My kid just got an HP TX2000 from eBay for ~$500 to do his flash graphics, college physics, diff-eq's and such.
It's a 12" screen, dual cores, has a decent graphics card for a laptop, and seems to work pretty well for him on the whole.
When he's not doing his homework, he's playing games on the thing even though he has a new quad-core desktop with whizzy graphics just down the stairs, so clearly the performance is more than adequate.
Much to my surprise, I see him using the pen as much as the keyboard, so the pen interface is not a case of "seemed like a good idea at the time."
Too soon to say anything about reliability, though.
Best of luck in your search.
- Tim.
Your facts don't seem to match my realities.
I am a senior engineer in a company that has basically been driven into sale by Sarbanes-Oxley. It's very tough to make it as a small to medium-sized company when you have to spend seven digits each year on accounting and legal fees....and expensing stock options became mandatory in 2005, and I've seen very few options since then.
My colleagues and I were part owners in a small entrepreneurial company, and are now employees in a large bureaucratic company largely because of issues cited by the grandparent post which you dismiss.
I don't suppose spreading $20M across those contracts would be enough to simplify them.
Either in salaries to the workers or, um... a bonus to the Union leadership.
Define "better."
My code is a heck of a lot less clever and a lot easier to maintain than it was 20 years ago....until it *needs* to be clever....or am I just rationalizing?
Sure, but when it's just a few dozen hackers out there, can't you just haul their butts to jail the old-fashioned way? Why go through the military courts?
I thought the whole point of having separate legal rules for war situations was that it was a battlefield with thousands of guys running around shooting people.
You can't really apply the normal American legal process on that scale. There aren't enough judges, prosecutors, jurors, and, thankfully, lawyers in the world to do it.
It just doesn't seem like this rationale applies to hacking.
Still, play it safe, guys.
If you must hack military sites, for God's sake, wear a uniform!
Therefore, every program can be reduced to a single line - which is a bug.
The trick there is to make that one line really really long with a mess of semicolons.
Once you do that, the number of bugs climbs too so you get a one line program with *lots* of bugs.
What drives me crazy about all this is that a company I worked at did this stuff right in the 90's including data reduction, compression, encryption, and bare-metal restore. Somehow they didn't make fabulous amounts of money from it and make my stock options worth millions.
(Ok, it was backup to a server instead of to the cloud, but that's hardly a leap.)
Now we talk about this concept like it's a radical future thing, which it still is, and I'm mystified as to why.
Alas! Here I am still working for a living *and* looking for a good backup application with DR.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,8927,00.asp
Actually I thought Dukakis was a shmuck, but Bentsen seemed like a very serious customer. Certainly moreso than Bush 1.
If they had switched, I would have actually considered voting D for once.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that it can't fly at 17500m pointing straight and that the 3000m range is not vertical, so it seems you're stretching a bit.
So, maybe you can't shoot one down with a jet you can buy on eBay, but still...
Great code is easy to spot:
- When you look at any routine, it's obvious what it does and how.
- Variables and functions are named in such a way that the functionality is obvious CalculateDestinationIPAddress(&remoteGateway);...
- Comments are provided to describe overall flow, non-obvious algorithms, and sources of reference information.
- Stuff that controls like issues is grouped together.
- It doesn't provide multiple solutions to the same problem.
- It factors out redundant code so that you don't have to maintain the same information or code in multiple places.
- It identifies parameters of the design and makes them easy to tweak in a centralized location.
- It is optimized to an appropriate degree based on the requirements of the design.
Some stuff I have learned the hard way:
1 - For new code, write the comments first, then write the code to implement what the comments say. The commenting allows me to work out pseudocode to flesh out the design, and the pseudocode gets reused as the comments for the final code. I don't know anybody else that does this, but it has worked very well for me. (Oooh, method patent!!!)
2 - For old code, before adding a new solution to a problem, look for existing solutions. Follow those or fix them, but for God's sake, don't add a new one if there already is one.
3 - Find a hardware guy responsible for tracking down bugs. Accuse him of a pretend bug to find out what information he needs to track it down. Add code to collect all that information at the push of a button so that your customers can do it easily.
I'd love for that to explain away the incident, and I appreciate what you're saying. Certainly taking Bush quotes about a separate program and applying them to this one is pretty abusive reporting....but you keep saying that once a caller is determined to be a US-Person, that call should no longer be monitored.
It appears that the "whistle-blowers" are claiming that they were ordered by a superior to transcribe conversations known to originate from a US-Person.
Am I wrong?
If not, how does that fit in with your position that NSA is following the law apart from isolated individuals?
- fish.
Yeah, that was a *great* game. Loved the videos.
Every few years I pine to play it again, but I'm not masochistic again to try to get DOS games running under XP.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Yes. The best thing I can suggest is to expose them to good developers, good code, and bad code.
My kid just got an HP TX2000 from eBay for ~$500 to do his flash graphics, college physics, diff-eq's and such. It's a 12" screen, dual cores, has a decent graphics card for a laptop, and seems to work pretty well for him on the whole. When he's not doing his homework, he's playing games on the thing even though he has a new quad-core desktop with whizzy graphics just down the stairs, so clearly the performance is more than adequate. Much to my surprise, I see him using the pen as much as the keyboard, so the pen interface is not a case of "seemed like a good idea at the time." Too soon to say anything about reliability, though. Best of luck in your search. - Tim.
Your facts don't seem to match my realities. I am a senior engineer in a company that has basically been driven into sale by Sarbanes-Oxley. It's very tough to make it as a small to medium-sized company when you have to spend seven digits each year on accounting and legal fees. ...and expensing stock options became mandatory in 2005, and I've seen very few options since then.
My colleagues and I were part owners in a small entrepreneurial company, and are now employees in a large bureaucratic company largely because of issues cited by the grandparent post which you dismiss.
I don't suppose spreading $20M across those contracts would be enough to simplify them. Either in salaries to the workers or, um... a bonus to the Union leadership.
Define "better." My code is a heck of a lot less clever and a lot easier to maintain than it was 20 years ago. ...until it *needs* to be clever. ...or am I just rationalizing?
Sure, but when it's just a few dozen hackers out there, can't you just haul their butts to jail the old-fashioned way? Why go through the military courts?
I thought the whole point of having separate legal rules for war situations was that it was a battlefield with thousands of guys running around shooting people. You can't really apply the normal American legal process on that scale. There aren't enough judges, prosecutors, jurors, and, thankfully, lawyers in the world to do it. It just doesn't seem like this rationale applies to hacking. Still, play it safe, guys. If you must hack military sites, for God's sake, wear a uniform!
Therefore, every program can be reduced to a single line - which is a bug.
The trick there is to make that one line really really long with a mess of semicolons. Once you do that, the number of bugs climbs too so you get a one line program with *lots* of bugs.
And you find this encouraging? It's not the plaintiff's *lawyer* that I want to see making a gazillion mozillion dollars!
Any chance this will motivate them to add capacity? It'll still be 2012 before you get your panels, but they'll be cheaper when we get there. :^)
Painfully funny. Here, I'm actually getting out of my chair and rolling on the floor laughing, just for you. :^)
What drives me crazy about all this is that a company I worked at did this stuff right in the 90's including data reduction, compression, encryption, and bare-metal restore. Somehow they didn't make fabulous amounts of money from it and make my stock options worth millions. (Ok, it was backup to a server instead of to the cloud, but that's hardly a leap.) Now we talk about this concept like it's a radical future thing, which it still is, and I'm mystified as to why. Alas! Here I am still working for a living *and* looking for a good backup application with DR. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,8927,00.asp
Aw, c'mon, creimer, you can't ask for a better setup than this. Just say it! "I think my childhood *was* ..."
Only during the droughts. ;^)
Actually I thought Dukakis was a shmuck, but Bentsen seemed like a very serious customer. Certainly moreso than Bush 1. If they had switched, I would have actually considered voting D for once.
Who has a basement in California?!
So, you can use any extra MP beyond what you actually need to do a digital zoom and save money on the lens. Good point.
Wow, you're right! I learned something today. Thanks!
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that it can't fly at 17500m pointing straight and that the 3000m range is not vertical, so it seems you're stretching a bit. So, maybe you can't shoot one down with a jet you can buy on eBay, but still...
Great code is easy to spot:
- When you look at any routine, it's obvious what it does and how.
- Variables and functions are named in such a way that the functionality is obvious CalculateDestinationIPAddress(&remoteGateway);...
- Comments are provided to describe overall flow, non-obvious algorithms, and sources of reference information.
- Stuff that controls like issues is grouped together.
- It doesn't provide multiple solutions to the same problem.
- It factors out redundant code so that you don't have to maintain the same information or code in multiple places.
- It identifies parameters of the design and makes them easy to tweak in a centralized location.
- It is optimized to an appropriate degree based on the requirements of the design.
Some stuff I have learned the hard way:
1 - For new code, write the comments first, then write the code to implement what the comments say. The commenting allows me to work out pseudocode to flesh out the design, and the pseudocode gets reused as the comments for the final code. I don't know anybody else that does this, but it has worked very well for me. (Oooh, method patent!!!)
2 - For old code, before adding a new solution to a problem, look for existing solutions. Follow those or fix them, but for God's sake, don't add a new one if there already is one.
3 - Find a hardware guy responsible for tracking down bugs. Accuse him of a pretend bug to find out what information he needs to track it down. Add code to collect all that information at the push of a button so that your customers can do it easily.
"I'd say 1000 years ago she'd be stoned to death by the villagers." Which may yet happen...
Actually, a conventional sub or two would probably do nicely.
Would the erasure of Sealand really be worth losing even one large cargo ship over? :^)
I'd love for that to explain away the incident, and I appreciate what you're saying. Certainly taking Bush quotes about a separate program and applying them to this one is pretty abusive reporting. ...but you keep saying that once a caller is determined to be a US-Person, that call should no longer be monitored.
It appears that the "whistle-blowers" are claiming that they were ordered by a superior to transcribe conversations known to originate from a US-Person.
Am I wrong?
If not, how does that fit in with your position that NSA is following the law apart from isolated individuals?
- fish.
No, Science has been heavily biased towards ID until at least the middle of the 19th century. ;^)
Yeah, that was a *great* game. Loved the videos. Every few years I pine to play it again, but I'm not masochistic again to try to get DOS games running under XP.