And that's why you can't give handouts in any kind of rational expectation that they will result in the person getting a leg up and no longer needing the handouts.
The standard human response for someone into whose outstretched hand you place an opportunity to get out of his rut is to reach out the other hand, palm up.
You assume too much. We could elect a different politician in as few as 4 years, and enjoy only 4 years of corporate whoring followed by 4 years of corporate whoring.
I agree. I see it like this... There are basically a few key elements to a financially successful idea. You have to either succeed at all of them or succeed at a few and get lucky on the rest in order to get anywhere with your ideas.
Have a good idea to begin with (plant a good seed)
Recognize that the idea is good (separate wheat from chaff on the knowledge that wheat is the valuable part)
Develop the idea into something useful (mill it into flour)
Market the idea effectively (convince the right people that your flour is better than anyone else's)
You can hire people to help with some of these steps, but all of them need to either be performed or obviated by sheer, dumb luck. Marketing is the easiest to get help with, although the marketroids still need to understand the idea in order to do their job right.
But it's #2 that this article is concerned about, really: The fear is that a professor or graduate assistant will recognize that your idea is good and take the remaining steps behind your back. Don't worry about that. As others have pointed out, your ideas just aren't that good just yet. Learn to recognize good ideas first, and then start filtering which of them you share with the class in order to get the grades without giving up a goldmine.
Just pray that, when you do have that idea that you recognize as being good, you are able to take the remaining steps. That's what you need to prepare yourself for today, anyhow, while you're still in school: Become adept at recognizing good ideas and developing them. Before you know it, you'll be the one "stealing" ideas and making millions.
Having actually read the parent and its parent, I, unlike you, am aware that the claim was that "it's just a matter of time before the keyboard and mouse go away." That means no keyboards at all, and it's preposterous, a few cell-phone novels from the people who grow square watermelons notwithstanding.
Your suggestion that people balked at computers because they did not view them as practical is not backed up in history, nor do you provide any citation to any serious claims of that sort. The computer was originally presented as a business machine that could replace the typewriter. Typewriters had already been popular for nearly 100 years, and were an invention born out of necessity: Business communications during the Industrial Revolution demanded a faster way to create correspondence.
Unless and until another interface is capable of performing all computing tasks at least as efficiently as the keyboard, the keyboard will be commonplace. It may be removed from certain applications, but until a better technology for writing (and formatting, as I pointed out earlier in my call to write those documents on a cell phone) letters and the like comes along, every office PC will have a keyboard.
Try writing and formatting a 20-page brief, 150-page thesis, or a thousand 2-page letters on your cell phone if you need any proof that the full keyboard is here to stay.
Oh, and then, after you finish all that, try to write a speech recognition program without using a keyboard.
This is fascinating and altogether newsworthy. I had never before thought of this. I am very pleased, indeed, that kdawson engaged his most finely-honed editorial faculties to post this article to the front page, as it is not only stunning and fascinating in substance but also rather eloquently written.
The obvious solution to this controversy will incidentally save a beloved icon of computing history from bankruptcy and demise. Let's hire SCO to consult on this, and find out exactly how much current Mozilla code is stolen from Mosaic.
While we're at it, we may want to get the analysis of how much Mozilla code is stolen from SCO Unix, too.
The summary also doesn't explain what "committing suicide" means in the context of a Zune, and the headline has an exclamation point. The fix we need is moderation of front-page stories so that crap like this goes away.
Exactly. Like I said, "very slight correction." I just didn't want less-informed people to get the wrong idea. And instead I started a Mexican stand-off. Go figure. =)
I love it when people read what I write, say "you are wrong," and then repeat what I wrote in different terms.
The only way that what you said, about the Constitution restricting the government, means something other than what I said, about the Constitution being a check on democracy, is if the government involved is not a democracy. In the USA, all states are presently run as representative democracies.
If my prose was unclear as to its meaning, I apologize. However, it is correct, and in fact is not at odds with your own (essentially 100% correct) comment. The central point: The Constitution limits what the government can do.
But what I was actually writing about was in response to the parent comment, which made the claim that child pornography and obscene material are necessarily illegal. That is up the the states to decide under the Constitution and relevant jurisprudence. In other words, just because the Constitution does not restrict a state from banning something does not mean that a state is required to ban it.
I actually read that after I posted, of course. I always RTFASTL (seconds too late).:) (But I still think that we should learn to make better predictions. Haven't you guys solved the N-body problem yet?)
Child porn involving actual children - the states may choose to make it illegal with impunity. Images and stories of children having sex - the states may choose to make them illegal if the laws by which they do so only apply when the content is obscene.
The important point is this: It is up to the states to decide whether and how to regulate or ban these things. Just because the Constitution does not require the government to permit something does not mean that the government is restricted from permitting it. The Constitution is, rather, a check on democracy itself, and for many things it sets no rules and leaves democracy to its own devices, which is probably the right thing to do in these cases.
The point is this: If Apple hadn't registered the copyright already (other comments have pointed out that they in fact have done so), they could do so today and get statutory damages on future acts of infringement. No more Psystar*.
* - This assumes that Psystar is actually infringing Apple's copyrights and/or that it is necessary for them to do so in the future to succeed as a business.
You're not quite right. But that's okay, this is Slashdot. Carry on!
1. You only lose statutory damages, and only for pre-registration infringement.
2. You can register anytime, although within a short time after publication is a good idea. So you register today, sue tomorrow, and get actual damages for pre-registration infringement and statutory damages for post-registration infringement.
Any failure to register the copyright isn't going to stop Apple from enforcing its copyright going forward.
I know what you mean! The real problem with tennis, though, is that you can't really get good at it until you have genital herpes, or at least that's the image that the commercial media wants you go believe. That, and riding bicycle, are both things that you can do once you get herpes and start taking Valtrex.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's why you can't give handouts in any kind of rational expectation that they will result in the person getting a leg up and no longer needing the handouts.
The standard human response for someone into whose outstretched hand you place an opportunity to get out of his rut is to reach out the other hand, palm up.
You assume too much. We could elect a different politician in as few as 4 years, and enjoy only 4 years of corporate whoring followed by 4 years of corporate whoring.
I agree. I see it like this... There are basically a few key elements to a financially successful idea. You have to either succeed at all of them or succeed at a few and get lucky on the rest in order to get anywhere with your ideas.
You can hire people to help with some of these steps, but all of them need to either be performed or obviated by sheer, dumb luck. Marketing is the easiest to get help with, although the marketroids still need to understand the idea in order to do their job right.
But it's #2 that this article is concerned about, really: The fear is that a professor or graduate assistant will recognize that your idea is good and take the remaining steps behind your back. Don't worry about that. As others have pointed out, your ideas just aren't that good just yet. Learn to recognize good ideas first, and then start filtering which of them you share with the class in order to get the grades without giving up a goldmine.
Just pray that, when you do have that idea that you recognize as being good, you are able to take the remaining steps. That's what you need to prepare yourself for today, anyhow, while you're still in school: Become adept at recognizing good ideas and developing them. Before you know it, you'll be the one "stealing" ideas and making millions.
Never mind, I found it!
I still want a Spishak Mach 20. Or at least a link to the ad for it.
Having actually read the parent and its parent, I, unlike you, am aware that the claim was that "it's just a matter of time before the keyboard and mouse go away." That means no keyboards at all, and it's preposterous, a few cell-phone novels from the people who grow square watermelons notwithstanding.
Your suggestion that people balked at computers because they did not view them as practical is not backed up in history, nor do you provide any citation to any serious claims of that sort. The computer was originally presented as a business machine that could replace the typewriter. Typewriters had already been popular for nearly 100 years, and were an invention born out of necessity: Business communications during the Industrial Revolution demanded a faster way to create correspondence.
Unless and until another interface is capable of performing all computing tasks at least as efficiently as the keyboard, the keyboard will be commonplace. It may be removed from certain applications, but until a better technology for writing (and formatting, as I pointed out earlier in my call to write those documents on a cell phone) letters and the like comes along, every office PC will have a keyboard.
Try writing and formatting a 20-page brief, 150-page thesis, or a thousand 2-page letters on your cell phone if you need any proof that the full keyboard is here to stay.
Oh, and then, after you finish all that, try to write a speech recognition program without using a keyboard.
This is fascinating and altogether newsworthy. I had never before thought of this. I am very pleased, indeed, that kdawson engaged his most finely-honed editorial faculties to post this article to the front page, as it is not only stunning and fascinating in substance but also rather eloquently written.
The obvious solution to this controversy will incidentally save a beloved icon of computing history from bankruptcy and demise. Let's hire SCO to consult on this, and find out exactly how much current Mozilla code is stolen from Mosaic.
While we're at it, we may want to get the analysis of how much Mozilla code is stolen from SCO Unix, too.
I find your use of the phrase "started to slip" interesting. Please share more of your curious usage ideas.
The summary also doesn't explain what "committing suicide" means in the context of a Zune, and the headline has an exclamation point. The fix we need is moderation of front-page stories so that crap like this goes away.
How many of those nicknames are regularly used in news headlines?
The show Code Monkeys does a good job of reminding us of those games. Cobras vs. Chimps FTW.
I was wondering the cause of the unpredictability. If it's earthquakes as you say, then my point stands: we should learn to make better predictions.
Exactly. Like I said, "very slight correction." I just didn't want less-informed people to get the wrong idea. And instead I started a Mexican stand-off. Go figure. =)
I love it when people read what I write, say "you are wrong," and then repeat what I wrote in different terms.
The only way that what you said, about the Constitution restricting the government, means something other than what I said, about the Constitution being a check on democracy, is if the government involved is not a democracy. In the USA, all states are presently run as representative democracies.
If my prose was unclear as to its meaning, I apologize. However, it is correct, and in fact is not at odds with your own (essentially 100% correct) comment. The central point: The Constitution limits what the government can do.
But what I was actually writing about was in response to the parent comment, which made the claim that child pornography and obscene material are necessarily illegal. That is up the the states to decide under the Constitution and relevant jurisprudence. In other words, just because the Constitution does not restrict a state from banning something does not mean that a state is required to ban it.
I actually read that after I posted, of course. I always RTFASTL (seconds too late). :) (But I still think that we should learn to make better predictions. Haven't you guys solved the N-body problem yet?)
Very slight correction:
Child porn involving actual children - the states may choose to make it illegal with impunity. Images and stories of children having sex - the states may choose to make them illegal if the laws by which they do so only apply when the content is obscene.
The important point is this: It is up to the states to decide whether and how to regulate or ban these things. Just because the Constitution does not require the government to permit something does not mean that the government is restricted from permitting it. The Constitution is, rather, a check on democracy itself, and for many things it sets no rules and leaves democracy to its own devices, which is probably the right thing to do in these cases.
Any announcement of a time-system complication less than two years in advance of its occurrence is late.
The point is this: If Apple hadn't registered the copyright already (other comments have pointed out that they in fact have done so), they could do so today and get statutory damages on future acts of infringement. No more Psystar*.
* - This assumes that Psystar is actually infringing Apple's copyrights and/or that it is necessary for them to do so in the future to succeed as a business.
You're not quite right. But that's okay, this is Slashdot. Carry on!
1. You only lose statutory damages, and only for pre-registration infringement.
2. You can register anytime, although within a short time after publication is a good idea. So you register today, sue tomorrow, and get actual damages for pre-registration infringement and statutory damages for post-registration infringement.
Any failure to register the copyright isn't going to stop Apple from enforcing its copyright going forward.
It's not how you sleep at night, it's where.
Eco-Windows. Oh, wait.
I know what you mean! The real problem with tennis, though, is that you can't really get good at it until you have genital herpes, or at least that's the image that the commercial media wants you go believe. That, and riding bicycle, are both things that you can do once you get herpes and start taking Valtrex.
It's damn near sans font.