Frederick P. Brooks Jr. wrote an excellent paper (No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering) back in 1987 (link: http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~cah/...) that highlights how so much of the complexity that exists in software is *accidental*. This problem is in no way specific to Java, but the language and the supporting eco-system of conventions, libraries and the various supporting "enterprise" tools certainly contribute to the situation. As a language that champions OOP (note: the paper calls out OOP specifically), it makes sense that Java's mainstream-status would lend itself towards being a poster-child for Accidental complexity.
Having worked in the software industry, on various Java code bases, for the past decade: I have observed this curious phenomenon first-hand, repeatedly. It really is quite unfortunate, as it is very possible to write elegant, and concise Java code: one simply has to adopt a more functional programming style and limit mutability within their code. The problem is: most Java developers who appreciate the value of functional programming and immutable design, have already moved on to other languages that have a syntax, standard library and an eco-system that is centered around these principles. I've moved on to Scala largely for this very reason: I grew tired of spending an hour frantically searching through a mountain of convoluted procedural code and XML configs: just to to see why a boolean flag I set was not "seen" by a particular class method.
Somehow, I think transporters where Picard has to shoot his other self twice, after each away mission (first, when he returns back to the ship, and then secondly from orbit -- or only the later if he wants to be a lazy ass) would sorta ruin the whole utopian vibe.
Of course, there was that episode with two Rikers but at least things didn't turn out as violent as they did in The Prestige.
computationally speaking, Microsoft's "Scroogled" Campaign it utter garbage.
Here's why (from a high-level technically stand-point):
Privacy is only truly violated when there exists some form of device IO of private information, in clear-text. For gmail to have code that performs in-memory comparisons of email text and advertisement content, to be considered a breach of privacy is complete crap. Yes, you can start nit-picking with issues such as whether buffers of data are not being left hanging around memory, or if gmail's method of requesting data from ad-servers can some how provide clues in logging files somewhere that could allow Googler #247 to infer that Johnny is sending emails about ant-farms. But, it all comes down to whether or not personal information is being written out somewhere for humans to read (whether indirectly or directly).
Having worked at software companies that jump through all kind of hoops to ensure that data is sanitized ad naseum: I highly doubt that Google is allowing their employees, let alone third-parties to freely spy on users.
It's not until one takes Calculus that everything in Intermediate Algebra and Trigonometry all comes together, and actually makes sense. Now if $2,400 bought you a high-quality, well-taught series of online courses that cover Calculus I, II, Diff. Equations, Vector Calculus, and Linear Algebra --- *then* we're talking.
I can see paying as much as 3-4k for something like that.
That's what I said until I got divorced and started dating again. Thousands of text messages. Yes, thousands. You don't tell a hot chick to switch to gtalk, just because it's free. Nope, you're better off being a man and spending that $10 a month for unlimited text without mentioning it. I'll never regret that choice.
Firstly, I want to say that I have enjoyed many hours of entertainment with these Buckyballs. I even bought two more sets so I could make some real cool structures with them. Since when did all products have to be safe for humans to ingest? It seems to me like all household cleaners, motor oil, industrial lubricants, hell... even integrated circuits would have to be yanked off the market now.
All of that being said, I'm actually surprised no-one else has mentioned a particularly troublesome issue with bucky-balls that poses for even intelligent adults: peeling metal. After having fumbled with these bucky-balls for a long time, tiny slivers of metal have been peeling off, which would be fine if they didn't end up on my fingers. Just imagine a wooden splinter, only way smaller and more rigid. I've found them to be impossible to remove deliberately. Basically you have to go several hours, sometimes even a day or two, with the shavings on your finger and eventually they will fall off (either by being washed off or just falling off after awhile). Fortunately, I've been careful not to ingest the slivers or scratch my eyes but after having the slivers end up in my fingers a few times I've stuffed the bucky balls into a box and tossed them aside.
That doesn't mean I'm going to go complaining to the company about it like a cry-baby. I do realize that rare-earth magnets are quite brittle and they must be treated with care (which I thought I did -- but apparently not enough so). Perhaps I'll pick up some gardening gloves and give the bucky-balls another go.
The fakest looking keyboard skills are when Scotty inputs the formula for "transparent aluminum" into the computer in the movie Voyage Home (the one where they go back to modern day LA). He just kinda hovered his hands over the keys and randomly smacked his fingers over the buttons very fast. Will have to give props to the funny bit of talking into the mouse first, though.
Blasphemy I Say!... Scotty just had too much charm to call that *bad*.
Besides, that whole scene was too "tounge-in-cheek" to be taken so seriously. The world would be missing something without it.
... is to give Apple some more reason to hesitate before entering the DVR market (by leveraging the AppleTV and possibly acquiring TiVo out-right). At this point, Apple's dominance in mobile computing and its ability to further extend its domination into Television programming puts a squeeze on Microsoft's ability to hold its ground.
If I were wrong, Microsoft is simply wasting their time (or just being plain mean) filing a lawsuit against a company that has a single niche product and little, if any, risk extending themselves into other markets (unlike Apple). At this point, I wouldn't put it past them to be blundering bullies but my gut tells me they are actually being sneaky this time.
... I would argue that this is *proof* that a transparent national defense (as promoted by the pro-Wiki-Leaks crowd) is a very bad idea. Assuming that the U.S. is behind this (a bold assumption yes, but is highly likely), for some-one to "leak" information on this, would be a travesty.
And no: this is not flame-bait... I just making a "case in point" observation here.
Notice how the article is addresses "special effects" and just about every comment is a gripe about CGI? This is the fundamental problem. As suggested by the cliche "to a hammer, everything is a nail": CG would be Hollywood's hammer. This is truly sad since there are numerous instances where CG is the *inferior* choice. Take a look at a Space scene in a Star Trek TNG episode or even Star Wars, and you will see what I mean. There is something organic and substantial about real models that just can't be replicated by CGI. Granted, they have come a long ways, but everything just *feels* smaller and much less grandiose when you take physical models out of the picture. And whenever I see a film where Liam Neelson is doing his own stunts, this jumps out at me and pulls me into the story. Replace this Liam Neelson bad guy busting scene with a CGId up screen shake-fest and I start falling asleep.
Slashdot Mirror
At first I was dismayed at how my comment was getting no love ... but then sure enough ... :-)
This is old news folks.
Frederick P. Brooks Jr. wrote an excellent paper (No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering) back in 1987 (link: http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~cah/...) that highlights how so much of the complexity that exists in software is *accidental*. This problem is in no way specific to Java, but the language and the supporting eco-system of conventions, libraries and the various supporting "enterprise" tools certainly contribute to the situation. As a language that champions OOP (note: the paper calls out OOP specifically), it makes sense that Java's mainstream-status would lend itself towards being a poster-child for Accidental complexity.
Having worked in the software industry, on various Java code bases, for the past decade: I have observed this curious phenomenon first-hand, repeatedly. It really is quite unfortunate, as it is very possible to write elegant, and concise Java code: one simply has to adopt a more functional programming style and limit mutability within their code. The problem is: most Java developers who appreciate the value of functional programming and immutable design, have already moved on to other languages that have a syntax, standard library and an eco-system that is centered around these principles. I've moved on to Scala largely for this very reason: I grew tired of spending an hour frantically searching through a mountain of convoluted procedural code and XML configs: just to to see why a boolean flag I set was not "seen" by a particular class method.
ask an ye shall recieve: http://www.the-ear.net/review-...
Somehow, I think transporters where Picard has to shoot his other self twice, after each away mission (first, when he returns back to the ship, and then secondly from orbit -- or only the later if he wants to be a lazy ass) would sorta ruin the whole utopian vibe.
Of course, there was that episode with two Rikers but at least things didn't turn out as violent as they did in The Prestige.
Remind me not to ever piss you off.
computationally speaking, Microsoft's "Scroogled" Campaign it utter garbage.
Here's why (from a high-level technically stand-point):
Privacy is only truly violated when there exists some form of device IO of private information, in clear-text. For gmail to have code that performs in-memory comparisons of email text and advertisement content, to be considered a breach of privacy is complete crap. Yes, you can start nit-picking with issues such as whether buffers of data are not being left hanging around memory, or if gmail's method of requesting data from ad-servers can some how provide clues in logging files somewhere that could allow Googler #247 to infer that Johnny is sending emails about ant-farms. But, it all comes down to whether or not personal information is being written out somewhere for humans to read (whether indirectly or directly).
Having worked at software companies that jump through all kind of hoops to ensure that data is sanitized ad naseum: I highly doubt that Google is allowing their employees, let alone third-parties to freely spy on users.
And that, in a nutshell, is why the 2nd Amendment ... isn't the 27th ... amendment.
... Especially for Pre-Calculus.
It's not until one takes Calculus that everything in Intermediate Algebra and Trigonometry all comes together, and actually makes sense. Now if $2,400 bought you a high-quality, well-taught series of online courses that cover Calculus I, II, Diff. Equations, Vector Calculus, and Linear Algebra --- *then* we're talking.
I can see paying as much as 3-4k for something like that.
Well, at least they can brag about small class-sizes and consequently the best teacher-student ratio among top-tier schools, worldwide.
That's what I said until I got divorced and started dating again. Thousands of text messages. Yes, thousands. You don't tell a hot chick to switch to gtalk, just because it's free. Nope, you're better off being a man and spending that $10 a month for unlimited text without mentioning it. I'll never regret that choice.
You make a damn good point.
... SMS is overpriced anyway. That will give me another excuse to tell friends to stop texting me.
At least there isn't an electoral college involved.
I see: so if demand goes down, price goes up?
Good luck with that ...
It appears Martians have yet to ban single-use grocery bags ...
... officially marks the point in time where we have *literally* heard everything. From this point forward, stuff just begins to repeat.
Firstly, I want to say that I have enjoyed many hours of entertainment with these Buckyballs. I even bought two more sets so I could make some real cool structures with them. Since when did all products have to be safe for humans to ingest? It seems to me like all household cleaners, motor oil, industrial lubricants, hell ... even integrated circuits would have to be yanked off the market now.
All of that being said, I'm actually surprised no-one else has mentioned a particularly troublesome issue with bucky-balls that poses for even intelligent adults: peeling metal. After having fumbled with these bucky-balls for a long time, tiny slivers of metal have been peeling off, which would be fine if they didn't end up on my fingers. Just imagine a wooden splinter, only way smaller and more rigid. I've found them to be impossible to remove deliberately. Basically you have to go several hours, sometimes even a day or two, with the shavings on your finger and eventually they will fall off (either by being washed off or just falling off after awhile). Fortunately, I've been careful not to ingest the slivers or scratch my eyes but after having the slivers end up in my fingers a few times I've stuffed the bucky balls into a box and tossed them aside.
That doesn't mean I'm going to go complaining to the company about it like a cry-baby. I do realize that rare-earth magnets are quite brittle and they must be treated with care (which I thought I did -- but apparently not enough so). Perhaps I'll pick up some gardening gloves and give the bucky-balls another go.
With some careful planning I'm pretty sure one could respond to such a request from the DOJ by either:
"Decrypting" his/her laptop .... OR .... Decrypting his/her "laptop"
Maybe for the ambitious:
"Decrypting" his/her "laptop".
The fakest looking keyboard skills are when Scotty inputs the formula for "transparent aluminum" into the computer in the movie Voyage Home (the one where they go back to modern day LA). He just kinda hovered his hands over the keys and randomly smacked his fingers over the buttons very fast. Will have to give props to the funny bit of talking into the mouse first, though.
Blasphemy I Say! ... Scotty just had too much charm to call that *bad*.
Besides, that whole scene was too "tounge-in-cheek" to be taken so seriously. The world would be missing something without it.
... is to give Apple some more reason to hesitate before entering the DVR market (by leveraging the AppleTV and possibly acquiring TiVo out-right). At this point, Apple's dominance in mobile computing and its ability to further extend its domination into Television programming puts a squeeze on Microsoft's ability to hold its ground.
If I were wrong, Microsoft is simply wasting their time (or just being plain mean) filing a lawsuit against a company that has a single niche product and little, if any, risk extending themselves into other markets (unlike Apple). At this point, I wouldn't put it past them to be blundering bullies but my gut tells me they are actually being sneaky this time.
**cough** **cough**
Yes, I was genuinely coughing that time.
**cough** This would never **cough** happen **cough** **cough** on an iPhone **cough**
... I would argue that this is *proof* that a transparent national defense (as promoted by the pro-Wiki-Leaks crowd) is a very bad idea. Assuming that the U.S. is behind this (a bold assumption yes, but is highly likely), for some-one to "leak" information on this, would be a travesty.
And no: this is not flame-bait ... I just making a "case in point" observation here.
Notice how the article is addresses "special effects" and just about every comment is a gripe about CGI? This is the fundamental problem. As suggested by the cliche "to a hammer, everything is a nail": CG would be Hollywood's hammer. This is truly sad since there are numerous instances where CG is the *inferior* choice. Take a look at a Space scene in a Star Trek TNG episode or even Star Wars, and you will see what I mean. There is something organic and substantial about real models that just can't be replicated by CGI. Granted, they have come a long ways, but everything just *feels* smaller and much less grandiose when you take physical models out of the picture. And whenever I see a film where Liam Neelson is doing his own stunts, this jumps out at me and pulls me into the story. Replace this Liam Neelson bad guy busting scene with a CGId up screen shake-fest and I start falling asleep.
Yeah, all I can say is it looks ... kinda nasty.
I'm just glad I don't actually *see* this shit happening (full-blown magnification and all) every time I charge stuff up at my bedside.
Seriously -- what's up with the Cartman buttons?