Slashdot Mirror

Split by =

The 'mailbox' bit of the address can be split using the = character to add on

• Role : me=inventor@...
• Formal qualification : me=-BSc@...
• Honour : me=!OBE@...

Also membership, semi-formal titles and indication that the recipient in the first instance is a machine.

This means you can send an email to =salesdept@... or Mary=salesmanager@... or Mary@...

Details at http://vulpeculox.net/ob/Email...

Benefits

• • Being able to differentiate the role from the person.
    • Being able to identify a person's role Being able to indicate status Being able to clearly identify a process as recipient rather than a person. This might be a server that distributes mail to a committee.

Have a 'decoration key' that adds accents (etc) to undecorated symbols.
I've done this for Windows and Javascript with a really sweet UI

See http://vulpeculox.net/ax

This is a practically no-learn UI because the same key is used for everything. Want to turn '2' into 'squared' or 'P' into 'pawn' (for chess addicts) or do your French homework using a single key? Then have a look.

And the problem is I don't know how to make it more universal. Mac? Linux? Smartphones? I've no idea, but the feedback on the UI has been 100% so why not have a look and see if you can implement the really simple algorithm?

I wrote this paper nine years ago. Go to http://vulpeculox.net/ob/index... and follow the link to The future of collaborative software development

One of the key ideas is that a theatre company has all sorts of skills unrelated to acting or play-writing. A collaborative software project should be half a dozen people at a minimum. Once the group has 'done' one project it'll soon find something else to work on, whether extending the objectives, enhancing the deliverable or something completely different.

I have a dozen FOSS contributions on my web site but I just don't want to get into the hassle of Git or licensing or selling or even promotion. I'm an inventor not a financier or sales executive!

• Understanding what it's all about, including checking the reader is the target audience.
• Achievement getting started on concepts or running a tweakable demo. Lots of little steps that each have a 'reward'. (A box-out try-yourself example is a good format in a discussion.)
• Reference needs to be compact to search like a cheat-sheet but lead to the proper details like a proper reference tome. For example I knocked-up this http://vulpeculox.net/misc/jsj... for javascript.

• Also
  • Include documentation in your production process.
  • Be consistent.
  • Be a human writer when you think the user will empathise. Anything to break up the boredom.

Look around you. 10% are really bamboozled by [Insert skill here] and 10% are streets ahead of those that get by. Maths, Foreign language, social skills, drawing. (Skydiving may be an exception.)

Have you heard of BAD-GOOD-BEST clinical governance? 10% of clinicians lead and make big efforts to study and improve. 80% 'keep up more or less'. 10% are drunk and/or good at covering up their lack of competence. (See http://vulpeculox.net/ob/index... and follow the bad-good-best link)

Let me also draw your attention to the '10% rule' in gene-controlled attributes. Left-handedness, Harder tooth enamel and so on. IMHO this is an evolutionary insurance mechanism (nothing whatsoever to do with the subject) so that if there's a mass-wipeout type event then there may be odd-balls who are far enough different to survive.

• (R) Outward facing. Customers are important to them
• (C) Need a comfortable berth but are really keen to help 'friends'
• (L) Techies and creatives who have visions inside their heads that must get out

Structure your organisation with Right/Centre/Left branches for sales/admin/production and you can fit the right personality types in and then they all get their different achievements. Look at Left-Right-Center at http://vulpeculox.net/treems/i...

Snyder's book implies there's ONE way to plot a film. The danger is that this sort of story arc does not fit well with the way females do their heroing. (In short, boys go away to have an exciting time and the story is about them, girls stay at home and deal with whatever has to be dealt with and the story is about how people deal with issues.) A good example of the boy's story is the Wizard of Oz. A good example of the girl's way is the TV series Dad's Army. (There's a reason why the first is a film and the second TV. Notice of course the main protagonists are 'wrong-sex')

So if you follow 'Save the cat!' you'll miss out on lots of interesting plots with powerful characters. I've got an essay on the subject at http://vulpeculox.net/writing/HeroismForGirls.pdf for anyone who wants to compare and contrast.

Does your collection of anecdotes actually count as data somewhere in the world? I'd like to move there, then I'd be a statistics king.

Snyder's book implies there's ONE way to plot a film. The danger is that this sort of story arc does not fit well with the way females do their heroing. (In short, boys go away to have an exciting time and the story is about them, girls stay at home and deal with whatever has to be dealt with and the story is about how people deal with issues.) A good example of the boy's story is the Wizard of Oz. A good example of the girl's way is the TV series Dad's Army. (There's a reason why the first is a film and the second TV. Notice of course the main protagonists are 'wrong-sex')

So if you follow 'Save the cat!' you'll miss out on lots of interesting plots with powerful characters. I've got an essay on the subject at http://vulpeculox.net/writing/HeroismForGirls.pdf for anyone who wants to compare and contrast.

Little known fact: The equals sign is a legal email character. You designate email 'mailbox' names as name=role@your.domain.

This means that you can have peterfox=headOfNerdyThingsDept@your.domain. In actual fact you'd have peterfox@ ... and =headOfNerdyThingsDept@... This means you can email *roles* as well as individuals. Perhaps I have multiple roles so roll out peterfox=%chairmanOfNihilistsClub@...

The full spec for how to use this template is in a paper I wrote being the top item on http://vulpeculox.net/ob/index.htm

• = Role
• == Formal qualification
• =! Honour via national mechanisms
• =% Member by organisation
• =- Semi-formal title by common usage
• =+ Machine

So for example you might have toAll=+boozyParties@... for a mailing list.

Let's take 'rithmetic as an example. The vast majority of people never add up anything. Even if they're sharing the cost of a meal they will leave the bill-checking and dividing by seven to somebody else. But not having a basic confidence in 'sums' blocks access to proper maths which in turn block assess to just about all science, engineering, business, economics and every professional career.

Programming is an utter yawn-fest for kids who are not interested (about as much as most \.-ers interested in babies and lipstick) For a few it is a passion so by all means support them at school but they don't need an exam -- and even less a crusty and cringe-worthy curriculum. Then there those who ought to know a bit about it.... But what bit? Routers and SOAP protocols? Hey fellas! 'Computers store data as zeroes and ones!' Well so what? How a mobile phone encrypts is something important, how a wireless network works is important but it can't be taught by multiple choice!

There are plenty more important things to learn than being owned by technology. http://vulpeculox.net/12 for example.

You are very unlikely to need millisecond precision when planning a year in the future. So fix one is to use a day-based counter such as Julian date.

OK so we're over that problem but dates are NOT LINEAR. When did you start your current job? "June 2006" (note no day). When did you leave? "Not yet." In many applications we need Beginning-of-time, Not known, 1986, August 1986, 17 August 1986. Then we need rules for 'February 27th plus one month'. For the answers look at http://vulpeculox.net/day/index.htm . (Keen coders welcome.)

To *think* like a programmer you must have that sense that Murphy (of the law) is inside you [ie. Be humble no matter how clever you are] and in the real world [eg. A valid date might be 'June' which isn't 00:00 on 1st June]. An age ago when I wrote my book on the subject (text freely available at http://vulpeculox.net/ob/Programming.htm) I twigged that programming is not about splitting problems into bits but understanding the need then building the solution from bits. Of course there are well-known methods for doing this. Now to me a programmer is a mental athlete. I expect them to train, have good facilities and consistently run good races but why on earth would I expect a high performance person to be operating at their peak 7.5 hours a day? Resting, recuperating and reflecting goes with achievement. Enthusiasm and interest in the next challenge keep up the momentum. Constraints and management targets destroy it. Once you've got the mechanics you can graduate to the principles then the patterns then the practice and finally being able to communicate with people.

• (Left) Techie - "Leave me alone so I can get this right"
• (Middle) Admin - Risk adverse, likes routine, satisfied by servicing the organisation
• (Right) Outward facing - Likes external challenges. Satisfaction can come from good relationships or 'commission'

People don't have to be compartmentalised but often they will find their niche and want to stay there. ( To read the detail see http://vulpeculox.net/treems/LRC.pdf )

You can imagine the conflict when the sales people are desperate to have something they can demonstrate but the engineers don't want to release something that is buggy and not ready yet.

Possible answer part 1 Get the sales bods to talk to buyers and let techie speak unto techie. Each will be experienced and effective communicators in their roles. Obviously this requires team work - perhaps you should 'assign a techie to a sales bod' and see if they can work out how to complement each other.

Possible answer part 2 Pay sales people for getting the business and techies for delivering. If both understand their interdependence then they may work together.

• Limited bandwidth makes it better to get to know a few people really well
• Management oversight is more difficult so build mini-team responsibility and development and ownership of objectives
• Make sure people are in the part of the organisation that suits them (see link above).
• Provide separate communication protocols for gripes and discussions as opposed to getting the job done. (You need a 'grumblee' to be a lightning conductor for things that might get worked out in physical corridors.)

When you're remote everyone needs to feel valuable, cared for by the organisation and spared annoyances.

(2) Allow ten years for your researches. (Assuming you're not being led by a controlling person and you choose your approach and objectives) Maturity will bring a certain degree of
(a) "I wouldn't have believed that if I hadn't been there" and
(b) "Even after researching the hoodwinkers (a) is still spooky" and
(c) I have to accept I can't explain some phenomena.

Now (c), [can't explain] is a trap! For every super-natural spasm there are really a dozen everyday explanations. But seek out the people who might be able to spot the 'normal' explanation. (IMHO Most of these are clueless which is why you want to seek the third category of people in (1) who are usually a lot brighter.)

(3) I can tell you there are some 'super-natural' things 'that are a fact'. For example I have dowsed a water main leak about which I knew nothing with my bare hands. So what does that prove? That is the important question! It doesn't prove Ley lines, or that dowsing can be used to show [fill in your fantasy] or that Auntie Flo is 'with you' at a spiritualist seance.

(4) Good luck. SCIENCE (It used to be called things like "Natural philosophy") is about studying phenomena and reproducing results. Don't be afraid to EXPERIMENT because what YOU find may be useful to somebody one day.

PS Personally I have been 'forced' to do fortune telling for people (I'm one of those sorts of unusual chaps who are assumed by various vacuous people to be 'natural' fortune tellers.) Without the aid of spirits or 'fluences I've scared myself and subjects by the thrust (they might say accuracy) of my guesswork. It is jaw dropping to be told by somebody you met ten minutes previously that "In 50 years I have never told anybody that" - but that's just 'reading people" See http://vulpeculox.net/misc/try.htm and http://vulpeculox.net/archive/brose.htm for things that I learned as a result.

PPS The world is OVERFLOWING with weirdos who don't have much sense of hard scientific ground. (And most of the rest are gullible as hell.) When I first put my FACTS about the Compass pubs in a line on the web (14 years ago) I received 14 pages of close handwritten script on air-mail paper from a nutter who tried through mathematics to show that volume...great pyramid...12345.67890...moon...volume...etc. [Eh?] The moral of this story is that SCIENTIFIC METHOD - including peer review - is your friend. By all means investigate but never let it be said "He should get out more"

(2) Allow ten years for your researches. (Assuming you're not being led by a controlling person and you choose your approach and objectives) Maturity will bring a certain degree of
(a) "I wouldn't have believed that if I hadn't been there" and
(b) "Even after researching the hoodwinkers (a) is still spooky" and
(c) I have to accept I can't explain some phenomena.

Now (c), [can't explain] is a trap! For every super-natural spasm there are really a dozen everyday explanations. But seek out the people who might be able to spot the 'normal' explanation. (IMHO Most of these are clueless which is why you want to seek the third category of people in (1) who are usually a lot brighter.)

(3) I can tell you there are some 'super-natural' things 'that are a fact'. For example I have dowsed a water main leak about which I knew nothing with my bare hands. So what does that prove? That is the important question! It doesn't prove Ley lines, or that dowsing can be used to show [fill in your fantasy] or that Auntie Flo is 'with you' at a spiritualist seance.

(4) Good luck. SCIENCE (It used to be called things like "Natural philosophy") is about studying phenomena and reproducing results. Don't be afraid to EXPERIMENT because what YOU find may be useful to somebody one day.

PS Personally I have been 'forced' to do fortune telling for people (I'm one of those sorts of unusual chaps who are assumed by various vacuous people to be 'natural' fortune tellers.) Without the aid of spirits or 'fluences I've scared myself and subjects by the thrust (they might say accuracy) of my guesswork. It is jaw dropping to be told by somebody you met ten minutes previously that "In 50 years I have never told anybody that" - but that's just 'reading people" See http://vulpeculox.net/misc/try.htm and http://vulpeculox.net/archive/brose.htm for things that I learned as a result.

PPS The world is OVERFLOWING with weirdos who don't have much sense of hard scientific ground. (And most of the rest are gullible as hell.) When I first put my FACTS about the Compass pubs in a line on the web (14 years ago) I received 14 pages of close handwritten script on air-mail paper from a nutter who tried through mathematics to show that volume...great pyramid...12345.67890...moon...volume...etc. [Eh?] The moral of this story is that SCIENTIFIC METHOD - including peer review - is your friend. By all means investigate but never let it be said "He should get out more"

Now there are two reasons why a person might want to have a go at something new: (a) Intellectual interest and I'd-like-to-have-a-go-at-that (b) need. "We're sending you to Germany for 3 months" might be a (b) but things take time and without a GREAT deal of time and effort competence might reach 'OK-useful' but nowhere near 'fluent-reliable'. On the other hand (a) - wanting to explore - (especially when there is a vast area to explore) should lead to personal satisfaction and confidence building that might make a jump to (b) a lot easier (or show you why it is unsuitable for you).

The thing about programming is nothing to do with a particular language - it's a thought process as basic to a programmer as the sound of words to a poet or shape of things to a painter. To be a good programmer you need, amongst other things, to be able to use your brain.

Anyway, the complete answer to your question is here : http://vulpeculox.net/ob/Programming.htm

However just you try asking your local public education authority for their 'syllabus' for the 12 Rs. (Reading / wRiting / aRithmetic / Relationships / Reviewing / Responsibility / Reflecting / Researching / Reporting / Reasoning / Remembering / Resolve) of essential basic education.

While you're at it ask about their understanding of the 12 Maturities (Ambition / Sociable personality / Fitness and good health / Curiosity, enthusiasm for learning and knowledge / Confidence / Stand up for principles / Develop and defend own opinions. / Artistic appreciation and accomplishment / Empathy / Excellence of Rs / Imagination and abstract thought / Temptation [ie. Awareness and resistance. Self discipline] ) Read more

Traditional schooling might cover many of the Rs by chance or incidentally won't assess all the Rs and won't have formal methods for remediation. At least home-schoolers can set up their own system that is explicit. Of course having a formal framework for education doesn't mean there has to be a formal structure to learning. (Education is the end-point, learning is the journey.)

Divide your class into 'students' who want to solve puzzles and 'pupils' who need to be given limited-scope exercises.

Where did that energy come from? It'd be one hell of a magic trick if you could pull it off! That's why no process which splits water will ever generate more energy than it consumes.

Gravitational energy is 'free'. Here's how you get it:

1. Assume perfect efficiency :)
2. Pipe electricity to the bottom of the ocean. NB No gravitational 'cost'.
3. Split water and use the rising gasses to power a geyser from which energy can be tapped
4. Recombine the gasses in a fuel cell
5. Repeat