Here is an explanation I have heard; I cannot vouch for its validity:
What may not be so obvious is that these searches are not necessarily there primarily to catch you making off with something... they are there to catch the checkout clerks from colluding with a customer to ring up a $500 item as a $20 item.
I have customers who want to see something that guesses at number of unique visitors, guesses at paths through the site, etc. They don't want to study, and don't care about the details of why it's unknowable information... they're used to seeing it from other packages, and complain that it's missing.
Any kind of wild guess, with a bunch of caveats on the output, would be much more useful than the explanation of why this analysis is not done.
To start a project, you're going to have to write the first (perhaps micro) release. It needs to be good enough, or at least interesting enough, to be worth someone else joining in your efforts, rather than ignoring you and making their own implementation of ___ instead.
"Where's the source code" is totally reasonable... it's certainly consistent with the meaning of "open source".
The world does not need any more empty SourceForge projects.
There are several data recovery companies, although when the firm I was at needed data recovery a few years ago, I helped shop around and got the feeling that they were reselling each others' services. There might only actually be one:-)
There were able to recover most of the data from a nonfunctional drive. The cost was thousands of dollars.
Naturally, this was followed by an greatly increased willingless to spend thousands more on backup systems...
Network Appliance, vendor of Network Attached Storage, has (or at least had when I looked) a feature close to this. They use a proprietary filesystem on their NAS boxes, which allows them to do unusial things.
A place where this in quite clever is for stable, snapshot views of the filesystem for the backpup software to look at, while applications continue to use it.
[They might view this as an attack on Islam... a war between the Allied nations and all Islamic nations.]
I've heard this line of thinking many time, but never a worthwhile "therefore". Therefore what? Should the U.S. not retaliate or otherwise defend itself?
If Islamic nations decide to perceive this as an attack on Islam, they are mistaken, but there's not much that can really be done about that.
My guess is that people who understand how to use computers to do modeling for nuclear weapons design would be somewhat harder to come up with than the appropriate degree of computing power.
Knowing nothing about it, I would nonetheless guess that it's rather non-trivial.
Keep in mind that nukes were invented without the aid of a Beowulf or a Cray.
I saw someone on a TV show suggest that the terrorists has somehow studied the buildings to pick the ideal place to strike.
I had an alternative theory:
They were probably more concerned with hitting at all then with hitting in some magic spot. So they probably aimed roughly at the middle, except a little closer to the top than the bottom, to make it easier to avoid hitting any of the other buildings in the area.
Unpleasant as the strip mining is, at least with Uranium you need to do 1000 times (or whatever) less of it as you would need to do with coal to get the same amount of energy.
[when a character did something -- you could understand why]
... and if you didn't understand why, you had good reason to believe that it was because of some interesting bit which would be revealed in later episodes as part of the story line, not a side effect of the particle of the week.
His dispute about flying the plane in to San Jose was not so unreasonable. The ordinance was for noise reduction, but it did not limit noise - it limited aircraft size/weight. Ellison's large, expensive, newer, high-tech plane was not permitted, while smaller *and noiser* plances were permitted. That's just silly - the noise limit law should address noise, not weight.
In other words, he challenged an unreasonable law. I wish I had the resources and motivation to do that.
[but not so great at an overall architectural level]
Try turning the "refactoring" knob up higher... be more willing to make architectural enhancements. With plenty of tests in place (acceptance tests, not only unit tests), and minimal duplication in the code, it's remarkable how radically software architecture can be changed in a short time.
[they recalled my car and fixed it at their own expense]
Perhaps the cost of (possibly) doing this was built in to the purchase price. Indeed, if they don't do this (at least with big problems) they would get in trouble with the government.
If you wrote some code this year (and were paid this year), and 3 years down the road you are working somewhere else and a bug is that found in that old code, would you like to go fix it "for free"? If you had to do that, you would need to price it in to what you charged for your labors in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
To run java apps, you don't need the (rather large) JDK, just the JRE, which is smaller.
Java Web Start does appear to be a new (and nicely implementated) instance of the same idea that Marimba had working in 1996, though.
It would probably be a complete waste of time to contact an employment agency and ask for someone who knows how to modify and enhance "Jabber".
Asking on the Jabber developers mailing list, though, would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Here is an explanation I have heard; I cannot vouch for its validity:
What may not be so obvious is that these searches are not necessarily there primarily to catch you making off with something... they are there to catch the checkout clerks from colluding with a customer to ring up a $500 item as a $20 item.
I agree.
I have customers who want to see something that guesses at number of unique visitors, guesses at paths through the site, etc. They don't want to study, and don't care about the details of why it's unknowable information... they're used to seeing it from other packages, and complain that it's missing.
Any kind of wild guess, with a bunch of caveats on the output, would be much more useful than the explanation of why this analysis is not done.
Many people work on open source projects because the project in questions scrathes an itch they have.
How many individual programmers, working on their own time, need an ERP system?
To start a project, you're going to have to write the first (perhaps micro) release. It needs to be good enough, or at least interesting enough, to be worth someone else joining in your efforts, rather than ignoring you and making their own implementation of ___ instead.
"Where's the source code" is totally reasonable... it's certainly consistent with the meaning of "open source".
The world does not need any more empty SourceForge projects.
Successful pair programming is based on both people being willing and eager to actually do the work.
Getting a project started by committee sometimes consists of a bunch of people, each of which hopes that the others will do the actual work.
Open source projects, and other projects, that attempt to start in the latter style generally don't get anywhere fast.
There are several data recovery companies, although when the firm I was at needed data recovery a few years ago, I helped shop around and got the feeling that they were reselling each others' services. There might only actually be one :-)
There were able to recover most of the data from a nonfunctional drive. The cost was thousands of dollars.
Naturally, this was followed by an greatly increased willingless to spend thousands more on backup systems...
Network Appliance, vendor of Network Attached Storage, has (or at least had when I looked) a feature close to this. They use a proprietary filesystem on their NAS boxes, which allows them to do unusial things.
A place where this in quite clever is for stable, snapshot views of the filesystem for the backpup software to look at, while applications continue to use it.
Indeed. There are all kinds of ways to be a very, very bad person that have nothing to do with cowardice.
[They might view this as an attack on Islam ... a war between the Allied nations and all Islamic nations.]
I've heard this line of thinking many time, but never a worthwhile "therefore". Therefore what? Should the U.S. not retaliate or otherwise defend itself?
If Islamic nations decide to perceive this as an attack on Islam, they are mistaken, but there's not much that can really be done about that.
My guess is that people who understand how to use computers to do modeling for nuclear weapons design would be somewhat harder to come up with than the appropriate degree of computing power.
Knowing nothing about it, I would nonetheless guess that it's rather non-trivial.
Keep in mind that nukes were invented without the aid of a Beowulf or a Cray.
[keep the beverages properly chilled]
:-)
and deprive us of the joy of tepid soda with inadequate ice?
I saw someone on a TV show suggest that the terrorists has somehow studied the buildings to pick the ideal place to strike.
I had an alternative theory:
They were probably more concerned with hitting at all then with hitting in some magic spot. So they probably aimed roughly at the middle, except a little closer to the top than the bottom, to make it easier to avoid hitting any of the other buildings in the area.
Then again, everybody has a theory.
[What ever will they think of next? ]
;-)
Maybe they'll think of pausing live video on the internet. Now that would surely be worth of a (seperate) patent.
Unpleasant as the strip mining is, at least with Uranium you need to do 1000 times (or whatever) less of it as you would need to do with coal to get the same amount of energy.
[when a character did something -- you could understand why]
... and if you didn't understand why, you had good reason to believe that it was because of some interesting bit which would be revealed in later episodes as part of the story line, not a side effect of the particle of the week.
I don't remember the exact timing, but for a while it seemed like DS9 had a lossy copy of D5's arc, delayed a bit. Hopefully I am wrong.
[The only thing I've ever seen this class of system used for is data warehousing ... Oracle databases]
I wonder what the relative merits are of:
1) A massive box, with general purpose (but very, very good) database software
2) A less massive box, with some kind of OLAP-specific database software
... or is Oracle also OLAP'ed enough to be in category 2?
[VBScript talking to COM objects; hardly bleeding edge technology]
.NET, they are soon to be Legacy technology.
With the impending arrival of
I'm no raving Ellison fan :-), but...
His dispute about flying the plane in to San Jose was not so unreasonable. The ordinance was for noise reduction, but it did not limit noise - it limited aircraft size/weight. Ellison's large, expensive, newer, high-tech plane was not permitted, while smaller *and noiser* plances were permitted. That's just silly - the noise limit law should address noise, not weight.
In other words, he challenged an unreasonable law. I wish I had the resources and motivation to do that.
They most likely failed not because of the nerf toys, but because of common dot-com failure modes:
* No feasible business plan
* No customers that actually pay money
[but not so great at an overall architectural level]
Try turning the "refactoring" knob up higher... be more willing to make architectural enhancements. With plenty of tests in place (acceptance tests, not only unit tests), and minimal duplication in the code, it's remarkable how radically software architecture can be changed in a short time.
Note that armies can toss up a bridge over a river in quite short order, if they really, really need to get across.
[they recalled my car and fixed it at their own expense]
Perhaps the cost of (possibly) doing this was built in to the purchase price. Indeed, if they don't do this (at least with big problems) they would get in trouble with the government.
If you wrote some code this year (and were paid this year), and 3 years down the road you are working somewhere else and a bug is that found in that old code, would you like to go fix it "for free"? If you had to do that, you would need to price it in to what you charged for your labors in the first place.