a 60 hour work week.
I am salaried where I work as a "software engineer". Hours around here are pretty much flexible, getting your work done on time is the rule. On a slow week, I might come in around 10:30 and leave at 5pm. On a heavy week I would 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week. So my work week can range from 30 to 90 hours, depending on the workload. So I guess I average out to a 60 hour work week.
My own read on this would be:
Source Code is expresive becuase it shows specific style which is usually unique to the author. Much the same as each person has a somewhat unique style of handwriting, each programmer has a unique style of coding.
For instance:
int main (int argc, char** argv) {} and
int main (int argc, char* argv[]) {}
are similar and legal definitions for entry in C/C++ applications. However, different programmers will usually stick to one style, becuase it either makes more sense to them (for me, it is easier to think of char * argv[] as a two dimensional char array than char**, even though I KNOW they are functionally similar.
Other differences arise all over the place. Some people prefer passing ref values with pointers, some through references (C++ specific).
Code is free speech because it is the the result of a human's interpretation of an idea or theory. If I asked you to describe a sunset, everyone would give a distinct written answer. If I asked you to write me a webserver, everyone would return with a distinct solution.
To assume otherwise, that all code is essentially boilerplate, is to demean the truly intelligent people who distinguish themselves from their peers by finding clearer, more concise ways to solve problems. It is to box all programmers into one mold by claiming problems and answers exist in one to one mappings.
I do however think the following point should be raised: If you support that computer code is free speech (thus copyrightable under law) then you also argue for things like Amazon's one click patent. You argue that a novel solution to an idea can be patented, that I can write a strange type of tree structure and patent the idea and algorithms to work on it.
Making DeCSS illegal is along the lines of making it illegal to know how to pick locks, or how to make bombs. But it's SO much easier for the government to slap restrictions on your thought than to catch the specific offenders.
I live in Canada though, and we are a little more apathetic to this kind of thing. No draconian DMCA here (Although our own CanCon laws are pretty dumb).
Why would an artist want to give rights to their music away to everyone? How do you expect people to enrichen the world with their artistic talents if there is no outlet for them to make a living doing so? People might have artistic talent, but it still takes work and devotion to their work to make it "just right". Think of bands like Tool, who spend years working on their albums, re-record their tracks, and expend increadible effort so that the product is something they are happy with. Can they do this if they cannot keep rights to their music? Would they want to? (Probably not considering today's little faked-leak) Why does everyone want everyone to give away everything they labour to produce? Why does the public need/require/deserve rights to other artists work? If you want to cover another bands song, you are free to do so as long as you don't do it to make money. What is wrong with this? It wasn't your work that created the song. It was the original artist. Why should you be entitled to make money from someone else's work without compensating the person who expended the original effort??
I would not say it's a prevailing attitude at MS, I would say it's a prevailing world attitude about anything. Look at what governments do... Here is canada they have an enforced nation pension plan (CPP) becuase "people are too stupid to plan for their retirement". Enforced medicare/medicaid is there. Welfare is ultimatly there for people who are too stupid to make their own choices in life to allow for their own self-sufficiency.
MS does not think people are stupid, they do extensive user-testing of interfaces.. they probably spend as much on focus groups as they do on each incremental software release. I can guarantee you that the interface change for WinXP was a HUGE effort at MS. These are not people who just say "this would be cool" and put it in. If you wanted to change the X in the upper right corner to an O or something, you'd better have a good reason supported by user/focus groups.
This is not a bad thing. Most people don't care about the window-dressing. They want to get work done. I use Windows & Exceed at work not becuase I can't have a windows box, but becuase I can work faster with Exceed and Xterms under windows than in CDE alone. Not to knock GNOME/KDE, but the windows interface is easy like candy. I don't expend thought about the interface, I just use it.
From a user perspective, the GUI is there to help you accomlish your tasks more easily. But GUI is not a feature. If you design it as a feature it means you want it to be noticed... and if I notice the GUI, I am annoyed by it.
I wouldn't care if I had to choice under Unix or Not, and I would rather have EVERY COMPUTER IN THE WORLD have the exact same, non-obtrusive GUI than have the choice.
I see your points, but here are a couple thoughts I had:
First of all, I don't think it is a valid example to quote programs like Softimage, LightWave and KPT, since those tools appeal to a small segment of the market which is usually more tech savvy. Among common desktop applications, browsers, office progs, and MOST media software a consistent look and feel is kept.
That said, I agree that MS cannot really claim "look and feel" to be standard since they rework their own widget set with each new release of the OS or Office... this is fine by me though, since what I think IS important is that I know that in Windows, ALT-F4 will close the currently focused window, that CTRL-X/C/V will cut/copy/paste... etc.
This is what windows offers in terms of standard interface. This is what I would like to see in Xwindows under unix (currently I find my most productive mix is to use exceed under windows for all my unix needs since I know the windows keybindings... and am too lazy to learn another set.
I see both sides of the argument here... and I don't see as though it would kill MS to make windows Themeable/Skinable. On the other hand, I use my computer for work, so I care about as much as I care about the colour of my monitor.
I find that too many people are hung up on the "look" of the desktop. Isn't the whole point of a GUI to make it easier for you to get your work done? To lower the learning curve for newbies? Is the new user, or the standard work user benefitted by having 2 vastly different widget sets exist on the same machine. So that when one app pops up as QT look, and the other GTK+ look... will that be as easy as if they looked the same?
For that matter, most users will expect stuff like cut and paste and basic keybindings to remain the same. Why? Becuase they are in windows... and that is what most people cut their teeth on.
It's a mixed bag really.
Obviously enough people find value in that person hitting a ball with a bat to support the salaries they make. I have a problem with tax-support for sports, but otherwise athletes salaries are not expropriated from the public. You don't pay any athletes salary unless you go to the games to see them play.
Perhaps you are just jealous that the world finds such value in what someone like Mark McGuire does compared to what you do? Do you know how much dedication it takes to play professional sports? Do you know the hours these people spent as children and teens practicing? Maybe baseball is not the prime example, but a lot of atheletes forsake things we indulge in like drink and food.
And the fact that you worked your way up in the world from nothing does not give you any right to judge what everyone else should value. I came from nothing (white-trailer-trash) and now have a good job, am taking my MBA part time, and live quite comfortably. Am I any more entitled to my opinion than a kid who grew up in wealth and privledge? Absolutly not. I don't use my past as an excuse, a crutch, or in any way attempt to leverage it against my future.
People think that a "poor point of view" is noble, that somehow being thankful for having ANYTHING is how we should all live. Sure.. all anyone needs is a cave, an animal skin, and a hunk of raw meat. I would prefer more myself. I would prefer having the choice to listen to a game if I find value in it.
Really, with a 160 game season, that payment works out to about 6 cents a game. That does not seem like robbery to me.
Right, the record company has rights to my work, which are granted in exchange for their money put up to pay for studio time, marketing, and so forth.
I don't doubt that bands get pretty raped at first, but the fact is, under the system in place, many more artists are able to make a living from their work than say, 100 years ago. This is in part because 100 years ago, the proper channels didn't exist for artists to gain widespread exposure quickly.
"In that case you could proabably use any form of distro you can get (even those that dont pay)"
Yes, but the choice is still mine. And just becuase I "sell" my rights to the label in exchange for "development" (read above) doesn't mean their rights are any less valid.
I should not have just said artist though. This goes further than "artist" and should include anyone who produces/creates new property. The producers have rights over their work, until they decide otherwise, or the work is moved into the Public Domain.
If we destroy the concept of property rights, we become a communist society. It's that simple. That's the difference between capitalism and communism. Capitalist believe in individual rights, Communists believe in group rights.
Personally, I would rather see a society where everyone has rights, than one where your rights are dictated by the political whims of common mobs.
"And since the record industry sold more CDs then ever last year, that of course proves what all these lawsuits are about *cough*"
The lawsuits have little to do with actual record sales. Sure, that may be the immediate motivation, but the moral issue at stake is the artists right to their own work.
If I make an album, I am the only person who has any rights over my work. I alone can choose where I want that work distributed, and I alone can choose whether I want to share my work. When an artist signs to a record label, they give up some right to their work in exchange for the distribution and development support provided by the label. This gives the label incentive to put their financial backing behind bands, as they will ultimatly receive a reward (money) for their risk. Now when a band starts, they get raped by the label, but the label is usually fronting all the money for the album to be created and produced. As the artist becomes more successful, the label knows there is less of a risk, and they usually only need pay for the production and distribution of the final product, so they can afford to re-negotiate a better contract with the company.
What CmdrTaco suggests, by saying that unit sales should be the ultimate guide to the validity of the napster model, is that bands and companies should not care if their rights are invaded just because somebody waves some green in front of them.
People argue about the how tragic that inventor/researcher is whose work is being included in a broad property patent, but most realize that the company has the right to do it becuase that was part of the contract. How is this any different?
Oh wait, the record companies and a handful of the artists are rich, so their rights in modern society are have been automatically abdicated in favour of those who claim looting rights to their work becuase they are not as rich.
You paid 18.00 for a CD becuase that's what it was worth to you. Why should a company sell something for less than people are willing to pay for it? What sense does that make. The demand for music dictates the price.
This is the way I look at it. I pay $20 for the "A Perfect Circle" album that just came out. Now I DID have the album on MP3 before it came out, but bought the CD the day it was released. I paid for it, and have listened to it maybe 50-60 times since I bought it. Counting the 50-60 times I listened to the album on MP3, that makes my cost around 20 cents for each listening. Now if I told you that you could listen to any album once for a quarter, you'd think it was a great deal. I mean, you pay $11 (CDN) for a movie you see once in the theatre.
The fact of the matter is that CD's are WORTH that much becuase they provide long-term value. A CD lasts 10yrs+, and does not really degrade it quality. So the record company gets a one time profit from your purchase.
If you don't think $18 is fair for the CD. DON'T BUY IT. Why should it be cheaper just becuase you don't want to pay for it? I want to buy a car for $10 but that's not going to happen. Should I use that for justification to steal?
I think the whole Napster debate is pretty funny. Everyone thinks that becuase the internet exists, property rights no longer exist, and the artist is not entitled to control of their work. Being a musician myself, I find it rather offensive that people assume that I have to relinquish control of my music, and how it's distributed, to any idiot with a new idea on how that work can be mass-replicated to everyone. Don't get me wrong, MP3 and online delivery of content is a GREAT evolution, and will eventually benefit the ARTISTS greatly. It will allow for lower consumer prices through lower distrobution costs, and allow more bands to gain easier exposure of their work on their own terms. People assume though that recond companies are all bad. But the fact of the matter is that record companies can do a lot for a band on the rise. With much more substantial moneies than the bands many have, a record label can work to promote a band they believe will succeed. Of course it's to their own benefit to see the band see well, but there is nothing wrong with that. I think efforts like MyMP3 represent the future of online music. If someone could establish an online record store, where I could setup an account with my credit card, etc, and be able to purchase the right to access an album online. Have the media and player work through a public key encryption scheme (so my purchases cannot be played by others without my consent) and make possible the ability for me to make CD "hardcopies" of this music (like an audio ISO file or something that I can burn to CD). But Napster has no real moral ground to stand on. What the looters and rotters call "Sharing" the producers and artists call "Theft". Everybody applaunds Fred Durst for making a stand for Napster, but how much do you think he's getting paid to make that stand? I wonder if Fred's message would change if their new album sold only 500,000 copies becuase everyone could get it for free over the internet? Like Lars to eloquently stated on the MTV Video awards, sharing is only fun when it's not your stuff.
Also, linux is moving into some of the spots where otherwise solaris or HP/UX might be used. But do HP and Sun *really* care if they don't sell copies of Solaris and HP/UX? Sure, that's revenue that they're losing but at the same time, they make their money selling HARDWARE not software. So it's really not that much of a tragedy if some of their software gets pushed a bit to the side.
I think you are way wrong on this one. Sun is very much afraid of Linux. They sell HARDWARE. Who will buy their HARDWARE if generic off the shelf components are cheaper and easier to come by, and are supported in linux?
The company I work for has already stopped buying new Sun Workstations in favour of Intel based machines running Linux. We have rougewave for Linux, and all the other tools we use under Solaris, and what is Solaris specific, we just log into one of the SunServers and work/compile there. But the goal is to replace those servers with Linux when the time is right.
You are right, sun cares little for Solaris as an OS, they care for Solaris becuase it means you are running Sun Hardware. (why do you think they have Community Sourced Solaris? )
First, I really don't see what the big deal is with this. It should not feel any different than when a doctor has to see you for a physical, except the guys won't have to "cough"
I feel more sorry for the people who have to watch these screens. I mean, do YOU want to be watching the screen when some fat greasy people walk through?
Maybe this will be more incentive for the overly obese and fat to slim down a little.
I don't know where you get your information, but ANY reproduction of copywritten media is illegal in the US. You are not even legally allowed to make a copy of a CD to tape so that you can listen to it in your car, you are supposed to by in on Tape as well.
I think that with the commitment that Redhat has shown to the community, this can only benefit. Cygnus gives Redhat a great technology portfolio, and provided redhat continues their trend of making their contribution free, we shoudl see some cool new things for linux from this...
Cowpland's name has long been ruined. I was not surprised in the least when I read of his charges. I mean, the guy is like a snake-oil salesman from the 1800's. He radiates an aura of greed and self-intrest.
It would be different if he at least showed some ability to lead the company, but he doesn't. He DOES show a remarkable ability to grind it into the ground.
This is not the first time he has been charged with securities violations either, and I don't think that it's just an unlucky co-incidence.
I think Corel is much better off without cowpland. He has shown time and time again that he has no long term vision for the company, and it only ever interested in being "just Like Bill" and running the next MS.
Corel's support of linux is simply Cowpland thinking that if he can't win on windows, maybe he can domineer a different platform entirely, and right now it looks like windows will lose in time.
Also, cowpland and his wife must be embarrasing to the company's image, especially when they are losing money, yet she flaunts her 1 million dollar lambskin jumpsuit with diamond nipple and gold breast plate.