POP access in Yahoo mail plus has a very annoying restriction - I can't email (or cc: ) myself. I'm not sure why, but guess the idea is to stop people from using yahoo mail to archive files, which is ridiculous esp since I'm paying good money to use yahoo mail plus.
Think a little harder. A company which outsources work to India saves money. Where do the savings go to?
Part of the savings go to the consumer. So instead of paying $2/minute for a helpline, you pay $1/mintue. The consumer benefits.
Part of the savings go to the company. Where do these savings go to?
They are either:
- Returned to the shareholders as dividends. To the greedy fat cat capitalists, I here you say? Well, most large companies are public companies; if you think the company is going to make a killing from outsourcing, then buy shares in the company and take a stake in the profits.
- Or, retained by the company for reinvestment, in which case the economy benefits from increased growth.
The argument in favour of outsourcing is the same as the arguments in favour of any other form of free trade - it increases the welfare of the economy as a whole. The challenges are the same as the challenges faced by any other form of free trade - the pain is sorely felt by a few, while the benefits are much more diffuse; here intense political opposition.
Benefit of $1 of US spending sent offshore, 2002 est
US Savnig accruing to US investors/customers 0.58 Imports of US goods and services by providers in India 0.05 Transfer of profits by US-based providers in India back to US 0.04 Net direct benefit retained in UA 0.67 Value from US labour re-employed
I read the Apache 2.0 license a little more carefully, and compared this with Apache license 1.1. Licenses may be found here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/
The last para of Apache 2.0, Section 4 says that:
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
This appears to say that if I create a derivative work based on code licensed under Apache 2.0, I may prevent further redistribution of my derivative work?
However, Apache License 1.1 does not appear to contain an equivalent of the paragraph above . Read together with the requirement in 1.1. that "1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer," this appears to say that for Apache 1.1, the developer of a derivative work may not restrict redistribution of the derivative work? (since the list of conditions includes the permission to redistribute)
I'd appreciate a clarification, as I'm considering developing a commercial product derived from a piece of software licensed under the Apache License 1.1
Does the Apache license allow commercial distribution of code based on the apache code, in the case where the modified source code is included as part of the commercial package, but the end-user is prohibited from redistributing the source code?
but if you forgive me mixing my metaphors the Innovators Dilemma tells us that you can cross the chasm in a series of steps...
it raises its profile on emedded devices home users will become more comfortable with the idea of a Linux desktop. Similarly as corporates become comfortable with Linux in their server racks, more and more of them will consider the possibility of deploying Linux desktops, perhaps starting with places like call-centres where they don't need a fully-fledged Windows rollout.
Certainly, the chasm can and should be crossed in a series of steps. This is exactly what Moore recommends. More precisely, he recommends establishing a beachhead by gaining control of a niche market. However, this niche market has to have certain characteristics - most crucially, it has to be part of the mainstream market in the first place i.e. other mainstream buyers must reference, trust and rely upon the recommendations made by buyers in this niche market in their purchasing decisions.
Is the embedded device market or server market a market which desktop users will reference in their purchasing decisions? I don't think so.
I'm probably oversimplifying the approach laid out in "Crossing the Chasm". Again, I highly recommend this book.
For anyone who has ever wondered why more people don't use linux, staroffice, etc, I recommend the classic on technology marketing "Crossing the Chasm" by Geoffrey Moore. It describes the "chasm" which technology companies face in crossing from the early adopter market to the pragmatic, mainstream market.
The consumers on the left side of the chasm - what Moore terms the innovators and early adopters - enjoy using new technology, enjoy putting things together, have the vision to see the potential of new technology, and are willing to put up with inconveniences in the iterim.
The mainstream market is pragmatic. It prefers to bet on clear market leaders (so as to minimise risk and benefit from the supporting ecosystem which inevitably grow around the market leader), is willing to wait and see, and needs complete, fully functional, headache-free solutions for their specific needs. Consumers in the mainstream market rely on references within the mainstream market to drive their buying decisions.
A technology company which wants to transition from the early adopter market to the mainstream market therefore has to bridge this "chasm", and in the process, change the focus of its marketing efforts and adjust its product accordingly. As far as the desktop market is concerned, Unix (with the exception of Mac OS X) is a product which clearly has not bridged the chasm.
Microsoft shares have a high Price to Earnings ratio. This means that investors are betting on high growth in future earnings, to justify the current price. Hence, "grow another Disney each year" (probably an exaggeration)
The poster is right. The page rank as implemented at Google is much more complex than what was presented in the original paper. e.g. it incorporates modifications to hold back attempts to articifically increase page ranks; it's a continual arms race(btw I've taken a class on Data Mining by Ullman, Sergey Brin and Larry Page's original advisor).
Nerds are by definition people who are smart but unpopular i.e. lacking in social skills.
There are plenty of people who are smart and popular. They are politicians, corporate executives, etc. i.e. the "Leaders" in society. To be sure, there are fewer Leaders than nerds, but this a simple matter of statistics - to be a leader requires a convergence of both intelligence and social skills in one person.
Notice that he has to lift up the inverted pendulum before the robot can balance it. If a non-linear controller is used, it's possible for the robot itself to swing the pendulum upright(and keep it upright) from a horizontal position.
Yahoo requires a "security key" to sign up for paid services. I forgot my security key - some gibberish I entered more than four years ago when I first created my account. After being put on hold on the Yahoo "help line" (on an IDD call!) for more than 15 mins, Yahoo's not getting my money.
The argument made in the article is illogical and plain silly.
Statistical software doesn't need to be open source for people to know whether it works right - the algorithms used are well-established and documented. e.g. Matlab has extensive documentation which describes the algorithms used for each function. Furthermore it's easy to check whether the software is works correctly by running it through test cases.
The fact that a piece of software (e.g. matlab, excel,etc.) is used by scientists, financial engineers, etc. is a better assurance of reliability than its open sourceness.
It's interesting that none of the (highly rated) posts actually answer his question, which is
"Is anyone out there successfully juggling running a company and studying at the same time? How do you juggle the two without hampering either due to lack of the right amount of attention?" "
Moderators, pls read the question and moderate accordingly.
"What is this chip supposed to do -- decrypt on the fly and send a new optical pattern to the read head? I don't think so. "
Well, yes apparently:
The technology works by turning an ordinary CD drive into a smart-card reader. A photodetector at the edge of the CD turns the drive's laser light into electrical pulses, which travel to the embedded smart card and request the key. If the card deems the request legitimate, it returns the key as an electronic signal that an onboard light-emitting diode converts into light and beams back to the drive.
One very large exception is the growth of technology's effect of the environment. The fact that it used to be, if your TV broke, you took it to the repair shop. Now TV's are so cheap, everybody just gets a new one. Disposable devices ad trinkets are all the rage, now, and their use is growing.
The solution is to price the environmental impact of human activities correctly. So if your company pollutes, you pay a fee. If you throw something away, you pay a fee that properly prices the environmental effect of the waste. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
POP access in Yahoo mail plus has a very annoying restriction - I can't email (or cc: ) myself. I'm not sure why, but guess the idea is to stop people from using yahoo mail to archive files, which is ridiculous esp since I'm paying good money to use yahoo mail plus.
Persi Diaconis used to be a magician before he became a statistician.
The remarks in the article were based on research by the Mckinsey Global Institute.
n s/ reports/Executive_Summary.asp
The Report is here. Click on BPO Case Study.
http://www.mckinsey.com/knowledge/mgi/newhorizo
Think a little harder. A company which outsources work to India saves money. Where do the savings go to?
Part of the savings go to the consumer. So instead of paying $2/minute for a helpline, you pay $1/mintue. The consumer benefits.
Part of the savings go to the company. Where do these savings go to?
They are either:
- Returned to the shareholders as dividends. To the greedy fat cat capitalists, I here you say? Well, most large companies are public companies; if you think the company is going to make a killing from outsourcing, then buy shares in the company and take a stake in the profits.
- Or, retained by the company for reinvestment, in which case the economy benefits from increased growth.
The argument in favour of outsourcing is the same as the arguments in favour of any other form of free trade - it increases the welfare of the economy as a whole. The challenges are the same as the challenges faced by any other form of free trade - the pain is sorely felt by a few, while the benefits are much more diffuse; here intense political opposition.
Benefit of $1 of US spending sent offshore, 2002 est
US
Savnig accruing to US investors/customers 0.58
Imports of US goods and services by providers in India 0.05
Transfer of profits by US-based providers in India back to US 0.04
Net direct benefit retained in UA 0.67
Value from US labour re-employed
I read the Apache 2.0 license a little more carefully, and compared this with Apache license 1.1. Licenses may be found here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/
The last para of Apache 2.0, Section 4 says that:
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
This appears to say that if I create a derivative work based on code licensed under Apache 2.0, I may prevent further redistribution of my derivative work?
However, Apache License 1.1 does not appear to contain an equivalent of the paragraph above . Read together with the requirement in 1.1. that "1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer," this appears to say that for Apache 1.1, the developer of a derivative work may not restrict redistribution of the derivative work? (since the list of conditions includes the permission to redistribute)
I'd appreciate a clarification, as I'm considering developing a commercial product derived from a piece of software licensed under the Apache License 1.1
Does the Apache license allow commercial distribution of code based on the apache code, in the case where the modified source code is included as part of the commercial package, but the end-user is prohibited from redistributing the source code?
but if you forgive me mixing my metaphors the Innovators Dilemma tells us that you can cross the chasm in a series of steps ...
it raises its profile on emedded devices home users will become more comfortable with the idea of a Linux desktop. Similarly as corporates become comfortable with Linux in their server racks, more and more of them will consider the possibility of deploying Linux desktops, perhaps starting with places like call-centres where they don't need a fully-fledged Windows rollout.
Certainly, the chasm can and should be crossed in a series of steps. This is exactly what Moore recommends. More precisely, he recommends establishing a beachhead by gaining control of a niche market. However, this niche market has to have certain characteristics - most crucially, it has to be part of the mainstream market in the first place i.e. other mainstream buyers must reference, trust and rely upon the recommendations made by buyers in this niche market in their purchasing decisions.
Is the embedded device market or server market a market which desktop users will reference in their purchasing decisions? I don't think so.
I'm probably oversimplifying the approach laid out in "Crossing the Chasm". Again, I highly recommend this book.
For anyone who has ever wondered why more people don't use linux, staroffice, etc, I recommend the classic on technology marketing "Crossing the Chasm" by Geoffrey Moore. It describes the "chasm" which technology companies face in crossing from the early adopter market to the pragmatic, mainstream market.
The consumers on the left side of the chasm - what Moore terms the innovators and early adopters - enjoy using new technology, enjoy putting things together, have the vision to see the potential of new technology, and are willing to put up with inconveniences in the iterim.
The mainstream market is pragmatic. It prefers to bet on clear market leaders (so as to minimise risk and benefit from the supporting ecosystem which inevitably grow around the market leader), is willing to wait and see, and needs complete, fully functional, headache-free solutions for their specific needs. Consumers in the mainstream market rely on references within the mainstream market to drive their buying decisions.
A technology company which wants to transition from the early adopter market to the mainstream market therefore has to bridge this "chasm", and in the process, change the focus of its marketing efforts and adjust its product accordingly. As far as the desktop market is concerned, Unix (with the exception of Mac OS X) is a product which clearly has not bridged the chasm.
Microsoft shares have a high Price to Earnings ratio. This means that investors are betting on high growth in future earnings, to justify the current price. Hence, "grow another Disney each year" (probably an exaggeration)
The poster is right. The page rank as implemented at Google is much more complex than what was presented in the original paper. e.g. it incorporates modifications to hold back attempts to articifically increase page ranks; it's a continual arms race(btw I've taken a class on Data Mining by Ullman, Sergey Brin and Larry Page's original advisor).
Don't forget frames. That's what really got the web going. Imagine, what would the web be like without frames?
Nerds are by definition people who are smart but unpopular i.e. lacking in social skills.
There are plenty of people who are smart and popular. They are politicians, corporate executives, etc. i.e. the "Leaders" in society. To be sure, there are fewer Leaders than nerds, but this a simple matter of statistics - to be a leader requires a convergence of both intelligence and social skills in one person.
Notice that he has to lift up the inverted pendulum before the robot can balance it. If a non-linear controller is used, it's possible for the robot itself to swing the pendulum upright(and keep it upright) from a horizontal position.
The number Six!
I second the poster above. May I suggest that the Slashdot editors do some editing for a change.
Each story should have a clear message, with the main link clear from the story. There should be no more than two supplementary links.
Yahoo requires a "security key" to sign up for paid services. I forgot my security key - some gibberish I entered more than four years ago when I first created my account. After being put on hold on the Yahoo "help line" (on an IDD call!) for more than 15 mins, Yahoo's not getting my money.
It sounds more like "e-paper" than a LCD replacement. It doesn't produce it's own illumination.
But there's no gain.
The argument made in the article is illogical and plain silly.
Statistical software doesn't need to be open source for people to know whether it works right - the algorithms used are well-established and documented. e.g. Matlab has extensive documentation which describes the algorithms used for each function. Furthermore it's easy to check whether the software is works correctly by running it through test cases.
The fact that a piece of software (e.g. matlab, excel,etc.) is used by scientists, financial engineers, etc. is a better assurance of reliability than its open sourceness.
It's interesting that none of the (highly rated) posts actually answer his question, which is
"Is anyone out there successfully juggling running a company and studying at the same time? How do you juggle the two without hampering either due to lack of the right amount of attention?" "
Moderators, pls read the question and moderate accordingly.
After a long, back breaking day at work, the farmers return home to pedal up some power for a relaxing evening of web surfing.
"What is this chip supposed to do -- decrypt on the fly and send a new optical pattern to the read head? I don't think so. "
Well, yes apparently:
The technology works by turning an ordinary CD drive into a smart-card reader. A photodetector at the edge of the CD turns the drive's laser light into electrical pulses, which travel to the embedded smart card and request the key. If the card deems the request legitimate, it returns the key as an electronic signal that an onboard light-emitting diode converts into light and beams back to the drive.
That's very nice for someone with the talent of Franklin; lesser mortals have to make their living by peddling their inventions.
http://www.solutionsgo.com/nanolytics/technology.a sp
One very large exception is the growth of technology's effect of the environment. The fact that it used to be, if your TV broke, you took it to the repair shop. Now TV's are so cheap, everybody just gets a new one. Disposable devices ad trinkets are all the rage, now, and their use is growing.
The solution is to price the environmental impact of human activities correctly. So if your company pollutes, you pay a fee. If you throw something away, you pay a fee that properly prices the environmental effect of the waste. etc.