Good management is the biggest factor in any project, not just software. The management must: A. Know what they want and how to measure it. B. Know how to hire staff they trust and stand behind them. C. Listen more than talk. D. Be decisive when needed. E. Provide adequate resources. F. Encourage the staff to tell the truth and be willing to hear it.
I've been doing engineering projects for thirty years; both hardware, firmware and software. I've worked on a few projects that were well managed. They all succeeded and were fun. I've worked on many more projects that were managed okay or badly. These did not fare as well and were not much fun.
In one company the president threatened the programmers with a baseball bat and knocked a hole in a cubicle wall with it. In another incident at the same company the chief engineer threatened to get his cattle prod out of his truck (this is in Texas) and use it on some of the staff.
Thankfully that company went out of business. Funny thing though... I think a lot of their problem is they had too much money, not too little. The sales staff kept thinking up new products and selling them without asking engineering if they could even make them, much less by the deliver date they promised to the customer.
If you don't know anything about Lotus Notes, why bother using it as an example?
You can implement a Wiki Wiki Web application using Lotus Notes/Domino and you can do many other things with Lotus Notes. It is a development/deployment platform and a development framework. It has a client side which includes email, calendering and other collaboration tools. It has a development side which includes several programming languages including Java, JavaScript, LotusScript (similar to Visual Basic) and a powerfully scripting language. It has a powerful WYSIWUG form, view and database builder. And Notes has the most comprehensive built-in security system I have seen in any tool.
I started out not liking Lotus Notes but I eventually learned that I can pretty much do anything I need done using it and quicker than any tools I have used previously. The closest OSS package to Notes for building web sites is Zope. But Zope lacks many of the other attributes that make Notes a great platform.
The Google Services are made available for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not use the Google Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales. You may not take the results from a Google search and reformat and display them, or mirror the Google home page or results pages on your Web site. You may not "meta-search" Google. If you want to make commercial use of the Google Services, you must enter into an agreement with Google to do so in advance.
No Automated Querying
You may not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system without express permission in advance from Google. Note that "sending automated queries" includes, among other things:
using any software which sends queries to Google to determine how a website or webpage "ranks" on Google for various queries;
"meta-searching" Google; and
performing "offline" searches on Google.
Please do not write to Google to request permission to "meta-search" Google for a research project, as such requests will not be granted.
I read most of your proposed solution. Another solution would be to NOT USE EMAIL AT ALL and that's what I'd do before I'd jump through all the hoops you seem to be willing to.
Why not fix the broken protocols that allow spoofed headers? The first step is to be able to backtrack all messages to their source. (This can even be done while preserving anonymity.)
For a high percentage of email anonymity is not needed or even desired. Do you agree that there is no reason for a bulk-emailer to be anonymous?
I don't object to having free and/or anonymous email accounts, but some level accountability needs to be exercised. Perhaps limiting the number of messages per month would help. At the very least it should be easy to backtrack to this account and cut it off if it is being abused, don't you think? Right now it's too easy to spoof headers and make tracking effectively impossible.
This is a great idea except for one thing; we can't seem to figure out who sent the message! The Internet protocols are so poor, either by design or implementation, that there no way to correctly track the sender.
I would settle for an email system that, when I clicked the reply button, would return a message to the sender every time! Guaranteed!
No more jumping through hoops to discover who is sending this crap. There is no need for spammers to be anonymous. This current system is madness.
How do you send anonymous email now? I don't know about yours, but my email client puts my name in the "From:" field automatically.
To be really anonymous you have to use a tool (or hack a tool) to spoof the header. Otherwise your message can be traced back to your ISP.
I don't think email was designed to be anonymous and I see little need for it to be. For those few real cases use one of the anonymous email forwarding services such as those listed here: http://www.business.com/directory/internet_ and_onl ine/email/anonymous_mailers/
I disagree. I WILL NOT spend my life doing a job that doesn't bring me joy. And I don't work for people I don't like either!
Perhaps you call it luck, but I love being an engineer and I enjoy the heck out of writing software. People like to pay me well to do it.
If I was starving I'd be willing to do work I didn't like because starving isn't much fun. But only until I created another opportunity. I'd rather do something I like for less money that something I hate for more and that's how I live my life.
I left a perfectly good job in San Diego to move to Austin just because I wanted to live in a smaller city and I liked most things about Austin over San Diego (except the weather). I didn't have a job in Austin when I moved, but I knew I'd find one and I did. Now, ten years later, I know I made the right choice for me.
My greatest fear is that I will get to the end of my life and feel that I was too timid or scared to try everything I wanted to try because I might not have enough money.
Perhaps George Powley, creator of the LANPipe, has a possible solution. (How about open source hardware. It could be manufactured by several companies without any one controlling the design.) Check out his web site at: http://www.thepowleys.com/lanpipe/index.php
Quote from the site: "LANPipe is a network device that receives digital audio multicast on a LAN. One goal of this project is to build a low-cost client device to receive a digital audio stream from a PC based server. The other goals are to build something useful, learn, and have fun.
Some interesting features: Receives Digital Audio Multicast over Ethernet LAN (16-bit, 44.1kHz Stereo PCM) Analog Line-Level Stereo Output Digital Audio Output (coaxial S/PDIF) Uses almost any source format (MP3, Ogg, Uncompressed, Internet Radio, etc.) Server software for Windows (Winamp plug-in) and Linux (prototype driver)"
"What about a comparison with both 35mm film and medium format? I'm afraid that film has definitively lost the battle. The 1Ds's full-frame 11MP CMOS sensor produces a 32MB file -- as big as a typical scan. But this file is sharper and more noise free than any scan I have ever seen, including drum scans. There simply isn't a contest any longer."
"This is why those who say that a 3MP, 6MP, 11MP (pick a number) digital SLR can't equal film are basing their belief on either wishful thinking or bad science. Megapixels alone aren't the issue. All that larger imaging chips give you is better resolution, which translates into larger print sizes. Not a bad thing. But it's digital's lack of noise that gives it the edge over film. (This does not necessarily apply to the tiny imaging chips with very small photosites found in digicams. The smaller the individual pixels the more prone they are to noise.)"
Please, read the article. R:-]
Since it seems like many of the folks who have posted here haven't read the it yet, perhaps an excerpt from this quite lengthy and detailed article might cast some illumination on the subject. If you're have any interest in photography, a visit to the site will be rewarding if only to view the lovely photographs.
What would a Luminous Landscape digital camera test be without a comparison with film? With an 11MP imaging chip producing a 32MB file, and full frame to boot, the 1Ds cries out for a direct comparison. This is the first thing that I was interested in testing. So, here it is.
[snip photo]
Above is a view of part of downtown Toronto taken with the 1Ds. I took the same shot with a Pentax 645NII, a Canon 1V and a Canon D60. (There's no point is showing the 35mm and 645 film versions since at this size they're essentially indistinguishable). The digital frames were shot at ISO 100 and the film was Provia 100F. Film scans were done with an Imacon Flextight Photo scanner at 3200 PPI. As I've stated before, this scanner is as good as and likely superior to the film scanners that most photographers use.
[snip some more photos]
The difference in size between the 1Ds' 31MB file and the scan at 35mm is negligible. But what can be clearly seen is that the 1Ds' image is significantly higher resolution than that of the the scan. (Note that the same lens Canon 70-200mm f/2.8l IS lens was used at the same aperture, and because the 1Ds is full-frame the image size recorded is identical (no magnification factor to confuse things. The difference in resolution is therefore solely due to the camera / imager and no other factor). Also, the 1Ds' digital image clearly has less "grain". The sky is essentially noiseless. Not so at this magnification for the 35mm film.
The 645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in the sky is clearly inferior.
Now, before you start jumping up and down saying that this is confusing and unfair because the sizes are different, below is the 645 scan reduced so that it is the same size as the 1Ds image. On my screen at least (and in test prints) the resolution is not as good as that of the 1Ds and the grain in the sky is still visible.
[snip photo]
What does this all mean? Here's what I see on prints, not just on the JPGs that I've created for this page, but real-world 11X17" and 13X19" prints made on an Epson 2200. In any print size up to 13X19" (Super A3), prints made from the 1Ds are sharper and have less grain than those from 35mm or 645 film scans. There is no area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19".
Frankly, my initial impression of 1Ds images is extremely positive. There are still many things to explore, but I find little to fault at this point, and much to be very impressed with.
[snip text]
Finally, resolution is but one factor to consider. Noise (grain) is in my opinion of as much if not more significance, and digital files from cameras like the D30, D60, 1D and 1Ds are clearly superior to film in this regard at 100 ISO, and at higher speeds there's no contest -- film loses hands down. Dynamic range is another critical factor, and I plan to explore that further over the next few days.
Because your life will work better! If you act in a moral way then others are more likely to act that way with you.
I do believe in God but I do not believe religion is the basis of morality. Religious teachers teach moral principals but that doesn't mean they invented them. Religion, an invention of man, incoporated existing moral principals.
I believe we have free will. I believe we are the author of our experience. We create our own heaven or hell right here on earth. Things happen to everyone. It's not the events themselves that control our life; it's our reaction to the events.
Copyright is a law. If you don't agree to the license (contract) then you are bound by the more restrictive copyright terms.
In addition it's laws that make contracts binding. "Everyone knows" that software is bound by the copyright law AND the license agreement (contract). You can say that you didn't know, but I beleave that that's not a valid (read as legal) excuse.
Especially if you're a developer you should know this. (We're only really talking about developers that are modifying the code, not users who execute the binary results of that code.) If you know this then you should look for and read the license.
Maybe all documents should be made in HTML 4.0 (keeping to the standard).
An HTML file only displays a single text page, not a document (and if it has any images, they are in separate files as well). We need a web document standard. A single file that contains a whole document would be a real advantage for configuration management.
I propose the following as a standard for web documents with the following attributes:
Single file which can contain multiple objects. These objects could be anything including HTML, XML, images, Java, etc. I suggest the file format be identical to the Java JAR format. Let's call it a WAR file for Web ARchive.
When a URL references a WAR file the (WAR aware) server will be smart enough to open it and extract the referenced elements.
At first standard tools could be used to place the objects into a WAR file. Later, I hope, web publishing tools and word processing tools would be modified to allow the production of WAR files automatically.
Web browsers, WAR aware, could be configured to download entire WAR files with one request. Then navigation to pages contained in the file would be from the browser cache. (The tradeoff is longer initial download for fast navigation once the whole WAR document is in the cache.)
The JAR (WAR) format is good for static content. I'd like to see another format optimized for server-side dynamic update. (I suggest the name WAC for Web Active Content.) This file type could contain databases, indexes, servettes and applets in addition to the kind of static content suitable for the WAR type files.
If anything like this exists now or someone is working on it, please let me know.
Slashdot Mirror
For God's sake. It's just text! RFC 2606 doesn't specify what you're allowed to write in a text message.
If you're actually going to do some testing then it might matter. What matters here is can the reader understand the question. I can. Can you?
Good management is the biggest factor in any project, not just software. The management must:
... I think a lot of their problem is they had too much money, not too little. The sales staff kept thinking up new products and selling them without asking engineering if they could even make them, much less by the deliver date they promised to the customer.
A. Know what they want and how to measure it.
B. Know how to hire staff they trust and stand behind them.
C. Listen more than talk.
D. Be decisive when needed.
E. Provide adequate resources.
F. Encourage the staff to tell the truth and be willing to hear it.
I've been doing engineering projects for thirty years; both hardware, firmware and software. I've worked on a few projects that were well managed. They all succeeded and were fun. I've worked on many more projects that were managed okay or badly. These did not fare as well and were not much fun.
In one company the president threatened the programmers with a baseball bat and knocked a hole in a cubicle wall with it. In another incident at the same company the chief engineer threatened to get his cattle prod out of his truck (this is in Texas) and use it on some of the staff.
Thankfully that company went out of business. Funny thing though
Is that your first position or your final answer? You say you just want to put your toe in the water? Don't dance around the subject. Make the leap.
Okay, enough e-commerce jokes. Rob:-]
What a strange thing. Check out these two web sites:b .com/main.html
http://karatebob.com
http://www.karatebo
The first is an SCO web site and the second is some guy with a minimal Slackware-friendly site.
If you don't know anything about Lotus Notes, why bother using it as an example?
You can implement a Wiki Wiki Web application using Lotus Notes/Domino and you can do many other things with Lotus Notes. It is a development/deployment platform and a development framework. It has a client side which includes email, calendering and other collaboration tools. It has a development side which includes several programming languages including Java, JavaScript, LotusScript (similar to Visual Basic) and a powerfully scripting language. It has a powerful WYSIWUG form, view and database builder. And Notes has the most comprehensive built-in security system I have seen in any tool.
I started out not liking Lotus Notes but I eventually learned that I can pretty much do anything I need done using it and quicker than any tools I have used previously. The closest OSS package to Notes for building web sites is Zope. But Zope lacks many of the other attributes that make Notes a great platform.
Another difference I didn't see mentioned here; snail mail has a return address that works!
I read most of your proposed solution. Another solution would be to NOT USE EMAIL AT ALL and that's what I'd do before I'd jump through all the hoops you seem to be willing to.
Why not fix the broken protocols that allow spoofed headers? The first step is to be able to backtrack all messages to their source. (This can even be done while preserving anonymity.)
For a high percentage of email anonymity is not needed or even desired. Do you agree that there is no reason for a bulk-emailer to be anonymous?
I don't object to having free and/or anonymous email accounts, but some level accountability needs to be exercised. Perhaps limiting the number of messages per month would help. At the very least it should be easy to backtrack to this account and cut it off if it is being abused, don't you think? Right now it's too easy to spoof headers and make tracking effectively impossible.
This is a great idea except for one thing; we can't seem to figure out who sent the message! The Internet protocols are so poor, either by design or implementation, that there no way to correctly track the sender.
I would settle for an email system that, when I clicked the reply button, would return a message to the sender every time! Guaranteed!
No more jumping through hoops to discover who is sending this crap. There is no need for spammers to be anonymous. This current system is madness.
How do you send anonymous email now? I don't know about yours, but my email client puts my name in the "From:" field automatically.
_ and_onl ine/email/anonymous_mailers/
To be really anonymous you have to use a tool (or hack a tool) to spoof the header. Otherwise your message can be traced back to your ISP.
I don't think email was designed to be anonymous and I see little need for it to be. For those few real cases use one of the anonymous email forwarding services such as those listed here:
http://www.business.com/directory/internet
I disagree. I WILL NOT spend my life doing a job that doesn't bring me joy. And I don't work for people I don't like either!
Perhaps you call it luck, but I love being an engineer and I enjoy the heck out of writing software. People like to pay me well to do it.
If I was starving I'd be willing to do work I didn't like because starving isn't much fun. But only until I created another opportunity. I'd rather do something I like for less money that something I hate for more and that's how I live my life.
I left a perfectly good job in San Diego to move to Austin just because I wanted to live in a smaller city and I liked most things about Austin over San Diego (except the weather). I didn't have a job in Austin when I moved, but I knew I'd find one and I did. Now, ten years later, I know I made the right choice for me.
My greatest fear is that I will get to the end of my life and feel that I was too timid or scared to try everything I wanted to try because I might not have enough money.
Peace, Love, Laughter,
Rob:-]
See /. article http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/0 1/08/1324235&mode=nested&tid=137
Perhaps George Powley, creator of the LANPipe, has a possible solution. (How about open source hardware. It could be manufactured by several companies without any one controlling the design.) Check out his web site at: http://www.thepowleys.com/lanpipe/index.php
Quote from the site:
"LANPipe is a network device that receives digital audio multicast on a LAN. One goal of this project is to build a low-cost client device to receive a digital audio stream from a PC based server. The other goals are to build something useful, learn, and have fun.
Some interesting features:
Receives Digital Audio Multicast over Ethernet LAN (16-bit, 44.1kHz Stereo PCM)
Analog Line-Level Stereo Output
Digital Audio Output (coaxial S/PDIF)
Uses almost any source format (MP3, Ogg, Uncompressed, Internet Radio, etc.)
Server software for Windows (Winamp plug-in) and Linux (prototype driver)"
Quote from Lumious-Landscapes.com
"What about a comparison with both 35mm film and medium format? I'm afraid that film has definitively lost the battle. The 1Ds's full-frame 11MP CMOS sensor produces a 32MB file -- as big as a typical scan. But this file is sharper and more noise free than any scan I have ever seen, including drum scans. There simply isn't a contest any longer."
Another quote...
Quote from luminous-landscape.com
"This is why those who say that a 3MP, 6MP, 11MP (pick a number) digital SLR can't equal film are basing their belief on either wishful thinking or bad science. Megapixels alone aren't the issue. All that larger imaging chips give you is better resolution, which translates into larger print sizes. Not a bad thing. But it's digital's lack of noise that gives it the edge over film. (This does not necessarily apply to the tiny imaging chips with very small photosites found in digicams. The smaller the individual pixels the more prone they are to noise.)" Please, read the article. R:-]
If film stock is so stable, why are Technicolor movie prints fading? Why are so many motion pictures turning to dust?
I don't think the article sited said to stop using film, it was just a very thorough examination of the state of the new digital camera technology.
Since it seems like many of the folks who have posted here haven't read the it yet, perhaps an excerpt from this quite lengthy and detailed article might cast some illumination on the subject. If you're have any interest in photography, a visit to the site will be rewarding if only to view the lovely photographs.
Quote from Luminous Landscapes
[snip text]
What would a Luminous Landscape digital camera test be without a comparison with film? With an 11MP imaging chip producing a 32MB file, and full frame to boot, the 1Ds cries out for a direct comparison. This is the first thing that I was interested in testing. So, here it is.
[snip photo]
Above is a view of part of downtown Toronto taken with the 1Ds. I took the same shot with a Pentax 645NII, a Canon 1V and a Canon D60. (There's no point is showing the 35mm and 645 film versions since at this size they're essentially indistinguishable). The digital frames were shot at ISO 100 and the film was Provia 100F. Film scans were done with an Imacon Flextight Photo scanner at 3200 PPI. As I've stated before, this scanner is as good as and likely superior to the film scanners that most photographers use.
[snip some more photos]
The difference in size between the 1Ds' 31MB file and the scan at 35mm is negligible. But what can be clearly seen is that the 1Ds' image is significantly higher resolution than that of the the scan. (Note that the same lens Canon 70-200mm f/2.8l IS lens was used at the same aperture, and because the 1Ds is full-frame the image size recorded is identical (no magnification factor to confuse things. The difference in resolution is therefore solely due to the camera / imager and no other factor). Also, the 1Ds' digital image clearly has less "grain". The sky is essentially noiseless. Not so at this magnification for the 35mm film.
The 645 scan clearly can produce a significantly larger file, and while the resolution seems more or less comparable to the 1Ds', again the grain in the sky is clearly inferior.
Now, before you start jumping up and down saying that this is confusing and unfair because the sizes are different, below is the 645 scan reduced so that it is the same size as the 1Ds image. On my screen at least (and in test prints) the resolution is not as good as that of the 1Ds and the grain in the sky is still visible.
[snip photo]
What does this all mean? Here's what I see on prints, not just on the JPGs that I've created for this page, but real-world 11X17" and 13X19" prints made on an Epson 2200. In any print size up to 13X19" (Super A3), prints made from the 1Ds are sharper and have less grain than those from 35mm or 645 film scans. There is no area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19".
Frankly, my initial impression of 1Ds images is extremely positive. There are still many things to explore, but I find little to fault at this point, and much to be very impressed with.
[snip text]
Finally, resolution is but one factor to consider. Noise (grain) is in my opinion of as much if not more significance, and digital files from cameras like the D30, D60, 1D and 1Ds are clearly superior to film in this regard at 100 ISO, and at higher speeds there's no contest -- film loses hands down. Dynamic range is another critical factor, and I plan to explore that further over the next few days.
[snip]
I do believe in God but I do not believe religion is the basis of morality. Religious teachers teach moral principals but that doesn't mean they invented them. Religion, an invention of man, incoporated existing moral principals.
I believe we have free will. I believe we are the author of our experience. We create our own heaven or hell right here on earth. Things happen to everyone. It's not the events themselves that control our life; it's our reaction to the events.
Copyright is a law. If you don't agree to the license (contract) then you are bound by the more restrictive copyright terms.
In addition it's laws that make contracts binding. "Everyone knows" that software is bound by the copyright law AND the license agreement (contract). You can say that you didn't know, but I beleave that that's not a valid (read as legal) excuse.
Especially if you're a developer you should know this. (We're only really talking about developers that are modifying the code, not users who execute the binary results of that code.) If you know this then you should look for and read the license.
Did you click through on the Constitution? The tax laws? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
and did your post raise or lower that average?
No, it's "Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people."
i don't know
i kind'a like it
perhaps
it is encryption
where the information is
encoded in the formatting
remember burmashave?
rob:-]
haiku, haiku, haiku.
gesundheit!
Checkout Overland Data http://www.overlanddata.com for DLT and tape libraries. They have world class systems and customer support.
An HTML file only displays a single text page, not a document (and if it has any images, they are in separate files as well). We need a web document standard. A single file that contains a whole document would be a real advantage for configuration management.
I propose the following as a standard for web documents with the following attributes:
Single file which can contain multiple objects. These objects could be anything including HTML, XML, images, Java, etc. I suggest the file format be identical to the Java JAR format. Let's call it a WAR file for Web ARchive.
When a URL references a WAR file the (WAR aware) server will be smart enough to open it and extract the referenced elements.
At first standard tools could be used to place the objects into a WAR file. Later, I hope, web publishing tools and word processing tools would be modified to allow the production of WAR files automatically.
Web browsers, WAR aware, could be configured to download entire WAR files with one request. Then navigation to pages contained in the file would be from the browser cache. (The tradeoff is longer initial download for fast navigation once the whole WAR document is in the cache.)
The JAR (WAR) format is good for static content. I'd like to see another format optimized for server-side dynamic update. (I suggest the name WAC for Web Active Content.) This file type could contain databases, indexes, servettes and applets in addition to the kind of static content suitable for the WAR type files.
If anything like this exists now or someone is working on it, please let me know.
r39525@email.sps.mot.com