The code base I work on would be improved by a rewrite. But in doing so it would actually be a matter of putting more effort into using the libraries (they do too much manual string manipulation for example that could be done using existing library calls; it's Qt based stuff).
At the same time it would cut lines of application code and make seeing the algorithm easier. I've just swapped 2500 lines for 850 lines whilst increasing functionality.
Cost benefit wise it's impossible to say in advance was it worth it.
The real irritation in Britain with similar convictions (speed wise not video evidence wise) is bikers go to prison for sometimes a year to 18 months. But company directors who are responsible for those people who work for the company often get caught doing similar speeds in big cars but just get a fine and short ban.
Despite the simple math showing that the killing force and actual likelihood of incident in the first place (due to cross section and time in that zone) being way lower for the bike than car.
I'm not grumbling about the convictions (caught breaking the law and proven so equals conviction) merely the imbalance in consequence. I often think shouldn't the director go to prison longer as he wasn't only risking the physical result of his action but the livelihoods of all his employees (subverting their own defence lawyers arguments.)
The Bluetooth members meet 4 times (I think) per year at week long unplug fests where they all try their current and coming components against all other attendees to make sure they work together. They rotate through short time slots (almost like bluetooth channel hopping:-) to try and make sure every device meets every other.
They spend a lot of time often sending 5 or 6 teams with different items each to test. So if a claimed bluetooth device has problems the maker probably bought the cheap poor chip rather than marginally better component.
Price I think you'll find. It is only the last two years that the price on the bluetooth chip has been low enough for it to begin proliferation into low end (price wise) consumables.
Unless the mechanical flaw has it wedge open like the terrified owner of motorbike I once encountered who had survived the down hill of a Welsh mountain road with the throttle locked partially open.
Where as the multiple sensors for throttle position make it more reliable as two of the typically three can fail and it still operate correctly.
The cleanliness of electronic control can actually help and reduce risks in these kinds of places because the results of time and poor maintenance are more predictable.
I used to work for a automotive software company that does work for the likes of Ford, Mazda, Volvo and thy do pretty much test safety critical parts of the system as much as aviation.
The big element in the gap is aviation using formal methods for verification of the design.
And most of the good players have testing sufficiently automated and systems of design, change, test with reviews at every stage.
Testing typically covers functional unit testing, module testing, system testing. In several ways, on a simulator, on the real hardware being amongst them. Plus the code is usually subject to strict coding standards that would make most programmers weep about being able to express their individual creativity and other crap.
Then there is the extensive use of static analysis and code coverage to make sure that every line of code has been exercised with the tests and if not that review has signed off that it really really is an unreachable piece of code.
You don't move tool chains because by the time you have finally released you know the bugs and have worked around them.
Safety with software in cars amongst 5 car companies I've seen inside of is taken very very seriously. Remember too most of these people drive their own dog food and that includes taking their families in them. So if you trust your quality of work enough to trust your families lives to it good on you.
So I would certainly be taking the updates. That said I like that my motorbike runs on carb's and no ECUs.
Comments are good if they explain why a piece of none obvious code is there (relates to your need to meet performance). But primarily they are to me a way to highlight choices in the design/implementation of that code. You say "ignored this option because impossible". They are also useful for showing the way for which parts fulfil which requirements (provided you have such other documentation) or as requirements covering a portion of code in the absence of good separate requirements and design.
I'd agree with the go where the interest is, my thoughts were how I programmed at a younger age than that in a bit of machine code and then assembler and basic. But that was fine because it was my interest driving me (and trying to show off to my dad to whom it was all just as new that I could do it better).
Put simply you will never get them learning if they aren't doing things that interest them.
Once you have the subject you can choose a language appropriately (assembler, C, Java, Python and on and on). Best using the ones you know best really and just highlighting they have many choices out there to discover for themselves later.
Much more likely we'll totally screw the biosphere with arrogant "what harm can it do" genetically modified food pushed on the twin arguments of "we need to to feed a growing population" and "we do it anyway with selective breeding". Both flawed and failing to answer the simple problem that genetic modification is like putting rabbits in Australia, devastating to the natural balance that can't cope with such a dramatic change but in fact worse.
Nukes aren't going to do for us. The slow horror of the whole biodiversity crashing down around us and leaving us starving slowly to death will.
Nukes might then get used but they are not the problem just a poor part of an attempt at a war like solution.
What I really want to know is should I skip the film or not, is it any good.
Your prejudice on the basis of the word "conservative" is comic and seemingly the thing you were accusing the link of being likely to harbour. It's almost as comic as the original post listing it in the reasons to leave rather than actually considering the people, the issues or anything else.
reality is that whilst people like the OP just up and run away from these things rather than staying and joining the system to seek things the way they want the floor is left open for those who they don't agree with to continue to set the agenda and direction for the future. It's a small world and you can't run for ever and things may get way worse in the time you are running and looking out for only yourself.
Grow up and participate you selfish coward of an original poster.
Hardware has moved on, it needs the same as Vista as a minimum but what it will actually br run on will be way beyond minimum need giving the feeling of progress.
My first thought was this government are desperate for cash but...
They are selling a service into each country in terms of the advertising so under local laws of each country it is reasonable to make them pay VAT on the product.
If they don't it actually has a competitive advantage over other advertising outlets.
If you use the device outside its intended purpose and that purpose is clearly discernible then it has to be your cost.
If I take my regular car rallying and the suspension breaks it is hardly reasonable for me to attempt to claim repair under warranty. The car was built for the road not 140mph down a bumpy unmetaled track.
If I fit a nitrous kit to the car and it pops a cylinder good luck proving it was a build flaw and therefore a warranty claim.
You don't do any good dieing for your country/cause/purpose but through the willingness to die in the all costs achievement of strategic aims that do benefit and to which you join the effort of achieving.
As for the twit somewhere above about the tyrannical British, go get a better grasp of the history.
The obvious reason to make it removable to me is to reduce the resource any target will need. IE must be just about the biggest none essential part of Windows if you were attempting to produce a smaller core that could be used more widely?
Bluetooth is a channel hopping transport. Where it and the other participants agree where to meet next with for the next portion of their exchange. But they only use one of the many channels at a time.
UWB I think still hops but hops using 10, 20 or so of the channels in parallel.
I think. Hence you get a fat pipe instead with some of the robustness benefits of the channel hopping approach.
UWB is I think now part of the Bluetooth spec and at least one company (CSR) that does BT has done good demo's of it. No idea if it is in any products yet?
To not want it suggests they have no or see no need for it. And let's face it, man has survived happily (on the whole) for a long time without broadband or the internet.
I would argue people do act in their own best interests but qualify it to the limit of their understanding. At least mostly people do, some people are just lunatics.
Madonna has since adopted an even nastier tactic, that of producing such lousy crap no one will want to pirate it (specifically her most recent album!).
No it's OK if they don't share an antenna, gets really tricky if they do. (I'm in the vicinity of listening to lots of conversations about this sort of thing.)
Now perhaps. 3-5 years ago I went through pain trying to get one that worked. Research failed twice because though it was the "same" card as was meant to work the chip set had changed to something unsupported (then). This stuffed me twice where I nearly resorted to ndiswrapper.
Not always, support for CSR's implementation of UWB (ultra wide band) for example is already in the Linux Kernel. Way before it's going to be in any products.
Slashdot Mirror
The code base I work on would be improved by a rewrite. But in doing so it would actually be a matter of putting more effort into using the libraries (they do too much manual string manipulation for example that could be done using existing library calls; it's Qt based stuff).
At the same time it would cut lines of application code and make seeing the algorithm easier. I've just swapped 2500 lines for 850 lines whilst increasing functionality.
Cost benefit wise it's impossible to say in advance was it worth it.
The real irritation in Britain with similar convictions (speed wise not video evidence wise) is bikers go to prison for sometimes a year to 18 months. But company directors who are responsible for those people who work for the company often get caught doing similar speeds in big cars but just get a fine and short ban.
Despite the simple math showing that the killing force and actual likelihood of incident in the first place (due to cross section and time in that zone) being way lower for the bike than car.
I'm not grumbling about the convictions (caught breaking the law and proven so equals conviction) merely the imbalance in consequence. I often think shouldn't the director go to prison longer as he wasn't only risking the physical result of his action but the livelihoods of all his employees (subverting their own defence lawyers arguments.)
The Bluetooth members meet 4 times (I think) per year at week long unplug fests where they all try their current and coming components against all other attendees to make sure they work together. They rotate through short time slots (almost like bluetooth channel hopping:-) to try and make sure every device meets every other.
They spend a lot of time often sending 5 or 6 teams with different items each to test. So if a claimed bluetooth device has problems the maker probably bought the cheap poor chip rather than marginally better component.
Price I think you'll find. It is only the last two years that the price on the bluetooth chip has been low enough for it to begin proliferation into low end (price wise) consumables.
Unless the mechanical flaw has it wedge open like the terrified owner of motorbike I once encountered who had survived the down hill of a Welsh mountain road with the throttle locked partially open.
Where as the multiple sensors for throttle position make it more reliable as two of the typically three can fail and it still operate correctly.
The cleanliness of electronic control can actually help and reduce risks in these kinds of places because the results of time and poor maintenance are more predictable.
I used to work for a automotive software company that does work for the likes of Ford, Mazda, Volvo and thy do pretty much test safety critical parts of the system as much as aviation.
The big element in the gap is aviation using formal methods for verification of the design.
And most of the good players have testing sufficiently automated and systems of design, change, test with reviews at every stage.
Testing typically covers functional unit testing, module testing, system testing. In several ways, on a simulator, on the real hardware being amongst them. Plus the code is usually subject to strict coding standards that would make most programmers weep about being able to express their individual creativity and other crap.
Then there is the extensive use of static analysis and code coverage to make sure that every line of code has been exercised with the tests and if not that review has signed off that it really really is an unreachable piece of code.
You don't move tool chains because by the time you have finally released you know the bugs and have worked around them.
Safety with software in cars amongst 5 car companies I've seen inside of is taken very very seriously. Remember too most of these people drive their own dog food and that includes taking their families in them. So if you trust your quality of work enough to trust your families lives to it good on you.
So I would certainly be taking the updates. That said I like that my motorbike runs on carb's and no ECUs.
Comments are good if they explain why a piece of none obvious code is there (relates to your need to meet performance). But primarily they are to me a way to highlight choices in the design/implementation of that code. You say "ignored this option because impossible". They are also useful for showing the way for which parts fulfil which requirements (provided you have such other documentation) or as requirements covering a portion of code in the absence of good separate requirements and design.
I'd agree with the go where the interest is, my thoughts were how I programmed at a younger age than that in a bit of machine code and then assembler and basic. But that was fine because it was my interest driving me (and trying to show off to my dad to whom it was all just as new that I could do it better).
Put simply you will never get them learning if they aren't doing things that interest them.
Once you have the subject you can choose a language appropriately (assembler, C, Java, Python and on and on). Best using the ones you know best really and just highlighting they have many choices out there to discover for themselves later.
Much more likely we'll totally screw the biosphere with arrogant "what harm can it do" genetically modified food pushed on the twin arguments of "we need to to feed a growing population" and "we do it anyway with selective breeding". Both flawed and failing to answer the simple problem that genetic modification is like putting rabbits in Australia, devastating to the natural balance that can't cope with such a dramatic change but in fact worse.
Nukes aren't going to do for us. The slow horror of the whole biodiversity crashing down around us and leaving us starving slowly to death will.
Nukes might then get used but they are not the problem just a poor part of an attempt at a war like solution.
What I really want to know is should I skip the film or not, is it any good.
Your prejudice on the basis of the word "conservative" is comic and seemingly the thing you were accusing the link of being likely to harbour. It's almost as comic as the original post listing it in the reasons to leave rather than actually considering the people, the issues or anything else.
reality is that whilst people like the OP just up and run away from these things rather than staying and joining the system to seek things the way they want the floor is left open for those who they don't agree with to continue to set the agenda and direction for the future. It's a small world and you can't run for ever and things may get way worse in the time you are running and looking out for only yourself.
Grow up and participate you selfish coward of an original poster.
Interesting potential for determining what people really think of Gnome v KDE, Linux/Gnome v Windows Vista v Xp etc
Hardware has moved on, it needs the same as Vista as a minimum but what it will actually br run on will be way beyond minimum need giving the feeling of progress.
They are selling a service into each country in terms of the advertising so under local laws of each country it is reasonable to make them pay VAT on the product.
If they don't it actually has a competitive advantage over other advertising outlets.
I have vivid memories from earlier films I watched that were "Technicolor" maybe that was magic trip inducing too.
If you use the device outside its intended purpose and that purpose is clearly discernible then it has to be your cost. If I take my regular car rallying and the suspension breaks it is hardly reasonable for me to attempt to claim repair under warranty. The car was built for the road not 140mph down a bumpy unmetaled track. If I fit a nitrous kit to the car and it pops a cylinder good luck proving it was a build flaw and therefore a warranty claim.
You don't do any good dieing for your country/cause/purpose but through the willingness to die in the all costs achievement of strategic aims that do benefit and to which you join the effort of achieving.
As for the twit somewhere above about the tyrannical British, go get a better grasp of the history.
The obvious reason to make it removable to me is to reduce the resource any target will need. IE must be just about the biggest none essential part of Windows if you were attempting to produce a smaller core that could be used more widely?
Bluetooth is a channel hopping transport. Where it and the other participants agree where to meet next with for the next portion of their exchange. But they only use one of the many channels at a time.
UWB I think still hops but hops using 10, 20 or so of the channels in parallel.
I think. Hence you get a fat pipe instead with some of the robustness benefits of the channel hopping approach.
UWB is I think now part of the Bluetooth spec and at least one company (CSR) that does BT has done good demo's of it. No idea if it is in any products yet?
To not want it suggests they have no or see no need for it. And let's face it, man has survived happily (on the whole) for a long time without broadband or the internet.
I would argue people do act in their own best interests but qualify it to the limit of their understanding. At least mostly people do, some people are just lunatics.
Madonna has since adopted an even nastier tactic, that of producing such lousy crap no one will want to pirate it (specifically her most recent album!).
No it's OK if they don't share an antenna, gets really tricky if they do. (I'm in the vicinity of listening to lots of conversations about this sort of thing.)
Now perhaps. 3-5 years ago I went through pain trying to get one that worked. Research failed twice because though it was the "same" card as was meant to work the chip set had changed to something unsupported (then). This stuffed me twice where I nearly resorted to ndiswrapper.
Not always, support for CSR's implementation of UWB (ultra wide band) for example is already in the Linux Kernel. Way before it's going to be in any products.