You know, your entirely right. Your post echos a sentiment that is said and thought of quite often. The frustrating part is that the grandparent post reflects the majority of people's attitudes.
People can write obfuscated C yet you don't see (as many) people running around crying murder, mayhem, and the end of the world at C. It is just annoying to see people trash a language like that, for any reason.
I can write code that is completely unlike anyone else in my project in *ANY* language you can give me. It is the job of a good project manager to ensure that peer reviews are conducted in an orderly and sufficient manner. It is a good project managers job to come up with the programming standards for a project.
With standards on the style of how a language should be used and a disciplined team, your code is coherent. With an team that has less discipline you will see things are a bit more chaotic.
Notice, the language simply does not matter. Perl infact should be better in MORE projects if you can change the style and form of the code and the way you write it, simply because it suits more needs and projects that way.
All of this said, I don't use Perl as a personal choice. I never buy the argument Perl is hard to read or write just because it is Perl, I just don't use it.
I know the area the network covers and the areas where things like GSM connectivity are good are in dense areas that are no where near as spaced out as the land scape of the united states. I looked at a map of europe, even encarta. If that 4M square mile figure you quoted earlier is for the entire area of the map shown it includes quite a bit of area that is not densely populated like other parts of europe.
It does include parts of former russia, not huge chunks, but significant portions relative to the rest of eruope.
They have MUCH more population density which means there can be more demand for such services in a smaller area making them more profitable to the point where they can exist and make a little money.
As far as I understand they still lag behind us in DSL capacity. I am about 30 miles from Atlanta and I have a nice 1.5M/385k DSL.
If you roll out a service to all of the continent of North America you will be covering a huge amount of sparsely populated areas. If you roll out to most of europe where MOST of the people are you will get most of the people. Whereas the population of North America is quite a bit more spread out.
You can quote to me every figure on the land area of coutries but my point is it is more costly to roll out these technooges into a more sparsely populated area that is spread out. (That is North America).
Here is a nice PDF which has the land areas PER country and the total land area for Europe.
The land area of eruope is about 2,269,180 hectares. The land area of europe minus the "Russian Federation", which is as far as I know a part of Eruope, is a mere 569600 hectares.
Population density and land area.
I punched the numbers in for each little country in eruope to come up with this figure just so I could see every country individually and its land area.
That includes a lot of the less populated land masses. Like oh.. huge chunks of russia...
I bet if you took the landmass of the area of GEANT and where most of these "cool" services are it would be quite a bit less than 4 Million Square miles.
Now then, Language and culture barriers among the different countries of europe are a MUCH better argument against my parent.
I know it is sarcasm, but you have to remember one thing when comparing why these cool networks are possible in europe so easily and they take more time in the states. The amount of cable and infrastructure required. In Europe everything is more dense and closely located, so sure they can lay out the networking infrastructure for something like this easily
In the states? Not quite so easy... due to the simple fact of the size. Same reason we don't have GSM, same reason all these nifty technologies (anything wireless) take time.
So that is why wired.com is running ad's for palm that are the EXACT same type of an add?
BTW, these adds appear to use an iframe and flash to do their "amazing" tricks. It seems to me to just be a little bit of simple flash trickery that we have used in our product for over a year.
Have to agree. It was not condescending at all. A bit matter of fact (the If you have to ask slashdot you are not qualified.....) bit is kind of matter of fact, but definitely true.
You would know what kind of a tool you need if you knew more about your work. From what I gather it is like the difference in a phillips screw driver and a flat head and what type of screws they work on.:)
I think you are wrong. This is abviously a flame, but I developed software purely for love of it. I developed a rather large MUD just because people enjoyed playing there and interacting with like minds.
It was great fun to be the facilitator of that fun. I will admit it is a nice feeling for people to respect what you do, but it is completely not about prestige for a lot of us.
What I did, I did because I know I was giving people a way to have fun and be entertained. I was building my OWN online community, not for prestige, but because people enjoyed being there.
Thanks
Jeremy
Re:You're right but I'm bummed
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Heh, if it could do 15 mph it would be nice for getting around Atlanta.:) You woudlnt believe how long 12 miles takes at 5pm on your average weekday in the heart of atlanta.
*nod* It was still good eye candy tho. It was awesome and belivable as far as most people know(just not realistic!...like the rest of the movie)
I pretty much assumed a missle only carried enough
fuel (solid fuel?) to go so far. Oh well, it was still pretty fun.
*sigh* I am saying. The weapon that guy had was a nice expensive rifle with a rather powerful scope. The thing had at least a bipod mounted underneath it. Snipers are NOT infallable.
Taking my limited firearms experience after maybe a year of practice with my 30-06 and hunting I could adjust my scope on the fly for range, (and wind under about 10mph), and regularly hit any target 400 yards or less, almost every single time.
Taking into account there was visibly no wind shown, the sniper had a bi-pod and much better scope than I do, and a stationary target and yes I find it hard to believe. This guy they sent after him was obviously their best tracker/sniper or they would not have sent him alone like that.
Shit, I only hunted regularly for two years and practiced maybe once a month for a year...
The odds indicate this guy should have made his kill right then and there. Lets not take into account as Owen Wilson slides down this guy consistently misses by the same amount on a MOVING target. Its just to improbable to swallor given the bullet dodging of the prior scene. Maybe if wilson had detected the sniper and moved and then the sniper fired, id buy it.. moving targets take more practice to hit.
In conclusion I just think its to improbable. No snipers are not infallable, but any well trained sniper is not going to miss their mark on a stationary target in a windless day. I don't buy it.
I too was kind of shocked by some of the movies unrealistic scenes. Ok, flying off course a major mistake in and off itself is the premise for the movie and it is believable. I knew that was not realistic but it was belivable so the movie was still good.
Owen wilson did a good job in this role actually.
The scene with the SAM launched missiles and them evading and then ejecting were really awesome. I mean I have seen a ton of those scenes before but that missile chase scene was very engrossing and some of the footage for those scenes was plain awesome.
Once they hit the ground the movie starts getting a little silly. They know they are in hostile territory and he leaves his man laying injured in the middle of a wide open field.... NOT! At least if he would have dragged him to some woods and hid him and THEN the enemy army found him it would have seemed better, but that was a dumb movie mistake. The scene where they shot the pilot made me jump even though I knew it was coming.. it was well done.. just not realisitc.
Next You have owen wilson dodging an impossible number of bulletsand explosive tank rounds....... It was a good chase scene one of them would have been okay.
Then you have owen wilson sitting on some sort of broken stone structure. The main pursuer with the nice sniper rifle misses his target that has been sitting still for at least 5 minutes. In the real world if he was sitting in the open for so long that sniper would not have missed, end of the movie.
The pursuit continues and wilson manages to survive in what seemed to be the epicenter of a bunch of mines of some sort (I don;t know the military terminology for waht they were). ANyways it was not realistic after they showed what it did to the enemy soliders.
everything else in the movie is pretty good until the last scene. That last scene had me wishing it didnt happen.
They fly in with a few marine helicopters. There are a ton of enemy tanks and soliders all approaching owen wilson. Then these helicopters pop up, stay in the same place and somehow decimate the enemy for like four minutes. The footage was nice, but I just DONT see how the enemy solders can be such a bad shot that they could not hit these practicaly stationary helicopters for a full four minutes. Oh and whats with the enemy commander sitting there in plain view prancing about yelling in anger and never getting hit while everyone around him dies?
Oh and they happened to see the supa camo'd enemy sniper and shoot him a few moments before he fired?????
That last scene was bad:(
Overall the movie was great and the footage and way it was filmed were very nice. The camera angles were good (except those damn shaking camera scenes, won't those Private Ryan Esque scenes ever stop??? )
I am a little critical of a few scenes since I know a good deal about military procedure because I have a couple friends in special forces in the army.
Overall.. the movie was fun and they didnt truly spoil it until the end so I thought it was an alright movie.
I have to agree with you to a large extent. I was just ranting about one single facet. I think it is a multitude of problems including my parent posts rant.
This gets said quite a bit. "Why does america xyz telecommunications service suck SOOOOO bad compared to abc countries xyz service?"
Most other countries in the world are smaller. In some cases you can service an entire country with a stupidly small amount of infrastructure. Here in the states we are a huge sprawling country and rolling out a service to the ENTIRE country at once is plain damn tough. It is huge. Infrastructure takes time. It costs MONEY a lot more money to deploy that much infrastructure. Then you have to look at the demand for such services. Even at 40 a pop.
I always get annoyed when people say "Why does'nt america have cool cellular networks like europe etc."
because america is a big place and it costs money!
I would blame you for giving the child the poison in the first place. And hey, I don't have any problem not chugging down windex when I buy it. I don't chug stuff I don't know about and I can stop any children in my immediate vicinity from ever obtaining that by MY count.
No I can't stop others from doing this but its a moot point.
I think I should be able to demand a certain level of common sense from the human beings around me. Obviously that does not happen.
Jeremy
Re:Might I recommend webcriteria.com?
on
Homepage Usability
·
· Score: 1
I have always found there to be a certain beauty to well formatted completely valid HTML. Having done HTML for longer than I can remember it takes me no extra time to write valid HTML and know when what I am doing is not valid. My website (crackedrearview) is completely XHTML compliant.
I made the layout simple and efficient, no graphics.. just my content and a simple navigation system to let you know where you are in my site at all times. (granted there is not much there). There are no distracting images just the content I want to convey and a simple intuitive manner to tool around the site.
I plan on eventually expanding the site to do quite a bit while keeping the same clean functional interface. (Am going to expand site to have a tech corner where I write articles on whatever technical topics strike my fancy etc.) Anyhow, my main point is it is not difficult since my entire site took a total of two hours including the content. You can do clean, effecient, well thought, valid HTML, that is both attractive and professional with just a little effort and pre-planning.
I try and let my design philosophy bleed over into my professional development work as much as possible where it applies to make everything simple and straightforward yet achieve what the software needs to.
Uhm.. It is a story syndicated from reuters, thus "reuters reports" is technically and semantically correct. Excite happens to pay reuters for the ability to syndicate their content in their own site, but make no doubt that reuters generated it.
The two systems were pretty damn close anyways! Unless you are seeing absolute peak throughput and you really need those extra few requests per second I would say it does not matter. Very few applications actually ever scale to the levels this article puts his testing through.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, your entirely right. Your post echos a sentiment that is said and thought of quite often. The frustrating part is that the grandparent post reflects the majority of people's attitudes.
People can write obfuscated C yet you don't see (as many) people running around crying murder, mayhem, and the end of the world at C. It is just annoying to see people trash a language like that, for any reason.
I can write code that is completely unlike anyone else in my project in *ANY* language you can give me. It is the job of a good project manager to ensure that peer reviews are conducted in an orderly and sufficient manner. It is a good project managers job to come up with the programming standards for a project.
With standards on the style of how a language should be used and a disciplined team, your code is coherent. With an team that has less discipline you will see things are a bit more chaotic.
Notice, the language simply does not matter. Perl infact should be better in MORE projects if you can change the style and form of the code and the way you write it, simply because it suits more needs and projects that way.
All of this said, I don't use Perl as a personal choice. I never buy the argument Perl is hard to read or write just because it is Perl, I just don't use it.
I know the area the network covers and the areas where things like GSM connectivity are good are in dense areas that are no where near as spaced out as the land scape of the united states. I looked at a map of europe, even encarta. If that 4M square mile figure you quoted earlier is for the entire area of the map shown it includes quite a bit of area that is not densely populated like other parts of europe.
It does include parts of former russia, not huge chunks, but significant portions relative to the rest of eruope.
They have MUCH more population density which means there can be more demand for such services in a smaller area making them more profitable to the point where they can exist and make a little money.
As far as I understand they still lag behind us in DSL capacity. I am about 30 miles from Atlanta and I have a nice 1.5M/385k DSL.
If you roll out a service to all of the continent of North America you will be covering a huge amount of sparsely populated areas. If you roll out to most of europe where MOST of the people are you will get most of the people. Whereas the population of North America is quite a bit more spread out.
You can quote to me every figure on the land area of coutries but my point is it is more costly to roll out these technooges into a more sparsely populated area that is spread out. (That is North America).
Here is a nice PDF which has the land areas PER country and the total land area for Europe.
PDF
The land area of eruope is about 2,269,180 hectares. The land area of europe minus the "Russian Federation", which is as far as I know a part of Eruope, is a mere 569600 hectares.
Population density and land area.
I punched the numbers in for each little country in eruope to come up with this figure just so I could see every country individually and its land area.
Anyways
Jeremy
I agree, like I said.. land area is not an argument, the figure of the GEANT/dense population areas is quite a bit smaller.
However language and cultural barriers are a good argument and a fine point
Jeremy
That includes a lot of the less populated land masses. Like oh.. huge chunks of russia...
I bet if you took the landmass of the area of GEANT and where most of these "cool" services are it would be quite a bit less than 4 Million Square miles.
Now then, Language and culture barriers among the different countries of europe are a MUCH better argument against my parent.
jeremy
UMTS, is.. the company trying to implement 3G mobile phone stuff IIRC.
I will believe that it can achieve broadband level connection speeds to the masses when I see it in my hands..
Jeremy
I know it is sarcasm, but you have to remember one thing when comparing why these cool networks are possible in europe so easily and they take more time in the states. The amount of cable and infrastructure required. In Europe everything is more dense and closely located, so sure they can lay out the networking infrastructure for something like this easily
In the states? Not quite so easy... due to the simple fact of the size. Same reason we don't have GSM, same reason all these nifty technologies (anything wireless) take time.
Jeremy
Uhm, Counter-Strike online community is bigger than UT....
Jeremy
If you know your OO programming well enough QT is a complete dream to program in compared to the C version of GTK (Never Tried GTK--)
Jeremy
So that is why wired.com is running ad's for palm that are the EXACT same type of an add?
BTW, these adds appear to use an iframe and flash to do their "amazing" tricks. It seems to me to just be a little bit of simple flash trickery that we have used in our product for over a year.
Jeremy
Have to agree. It was not condescending at all. A bit matter of fact (the If you have to ask slashdot you are not qualified.....) bit is kind of matter of fact, but definitely true.
:)
You would know what kind of a tool you need if you knew more about your work. From what I gather it is like the difference in a phillips screw driver and a flat head and what type of screws they work on.
Jeremy
I think you are wrong. This is abviously a flame, but I developed software purely for love of it. I developed a rather large MUD just because people enjoyed playing there and interacting with like minds.
It was great fun to be the facilitator of that fun. I will admit it is a nice feeling for people to respect what you do, but it is completely not about prestige for a lot of us.
What I did, I did because I know I was giving people a way to have fun and be entertained. I was building my OWN online community, not for prestige, but because people enjoyed being there.
Thanks
Jeremy
Heh, if it could do 15 mph it would be nice for getting around Atlanta. :) You woudlnt believe how long 12 miles takes at 5pm on your average weekday in the heart of atlanta.
Jeremy
*nod* It was still good eye candy tho. It was awesome and belivable as far as most people know(just not realistic!...like the rest of the movie)
I pretty much assumed a missle only carried enough
fuel (solid fuel?) to go so far. Oh well, it was still pretty fun.
Jeremy
*sigh* I am saying. The weapon that guy had was a nice expensive rifle with a rather powerful scope. The thing had at least a bipod mounted underneath it. Snipers are NOT infallable.
Taking my limited firearms experience after maybe a year of practice with my 30-06 and hunting I could adjust my scope on the fly for range, (and wind under about 10mph), and regularly hit any target 400 yards or less, almost every single time.
Taking into account there was visibly no wind shown, the sniper had a bi-pod and much better scope than I do, and a stationary target and yes I find it hard to believe. This guy they sent after him was obviously their best tracker/sniper or they would not have sent him alone like that.
Shit, I only hunted regularly for two years and practiced maybe once a month for a year...
The odds indicate this guy should have made his kill right then and there. Lets not take into account as Owen Wilson slides down this guy consistently misses by the same amount on a MOVING target. Its just to improbable to swallor given the bullet dodging of the prior scene. Maybe if wilson had detected the sniper and moved and then the sniper fired, id buy it.. moving targets take more practice to hit.
In conclusion I just think its to improbable. No snipers are not infallable, but any well trained sniper is not going to miss their mark on a stationary target in a windless day. I don't buy it.
jeremy
I too was kind of shocked by some of the movies unrealistic scenes. Ok, flying off course a major mistake in and off itself is the premise for the movie and it is believable. I knew that was not realistic but it was belivable so the movie was still good.
Owen wilson did a good job in this role actually.
The scene with the SAM launched missiles and them evading and then ejecting were really awesome. I mean I have seen a ton of those scenes before but that missile chase scene was very engrossing and some of the footage for those scenes was plain awesome.
Once they hit the ground the movie starts getting a little silly. They know they are in hostile territory and he leaves his man laying injured in the middle of a wide open field.... NOT! At least if he would have dragged him to some woods and hid him and THEN the enemy army found him it would have seemed better, but that was a dumb movie mistake. The scene where they shot the pilot made me jump even though I knew it was coming.. it was well done.. just not realisitc.
Next You have owen wilson dodging an impossible number of bulletsand explosive tank rounds....... It was a good chase scene one of them would have been okay.
Then you have owen wilson sitting on some sort of broken stone structure. The main pursuer with the nice sniper rifle misses his target that has been sitting still for at least 5 minutes. In the real world if he was sitting in the open for so long that sniper would not have missed, end of the movie.
The pursuit continues and wilson manages to survive in what seemed to be the epicenter of a bunch of mines of some sort (I don;t know the military terminology for waht they were). ANyways it was not realistic after they showed what it did to the enemy soliders.
everything else in the movie is pretty good until the last scene. That last scene had me wishing it didnt happen.
They fly in with a few marine helicopters. There are a ton of enemy tanks and soliders all approaching owen wilson. Then these helicopters pop up, stay in the same place and somehow decimate the enemy for like four minutes. The footage was nice, but I just DONT see how the enemy solders can be such a bad shot that they could not hit these practicaly stationary helicopters for a full four minutes. Oh and whats with the enemy commander sitting there in plain view prancing about yelling in anger and never getting hit while everyone around him dies?
Oh and they happened to see the supa camo'd enemy sniper and shoot him a few moments before he fired?????
That last scene was bad
Overall the movie was great and the footage and way it was filmed were very nice. The camera angles were good (except those damn shaking camera scenes, won't those Private Ryan Esque scenes ever stop??? )
I am a little critical of a few scenes since I know a good deal about military procedure because I have a couple friends in special forces in the army.
Overall.. the movie was fun and they didnt truly spoil it until the end so I thought it was an alright movie.
Jeremy
I have to agree with you to a large extent. I was just ranting about one single facet. I think it is a multitude of problems including my parent posts rant.
Jeremy
This gets said quite a bit. "Why does america xyz telecommunications service suck SOOOOO bad compared to abc countries xyz service?"
... Just my .02.
Most other countries in the world are smaller. In some cases you can service an entire country with a stupidly small amount of infrastructure. Here in the states we are a huge sprawling country and rolling out a service to the ENTIRE country at once is plain damn tough. It is huge. Infrastructure takes time. It costs MONEY a lot more money to deploy that much infrastructure. Then you have to look at the demand for such services. Even at 40 a pop.
I always get annoyed when people say "Why does'nt america have cool cellular networks like europe etc."
because america is a big place and it costs money!
Jeremy
I would blame you for giving the child the poison in the first place. And hey, I don't have any problem not chugging down windex when I buy it. I don't chug stuff I don't know about and I can stop any children in my immediate vicinity from ever obtaining that by MY count.
No I can't stop others from doing this but its a moot point.
I think I should be able to demand a certain level of common sense from the human beings around me. Obviously that does not happen.
Jeremy
I have always found there to be a certain beauty to well formatted completely valid HTML. Having done HTML for longer than I can remember it takes me no extra time to write valid HTML and know when what I am doing is not valid. My website (crackedrearview) is completely XHTML compliant.
I made the layout simple and efficient, no graphics.. just my content and a simple navigation system to let you know where you are in my site at all times. (granted there is not much there). There are no distracting images just the content I want to convey and a simple intuitive manner to tool around the site.
I plan on eventually expanding the site to do quite a bit while keeping the same clean functional interface. (Am going to expand site to have a tech corner where I write articles on whatever technical topics strike my fancy etc.) Anyhow, my main point is it is not difficult since my entire site took a total of two hours including the content. You can do clean, effecient, well thought, valid HTML, that is both attractive and professional with just a little effort and pre-planning.
I try and let my design philosophy bleed over into my professional development work as much as possible where it applies to make everything simple and straightforward yet achieve what the software needs to.
Jeremy
Uhm.. It is a story syndicated from reuters, thus "reuters reports" is technically and semantically correct. Excite happens to pay reuters for the ability to syndicate their content in their own site, but make no doubt that reuters generated it.
...
Jeremy
eclipse.org (not eclipse.com)
Ever heard of a contract? Legally, they can do wonders for trust :)
Jeremy
The two systems were pretty damn close anyways! Unless you are seeing absolute peak throughput and you really need those extra few requests per second I would say it does not matter. Very few applications actually ever scale to the levels this article puts his testing through.
Jeremy
I really don't think we need the details of such an endeavor.
Jeremy
They mentioned in the article they were moving to a more "modern" microkernel and that they HURD OS was not tied to a specific microkernel...
perhaps there is hope?
Jeremy