While your skills should certainly be language independent, it is also true that different languages make different things easy. Otherwise, why would we have so many of them?
I think the main thing I see is that the old argument, "Scripting languages are far too slow!" has finally been put to rest. All of the up and coming languages cited in the article are dynamically typed, interpreted (or bytecode-interpreted) languages.
No, its not that. Its just that its Google's own fault for releasing quality software and labeling it "beta" as well. For example, GMail is still officially in "beta", but the quality of GMail is far above the quality of Google Chrome.
For one, I actually prefer a file browser type system for sorting and selecting music (assuming on-the-go playlist creation) rather than the media database based on tags. Sometimes I sort oddly based on my tastes and several times having to track down based on tag would be tedious.
Hear, hear! I too would rather use files than tags (mainly because I'm too lazy to go through and tag all of my music correctly). That's why I use a Creative Sansa with Rockbox.
The ipods are nothing like any other mp3 players, but off course why be logical when there is Apple hate.
The iPod is nothing like other MP3 players? Really? I mean, doesn't it play music and video?
I understand what you're trying to say (the design and interface of the iPod is superior to that of other MP3 players), but the way you say it makes it seem like the iPod is an entirely different device. It would be like me saying, "Acuras are nothing like other cars, but of course, why be logical when there is Acura hate."
Oh yeah, the RIAA does provide a legitimate service in that regard, and I have no problem with them providing the service. The issue I have is with their monopolization of said service, which is why I'm applauding this new organization. A competitive market for the music promotion business would benefit artists and consumers.
While its entirely unreasonable to compare an RIAA contract to slavery, I do think you're overstating the amount of voluntary choice that one has when signing these contracts. Simply put, many artists see a choice between giving in to the RIAA or languishing in obscurity forever. And, it is in the RIAA's interest to let such a situation continue. This is why these sorts of organizations (by the artists, for the artists) are to be welcomed.
While the RIAA does not get a cut of the sale price of broadcast equipment, it is still in their interest to make sure that the number of broadcasters doesn't proliferate. The RIAA has positioned itself as a "gatekeeper", deciding what music becomes commercially successful, and what music fades from memory. In order to do this, they need to secure the cooperation of the broadcast industry. If there are lots of broadcasters, this task becomes more difficult. If everyone is a broadcaster, it becomes impossible for the RIAA to fulfill its self-appointed gatekeeper role. Therefore, the RIAA seeks to limit the number of broadcasters whenever possible, to preserve its ability to decide what music becomes popular.
Unfortunately, it's not always that simple. Sure, there may be a few universities that have secure leased lines running to CERN, but, given the prominence of the LHC, there are sure to be researchers not from those universities who want to run LHC experiments. Cutting off those researchers simply because they're at the wrong institution doesn't seem fair.
Oh. I see. You still own the copyright to your work, but you can just choose to not enforce that copyright, creating a de facto public domain work, when no such legal construct exists.
That said, though, what are the default terms of copyright? I mean, the original creator of a piece of software may not enforce his implicit copyright, but what if his heirs do?
Right, but my issue still stands - if a "heretic" can claim enough followers, he can start his own competing narrative, distorting the oral tradition.
Lets get beyond hypothetical scenarios. What real oral traditions have been accepted as historical truth? I mean, we don't really believe that Jason planted "dragons teeth" and fought the army that they sprouted into. We don't really believe that Theseus fought a half-man half-bull in a labyrinth. We recognize that these stories are allegories for real events, but, without any sort of written record, we have no idea what those events are. Tell me, is there any oral tradition that can tell us the truth of a historical event?
YouTube is required by law to take down content when someone files a DMCA takedown notice, and put it back up after 14 days if the person who uploaded it files an uncontested counter notice. I believe that is what happened when the IOC mistakenly filed a notice against some video footage titled "Olympic Opening Ceremony" or something, which turned out to be footage of people protesting outside the Chinese embassy in New York.
While that may be the case, you do realize that this is the same YouTube who pulled videos in response to a 15 year old Australian Boy, right? I mean, if some kid in Australia can gin up a convincing DMCA takedown, how difficult will it be for a proper lawyer associated with Discovery or one of the CC companies to find a provision that conceivably supports their case and fire a barrage of takedown notices?
The problem with your example is that the original source still exists. In other words, anyone who doubts the oral tradition can still go back to the movie and see what Obi Wan really said. But, with historical events, that's not really an option, is it? Lets say that all copies of "Star Wars" were destroyed. At this point, a geek could say, "Well, I believe Obi-Wan said, 'Tashi Station...'," and, without access to the original source, the argument would turn into a game of he-said-she-said.
The CEO may be thinking ``refactoring this code will take 5 months, in 6 the current product will no longer be viable and we'll have a replacement in the market. I should dump this product and focus on the replacement. More over, making good code will mean that I'll need to retrain the entire software team, that's going to slow them down a lot and I need a new product out pronto. Hire good software engineers to replace them? Can't there's a skills shortage in their areas (e.g. they are image analysis specialists). Hire software engineers to refactor their code? Slows them down as well.''
That's great in theory, and, while I have heard that argument in the business world, the fact remains that the scenario described almost never unfolds that way in the real world. The new product almost never ships on time, and, when it does, it does not instantaneously replace the old product. So, you have a transition period where you're supporting both products. And, given that the majority of the work in the software lifecycle is in the maintenance phase (proven time and again by peer reviewed studies), it is often worth it to refactor code in an old product, if such refactoring will help you support that product more thoroughly.
Second, how do you know your code is better than the competition unless you've tested it?
The GPL and BSD licenses should not appear in the same sentence there. While the GPL restricts you from incorporating that code into commercial software (e.g. "fencing off the farm"), the BSD license has no such restriction.
Wait, what? You're saying that, in Germany, I can't set up a public server and hand out tarballs of my code? What're they going to do? Kick down my door and take away my computer because I give away the program I've written?
The OLPC's hand crank has been replaced with a pull-type generator, hasn't it? In any case, the parent's point stands - the OLPC has its own built-in power generator.
As an addendum, I'd also say, "Make sure you keep a copy for yourself, too." When the feces hits the fan, records have an annoying tendency to get "lost", or "misplaced".
The problem I'm finding is that the lack of structured development and design here is actually beginning to hurt me professionally: prospective employers, who have software development as a core aspect of their business, actually ask about this kind of thing.
Two response to that. First, see if you can get some open-source work in. Yeah, I know, its on your spare time, and it feels like homework, but it will give you experience with a more structured form of software development. It also allows you to build up a "portfolio" of code that you can show to your prospective employer.
Second, at the interview, when you're asked about your previous position, be sure to mention (without naming names) the problems and the fact that you tried to fix things. If the interviewer can see that you're committed to good coding practices, they're more likely to forgive a deficiency of actual on-the-job experience. The fact that you took the initiative and actually attempted to change practices for the better is also likely to count in your favor.
Slashdot Mirror
While your skills should certainly be language independent, it is also true that different languages make different things easy. Otherwise, why would we have so many of them?
I think the main thing I see is that the old argument, "Scripting languages are far too slow!" has finally been put to rest. All of the up and coming languages cited in the article are dynamically typed, interpreted (or bytecode-interpreted) languages.
No, its not that. Its just that its Google's own fault for releasing quality software and labeling it "beta" as well. For example, GMail is still officially in "beta", but the quality of GMail is far above the quality of Google Chrome.
I'm not sure how this ruling makes sense, given that the article didn't actually say what the legal definition of "complex" was.
For one, I actually prefer a file browser type system for sorting and selecting music (assuming on-the-go playlist creation) rather than the media database based on tags. Sometimes I sort oddly based on my tastes and several times having to track down based on tag would be tedious.
Hear, hear! I too would rather use files than tags (mainly because I'm too lazy to go through and tag all of my music correctly). That's why I use a Creative Sansa with Rockbox.
Heh, there's a good reason I refer to Biden as "Joe Biden (D-MBNA)".
YouTube comments come from people!
The ipods are nothing like any other mp3 players, but off course why be logical when there is Apple hate.
The iPod is nothing like other MP3 players? Really? I mean, doesn't it play music and video?
I understand what you're trying to say (the design and interface of the iPod is superior to that of other MP3 players), but the way you say it makes it seem like the iPod is an entirely different device. It would be like me saying, "Acuras are nothing like other cars, but of course, why be logical when there is Acura hate."
Oh, you know, what we hired them to do - actually gathering evidence and following up on clues...
Oh yeah, the RIAA does provide a legitimate service in that regard, and I have no problem with them providing the service. The issue I have is with their monopolization of said service, which is why I'm applauding this new organization. A competitive market for the music promotion business would benefit artists and consumers.
While its entirely unreasonable to compare an RIAA contract to slavery, I do think you're overstating the amount of voluntary choice that one has when signing these contracts. Simply put, many artists see a choice between giving in to the RIAA or languishing in obscurity forever. And, it is in the RIAA's interest to let such a situation continue. This is why these sorts of organizations (by the artists, for the artists) are to be welcomed.
And? What's wrong with that? I use Visual Studio in addition to a number of open-source tools. I think this is a great inclusion into Visual Studio.
While the RIAA does not get a cut of the sale price of broadcast equipment, it is still in their interest to make sure that the number of broadcasters doesn't proliferate. The RIAA has positioned itself as a "gatekeeper", deciding what music becomes commercially successful, and what music fades from memory. In order to do this, they need to secure the cooperation of the broadcast industry. If there are lots of broadcasters, this task becomes more difficult. If everyone is a broadcaster, it becomes impossible for the RIAA to fulfill its self-appointed gatekeeper role. Therefore, the RIAA seeks to limit the number of broadcasters whenever possible, to preserve its ability to decide what music becomes popular.
Unfortunately, it's not always that simple. Sure, there may be a few universities that have secure leased lines running to CERN, but, given the prominence of the LHC, there are sure to be researchers not from those universities who want to run LHC experiments. Cutting off those researchers simply because they're at the wrong institution doesn't seem fair.
Oh. I see. You still own the copyright to your work, but you can just choose to not enforce that copyright, creating a de facto public domain work, when no such legal construct exists.
That said, though, what are the default terms of copyright? I mean, the original creator of a piece of software may not enforce his implicit copyright, but what if his heirs do?
Right, but my issue still stands - if a "heretic" can claim enough followers, he can start his own competing narrative, distorting the oral tradition.
Lets get beyond hypothetical scenarios. What real oral traditions have been accepted as historical truth? I mean, we don't really believe that Jason planted "dragons teeth" and fought the army that they sprouted into. We don't really believe that Theseus fought a half-man half-bull in a labyrinth. We recognize that these stories are allegories for real events, but, without any sort of written record, we have no idea what those events are. Tell me, is there any oral tradition that can tell us the truth of a historical event?
Well, it worked for this dude.
YouTube is required by law to take down content when someone files a DMCA takedown notice, and put it back up after 14 days if the person who uploaded it files an uncontested counter notice. I believe that is what happened when the IOC mistakenly filed a notice against some video footage titled "Olympic Opening Ceremony" or something, which turned out to be footage of people protesting outside the Chinese embassy in New York.
While that may be the case, you do realize that this is the same YouTube who pulled videos in response to a 15 year old Australian Boy, right? I mean, if some kid in Australia can gin up a convincing DMCA takedown, how difficult will it be for a proper lawyer associated with Discovery or one of the CC companies to find a provision that conceivably supports their case and fire a barrage of takedown notices?
The problem with your example is that the original source still exists. In other words, anyone who doubts the oral tradition can still go back to the movie and see what Obi Wan really said. But, with historical events, that's not really an option, is it? Lets say that all copies of "Star Wars" were destroyed. At this point, a geek could say, "Well, I believe Obi-Wan said, 'Tashi Station...'," and, without access to the original source, the argument would turn into a game of he-said-she-said.
Except that AT&T didn' play fair by everybody. Remember, this is the company that tried to dictate what kind of phones you could plug into its lines.
The CEO may be thinking ``refactoring this code will take 5 months, in 6 the current product will no longer be viable and we'll have a replacement in the market. I should dump this product and focus on the replacement. More over, making good code will mean that I'll need to retrain the entire software team, that's going to slow them down a lot and I need a new product out pronto. Hire good software engineers to replace them? Can't there's a skills shortage in their areas (e.g. they are image analysis specialists). Hire software engineers to refactor their code? Slows them down as well.''
That's great in theory, and, while I have heard that argument in the business world, the fact remains that the scenario described almost never unfolds that way in the real world. The new product almost never ships on time, and, when it does, it does not instantaneously replace the old product. So, you have a transition period where you're supporting both products. And, given that the majority of the work in the software lifecycle is in the maintenance phase (proven time and again by peer reviewed studies), it is often worth it to refactor code in an old product, if such refactoring will help you support that product more thoroughly.
Second, how do you know your code is better than the competition unless you've tested it?
The GPL and BSD licenses should not appear in the same sentence there. While the GPL restricts you from incorporating that code into commercial software (e.g. "fencing off the farm"), the BSD license has no such restriction.
Wait, what? You're saying that, in Germany, I can't set up a public server and hand out tarballs of my code? What're they going to do? Kick down my door and take away my computer because I give away the program I've written?
The OLPC's hand crank has been replaced with a pull-type generator, hasn't it? In any case, the parent's point stands - the OLPC has its own built-in power generator.
As an addendum, I'd also say, "Make sure you keep a copy for yourself, too." When the feces hits the fan, records have an annoying tendency to get "lost", or "misplaced".
The problem I'm finding is that the lack of structured development and design here is actually beginning to hurt me professionally: prospective employers, who have software development as a core aspect of their business, actually ask about this kind of thing.
Two response to that. First, see if you can get some open-source work in. Yeah, I know, its on your spare time, and it feels like homework, but it will give you experience with a more structured form of software development. It also allows you to build up a "portfolio" of code that you can show to your prospective employer.
Second, at the interview, when you're asked about your previous position, be sure to mention (without naming names) the problems and the fact that you tried to fix things. If the interviewer can see that you're committed to good coding practices, they're more likely to forgive a deficiency of actual on-the-job experience. The fact that you took the initiative and actually attempted to change practices for the better is also likely to count in your favor.