Back before the Internet(can't find a ref.), in the late 80's, there was an excellent robo-trading system, that was eventually sold to a number of trading houses. The system worked very well for the company that developed the system, but after many versions of the system where competing against each other it all fell apart, resulting in a mini-crash... Laws where passed, and lessons learned.

By the mid 2000, all these lessons where no longer remembered, and the laws updated to reflect this convent amnesia, but the nature of dynamic system has not changed, and any company that profits from these systems, almost exclusively use programmers who understand this concept...

As a programmer that has lots of experience with agents and complex dynamic systems, I can tell you that for these systems to work they all have to be individual, otherwise they "feedback" on each other, and don't preform as expected.
Not to mention that they can be easily exploited when you know the internal decision making processes within them.

Goldman Sachs is only concerned about protecting it's advantage; individual and unknown code/heuristics being there advantage...
Personally I'm surprised they(GS) would ever let one of there programmers go, especially one that has worked on a system still in use.

If GS's analysis of there liabilities, in relation to there employees, is so far out of kilter, you've got to wonder about their broader investment decisions too...
Still, it's good to see the white-wash isn't sticking.

This whole issue of climate change seems to be a red herring to distract from the real issue; Pollution and air quality.

The fact is that it's very hard to prove a proposition where we don't understand the domain; we cant even predict the weather for next week!
Based on our observations and a bit of common sense though, it's not hard to see that something is awry, even if we can't prove it, yet.

It will probably take another 50 years to prove the science; are we really going to just wait and see?
Or just move the pollution generating industry to another country, out of sight, out of mind; Problem on earth is, everywhere is downwind eventually, and those "other" countries, have essentially non-existent pollution laws.

One thing that we should all be concerned about is air quality, funny thing is, its really easy to prove, and an excellent basis for defining our global environmental policy; so why are we so fascinated by the irrelevance issue of climate change, when the real and tangible issue of air quality is starting us directly in the face.

As an app producer, I see it breaking down like this:

-If you don't pay for an app, you have to assume that the producer will find other revenue streams, like "in app ads", or selling your "usage patterns".
-If you do pay for an app, you can usually assume that they don't violate your privacy...
-Or its a free, "sponsored production", like an app for your bank, or telco; not exactly free, as your already paying for it...
But in any instance, always check what "permissions" the app requires. i.e. Internet, location and/or contacts access, but dose not seem to need it...

Generally, I don't mind paying, say, up to the price of a burger, or a beer, for a basic app, and up to the price of a movie for something "cool", but usually stay away from free app, unless its from a respectable company. Personally, I value my privacy...

At the end of the day, if I put my time into producing something like an app, I will want to be reimbursed; after-all, why do you go to work?

So the bed wasn't made from, 3 wool and 3 wood planks?

Don't invent anything that apple might want to monopolise in the future; after all, you'd only be copying a product they haven't 'invented' yet...

If a company needs metrics to evaluate their employs, then the company is barely functioning, on a communication, collaboration and management levels; interpersonal knowledge and cohesive employees always produce better results than a company that is myopically focused on the numbers.

Metrics should only be used to make projections about reimplementation of a project, i.e. highest level if estimation, but having said that, if the person responsible for that estimation, cannot make it off the top of their heads(relies on metrics alone), then the company has bigger problems...

Where a metric makes developers competitive, to the point where they are working against each other, rather than together, the metric is actually damaging the project; how many of us have worked on a project like that?

Any good metric requires each objective to be weighted based on size and difficulty, factored by the experience of the resource with the domain and code-base, a lot of hard work, but if the initial estimations are inaccurate or deliberately favour certain resources, it collapse like the house of cards that it is...

My advice take metrics with a grain of salt, especially on the macro level; its rare for the keystone developer to be the best performing in the eyes of the metric...

All GUI should, need to evolve, but some the recent attempts seem more like a de-evolution to me...

Netbooks, touch-screens and noob-users are an important part of the 'new' ecosystem, but these new approaches are only suitable for a small portion of the user base, and limits the core power-uses, and have no place in major distros.

The dream of having Linux on netbooks everywhere shouldn't be at the expense of the power-user.

If you want a unix based system that's easy to use and ticks the other boxes, get a Android or a iPxx device if you must. Linux doesn't need to go there; evolution is more importance than revolution...

I hate to say it but win8 and the metro interface is the right way to do it, easy on top, with the power interface below, both ends of the user spectrum catered for... But personally I think I'll disable metro, if I can...

Nice work, but this is hardly the first of its kind...

A friend of a friend invented this concept while working at the CSIRO(those guys that invented the good wi-fi), in Australia.
He was even on a local show called "The New Inventers" where he showed it off, about 4 years ago, for the record.

This JPL model is definitely bigger, and badder, but NASA/JPL could have saved millions of dollars if they had a good look around every once in a while, or didn't fall asleep in front of the TV...

Credit where credit is dew. http://www.eoc.csiro.au/vsis/lidhome.htm

Almost right...
His mom worked at IBM; you've got to imagine that that must have opened a few doors, but at the end of the day, you've sill got to deliver... ...small chuckle...

Don't forget, William is also well-educated, ambitious and a formidable programmer.
He obviously had/has a taste for money, but I bet his family's previous wealth has been eclipsed by what he has achieved since.

Every big company was once a small one, with a few good ideas; it was all of us that made him/them rich!

As for the general discussion; Should we really be outraged about human nature, especially in this day and age? Coffee... Smell... Wake-Up... ...all that.

I find it hard to be sorry for the music companies; They produce "by the numbers" music, and rip off next to all genuine artists, by calming that the cost of production through distribution is 99.9% of earnings... Akin the the movie industry claiming that a recent Harry Potter film didn't make profit...
But I don't support piracy either, artists need to eat, and diverse to profit from their work too...

It's not just digital downloads that have changed the music industry, i.e. distribution; an album can be recorded "at home", if ya know what your doing. So if the cost of production and distribution are not prohibitive factors, so how dose the industry justify the "mark-up"?

Radio you say. Yes the network to promote the music is "buttoned up tight", and the relationships go way back, so penetration is still an issue, though it shouldn't be...


Materialism vs. Virtual downloads: When I was a kid, there where these things called cassettes, you could even copy music on to them, but it was never as good as getting the whole package, album art, song lyrics, etc. Paying for a digital download still don't feel as "good value" as having the product sitting on my shelf.
If you buy an album these days, your lucky if you get more than a single sheet of paper, badly printed, and I cant remember the last time I saw lyrics...

So I pose the question; Has the reduction of the physical product made it easer to see value in the digital download, or has it blurred the line between a copy and the real product?

I see digital download(low profit) as eating in to physical record sales(higher profit), rather than offsetting the piracy numbers, so why dose the industry fixate on a non-markets rather than retaining(premium) paying customers?

PS. I've read statements recently that movie studios are becoming "more concerned about loosing distribution than the issue of piracy", very strong words...

Steve was a man that was unafraid of big ideas, could see outside of the box in a way that few are able, and was capable of changing the world, and he did...
He was instrumental in redefining the stigma related to technology, and raised the bar for his competitors and contemporaries.

While he polarised the 'community', and ruffled more than a few feathers, he dragged many industries, sometimes "kicking and screaming", into a new future; we are all better off for his contribution.
The seeds that he planted will grow for years to come; the legacy of Steve Jobs will live on.

I will remember Steve as the man that made technology ubiquitous and am sorry that he was not given that chance to watch his creations flourish.

Like the Joker "needs" Batman; the I.T. world needed Steve Jobs, we are all diminished without his presence...

Mr Shatner, my question is offbeat, so feel free to take it anywhere;

If you could, would you become Captain Kirk?
And what do you imagine an average day would be like, if you were...

Also, thank-you for choosing to become an actor, and creating one of the most iconic characters of modern times.

With Apple trying to ban any product that is seen as a threat, via their patents, now the opposition are teaming up; what if Apple's tactics turn against them?

If the "tablet patent' Apple is using to try and ban the Samsung devices is overturned, and it should be (the prior art discussions here are evidence enough), the door will be open to the original IP holders, in this case most of the companies are represented in this "opposition".
I'm wonder when IBM will play its trump card and join the ranks? Or Microsoft even...

What if the iPad was banned for the same reasons Apple are trying to ban the Samsung devices?
Or that Apple's uncompetitive practices initiated a structural separation of the company?
Or that the monopolise they have built in the music, games and video industries via iTunes where opened to the competition?
And lets not mention the lobbying...

Apple has been playing a dangerous game for a long time, it's only a matter of time before the "competition" will have had enough.

We'll just have to wait and see where this one leads. ;)

It's a sign of the times, the percentage of the population capable of coming up with a new idea is shrinking, and the model employee(technical) is now too specialised to see the big picture dew to technical requirements, etc... Not to mention the fact that most things have already been done.

Innovation is now something that is attained through acquisition of other companies. Recognise.

For a small company to "make a splash", hold on to their "idea" and be the one to profit, a patent is the only option.
At the end of the day, most starts-ups want to be bought-out, so a patent is essentially the dominant currency of today.

The age of "Inverse outsourcing of innovation", is upon us.