I can't stand when people sit there and say something along the lines of "What won't Bill Gates come up with next." First, that supposes that he is something that he's not, which is the guy doing the bulk of the programming. Second, it discounts that there is anybody else working at all in IT. Third, it discredits the hard working people at M$, (yeah, I'm a linux advocate, but they must be doing something over there).
People don't concentrate on what's useful or good tech, they'd rather look at eye candy and what M$ tells them to. They don't think about actual technological issues. They seem to forget that when they were kids, they had to go through a boot sequence and didn't have a mouse, now it's "too hard" to even type anything ("Why can't I just click?").
This is more than just technology though. Politics, school systems, sex, drinking, religion, it's all obscured and commercialized and nobody does any real thinking anymore. People say that AI has to behave intelligently, be sentient. I say that most people don't have those qualities, and I could simulate them. I can predict EXACTLY how most people around me will react to anything to the point where if I was manipulative enough, I'd always have my way because I'd just write down a set of instructions and talk the right talk.
It's not just technology, people don't want to think anymore.
Ok, what if someone knowingly transmits data from an array of usernames, and SETI uses this as a protocol to override/detect this? I still doubt that they're grabbing demographic info on you. What are they going to do with it? Sell it to aliens?
Supposing that you sent erroneous data to them, they would want to flag you as being unreliable. I would imagine that this is the purpose that that serves. I doubt that they are getting demographic information from that.
Supposing that they found a signal, it would probably be repeated. Not to mention that they have a veritable cubic butt-ton of data that hasn't been processed yet, and more coming continuously, that has the same (extremely low) probability of having a code embedded in it by an alien intelligence.
You guys are looking for aliens in the wrong place. I watch their sitcoms all of the time on my TV that I rigged with a radio antenna. The call me on my cell phone all of the time (stupid pink kid needs to leave me alone and quit trying to grab my phone though).
Ok. Lets see, what idiot came up with this plan in the first place, and how did it almost happen (even if it was canned). I mean, we all HATE spam in our inbox. I know that execs at ABC by now realize that we don't want unsolicited ads in our e-mail (though the thought probably occurred to them).
In my e-mail box, I can read the subject ahead of time, and delete it.
On my voicemail, I have to wait for that slow voice to read out all of the info on the message, or even play the darn thing, before I can burn it.
Goodness, I'd rather get spam in my e-mail from them.
Besides, how freaking effective do these idiots think such a marketting tactics would be. I mean, I don't always listen to a friend, a critic, or a stranger telling me to watch shows. Now an annoying machine, which is the only message on my machine will do the same thing.
"Hello Dungeon Dweller. We know that we are the only message on your machine, that you have no friends and no life, so we decided to tell you that all of the cool people are watching 'Suddenly Susan' and her quirky antics. Byeeeeee."
Yeah, the moderation on this was unfair. People should read the parent comments before moderating./. does not provide a mechanism for conversation other than the posting forum, and therefore, answers and replies to such things are perfectly acceptable. Besides, this is a weblog, we're not writing a daggon book. What, do you really think that someday people are going to start buying the/. archives in paperback (not a bad idea ). At any rate, it may not describe heisman's uncertainty principle in relation to dickheads calling you with machines and leaving spam on your answering machine, but it is relevant converstation to the parent post. Those moderating this post, please read the parent as well.
I enjoy good conversation, I like to apply help when people ask for it. If someone wants to mod this down, please, go for it. I really could care less.
It's a good idea, to use the forces surrounding the aircraft rather than brute forcing them about with rockets. This is real ingenuity at work, rather than just sticking a bigger cherry bomb under the garbage can.
Well, a bunch of IRCers would be unhappy about that. This is IRC, not a freaking AOL chat room. Quite personally, I don't like the "chat rooms" of the world, but I enjoy IRC because people at least tend to observe some protocol, culture, and are at least relatively polite. You get all kinds of assholes in "chat rooms." This could just be openning up IRC to a barrage of regular assholes. That said, IRC channels also tend to be tight nit groups, and they don't always like outsiders. I'm not sure that I would want to search for channels using a search heuristic. Perhaps I'll enter "+linux -windows" and end up in a channel full of script kiddies who just happenened to say linux and not windows within the past 30 mins. Also, how is the data accrued?
My ex-gf's nickname is Poohbear, has been since she was a kid. I picked up the nickname Tigger due to a poster in her room that looks like Tigger is humping Poohbear (note that the person who purchased it for her didn't have that thought in mind, it's a kids poster).
I think that OOP does encourage more reuse. I think that the practices of programmers are what limit the amount of reuse. The need to position onesself corporately or a sort of competition between programmers (Look, I wrote more code) between programmers. Most universities these days teach programmers to look objectively at such situations in the courses that emphasize the management aspects of software engineering. Traditional methods of payment emphasize work done, but by what metric do you measure the work done in a program. If you reuse someone else's code, by traditional practices, you get paid less. We learned years ago that paying for every bug found and fixed was a bad idea, people programmed bugs in on purpose, so that later they could find them and be paid. If you take these factors out, OOP DOES encourage more reuse, history has taught us this.
OOP really wasn't a phenomena of the era in which UNIX was originally written. They didn't stress it like we do today (and we don't really stress it today). Also, a lot of the code in UNIX is written by a whole mess of other people. The piping features let you reuse entire programs within each other. I really don't think that UNIX is like, the end all to be all of OS's, but it's not assbackwards, it's just kinda cute in ideology, and probably the best thing going at the moment (popularity + functionality wise). At any rate, yeah, he makes some good points, but I can't say that I entirely agree. If you want people to be working out of the same codebase, form a company, or increase communication at the start. Ad Hoc programming and reusable code go together like oil and water.
I actually like Katz and agree with a lot that he says, I just noticed a strong string of mildly upset posts in his direction in response to this article.
We're all different.
JonKatz Manages To Piss People Off, Film at 11
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 2
Jon, my man, buddy... We need to have a little talk. I like you man, I really do, you funny man. Openning your story, by calling the people who like X-Men alienated from society, and pretty much starting on a round of geek bashing, and slamming people who are into comics (I don't even get that much into comics, but I picked up on it), in/., which has been all a twitter since the day this damned movie was announced... Really bad idea man. Come on dude, you don't write columns to people, and have them want to continue reading your column, by saying "I'd first like to say that you're all a bunch of raging assholes." Dude, I'm not trying to be mean here, but a lot of people here don't seem to like you much already, but I do, which is why I'm trying to help you man. Bashing the audience is not a good way to help your case man. Please refrain from it.
This just in, JonKatz has yet again managed to alienate programmers and developers everywhere... And nobody even woke up to read the headline since this is becoming his modus operandi.
Something tells me, that these people are looking at their options... Hrmm, lets see, real, windows media player, doh, why can't people just get the whole file at once, oh, look, I bet the kind people at Napster could come up with something, and we could save them a lot of legal trouble.
Yes, and now we can set up a buggy distribution network.
Of course, we could have just set up an FTP site. Duh.
If they trusted him not to testify against them, then he should not testify against them, it's that simple. He entered into a deal, and it would be morally wrong to testify against them. He couldn't be trusted by anybody to be tipped off if tipping him off meant jail time.
Besides, this will get him an even bigger media position. The media loves people who are in media, and this will shoot him right into it.
The article wasn't PUBLISHED in LinuxToday, also, articles are submitted by/. users. Why does LinuxToday deserve a credit? Are they paying you for this? Did you get a free copy of LinuxToday for plugging them?
I wouldn't trust a programmer to write things that are designed specifically for certain systems/chips that are not in common use if they couldn't write a few lines of HTML. That's sort of like saying, why does Leon Lederman need to understand Newtonian Mechanics? Of course he doesn't use Newtonian Mechanics, but if he didn't understand that, I would find it hard to believe that he is as good as he is.
That said, I said that I understood why they went with a third party... They have their own real jobs.
At any rate, all of this is moot since the article pointed to the wrong site, it's IAM.com, which the only job of the people over there is running the site, which makes me wonder what they do all day.
Why would such a company buy a site from a 3rd party anyway? It seems that all that that company does is operate that site. It's kind of like operating a search engine and buying all of the data from another search engine.
If all that they do is operate that site, how do they expect to be competitive? How are they going to keep current, and add features, if they have not got the ability to do so in house?
Another point, why would you enter into such an agreement. "Here kid, write me a website that I will operate and make money off of. I will pay you a one time flat rate for your services, and I will make all of the real money that is to be made from this site." Again, it doesn't make sense. If someone said, "I have a great idea for a site, want to write it for me but not get the money for it." The words "screw you, buddy," would probably be the first to come to my mind.
They have no room to complain that the site is not everything that they expected. In software engineering, it is discussed that specifications need to be excellent in order to determine that the programmer's vision is the same as the client's vision. If you didn't specify something in these documents, and it isn't as you magically guessed that they would appear in the final product, you really don't have much room to complain. This is a good part of the process of software engineering, that's why we have "validation." Verification and Validation. Is it working right? and Is it doing the right thing?
In short, if your only product is your web site, you should at least write the daggon web site.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't stand when people sit there and say something along the lines of "What won't Bill Gates come up with next." First, that supposes that he is something that he's not, which is the guy doing the bulk of the programming. Second, it discounts that there is anybody else working at all in IT. Third, it discredits the hard working people at M$, (yeah, I'm a linux advocate, but they must be doing something over there).
People don't concentrate on what's useful or good tech, they'd rather look at eye candy and what M$ tells them to. They don't think about actual technological issues. They seem to forget that when they were kids, they had to go through a boot sequence and didn't have a mouse, now it's "too hard" to even type anything ("Why can't I just click?").
This is more than just technology though. Politics, school systems, sex, drinking, religion, it's all obscured and commercialized and nobody does any real thinking anymore. People say that AI has to behave intelligently, be sentient. I say that most people don't have those qualities, and I could simulate them. I can predict EXACTLY how most people around me will react to anything to the point where if I was manipulative enough, I'd always have my way because I'd just write down a set of instructions and talk the right talk.
It's not just technology, people don't want to think anymore.
We're all different.
Ok, what if someone knowingly transmits data from an array of usernames, and SETI uses this as a protocol to override/detect this? I still doubt that they're grabbing demographic info on you. What are they going to do with it? Sell it to aliens?
We're all different.
Supposing that you sent erroneous data to them, they would want to flag you as being unreliable. I would imagine that this is the purpose that that serves. I doubt that they are getting demographic information from that.
We're all different.
Supposing that they found a signal, it would probably be repeated. Not to mention that they have a veritable cubic butt-ton of data that hasn't been processed yet, and more coming continuously, that has the same (extremely low) probability of having a code embedded in it by an alien intelligence.
We're all different.
Thanks for noting that it wasn't funny at all, I am serious. Though I meant a radio telescope.
We're all different.
You guys are looking for aliens in the wrong place. I watch their sitcoms all of the time on my TV that I rigged with a radio antenna. The call me on my cell phone all of the time (stupid pink kid needs to leave me alone and quit trying to grab my phone though).
We're all different.
Ok. Lets see, what idiot came up with this plan in the first place, and how did it almost happen (even if it was canned). I mean, we all HATE spam in our inbox. I know that execs at ABC by now realize that we don't want unsolicited ads in our e-mail (though the thought probably occurred to them).
In my e-mail box, I can read the subject ahead of time, and delete it.
On my voicemail, I have to wait for that slow voice to read out all of the info on the message, or even play the darn thing, before I can burn it.
Goodness, I'd rather get spam in my e-mail from them.
Besides, how freaking effective do these idiots think such a marketting tactics would be. I mean, I don't always listen to a friend, a critic, or a stranger telling me to watch shows. Now an annoying machine, which is the only message on my machine will do the same thing.
"Hello Dungeon Dweller. We know that we are the only message on your machine, that you have no friends and no life, so we decided to tell you that all of the cool people are watching 'Suddenly Susan' and her quirky antics. Byeeeeee."
Yeah, that will sell great.
We're all different.
Yeah, the moderation on this was unfair. People should read the parent comments before moderating. /. does not provide a mechanism for conversation other than the posting forum, and therefore, answers and replies to such things are perfectly acceptable. Besides, this is a weblog, we're not writing a daggon book. What, do you really think that someday people are going to start buying the /. archives in paperback (not a bad idea ). At any rate, it may not describe heisman's uncertainty principle in relation to dickheads calling you with machines and leaving spam on your answering machine, but it is relevant converstation to the parent post. Those moderating this post, please read the parent as well.
We're all different.
I enjoy good conversation, I like to apply help when people ask for it. If someone wants to mod this down, please, go for it. I really could care less.
We're all different.
It's a good idea, to use the forces surrounding the aircraft rather than brute forcing them about with rockets. This is real ingenuity at work, rather than just sticking a bigger cherry bomb under the garbage can.
We're all different.
Well, a bunch of IRCers would be unhappy about that. This is IRC, not a freaking AOL chat room. Quite personally, I don't like the "chat rooms" of the world, but I enjoy IRC because people at least tend to observe some protocol, culture, and are at least relatively polite. You get all kinds of assholes in "chat rooms." This could just be openning up IRC to a barrage of regular assholes. That said, IRC channels also tend to be tight nit groups, and they don't always like outsiders. I'm not sure that I would want to search for channels using a search heuristic. Perhaps I'll enter "+linux -windows" and end up in a channel full of script kiddies who just happenened to say linux and not windows within the past 30 mins. Also, how is the data accrued?
We're all different.
My ex-gf's nickname is Poohbear, has been since she was a kid. I picked up the nickname Tigger due to a poster in her room that looks like Tigger is humping Poohbear (note that the person who purchased it for her didn't have that thought in mind, it's a kids poster).
We're all different.
It has been documented that people do this. If you have read the Mythical Man Month, it is mentioned in there!
We're all different.
I think that OOP does encourage more reuse. I think that the practices of programmers are what limit the amount of reuse. The need to position onesself corporately or a sort of competition between programmers (Look, I wrote more code) between programmers. Most universities these days teach programmers to look objectively at such situations in the courses that emphasize the management aspects of software engineering. Traditional methods of payment emphasize work done, but by what metric do you measure the work done in a program. If you reuse someone else's code, by traditional practices, you get paid less. We learned years ago that paying for every bug found and fixed was a bad idea, people programmed bugs in on purpose, so that later they could find them and be paid. If you take these factors out, OOP DOES encourage more reuse, history has taught us this.
We're all different.
OOP really wasn't a phenomena of the era in which UNIX was originally written. They didn't stress it like we do today (and we don't really stress it today). Also, a lot of the code in UNIX is written by a whole mess of other people. The piping features let you reuse entire programs within each other. I really don't think that UNIX is like, the end all to be all of OS's, but it's not assbackwards, it's just kinda cute in ideology, and probably the best thing going at the moment (popularity + functionality wise). At any rate, yeah, he makes some good points, but I can't say that I entirely agree. If you want people to be working out of the same codebase, form a company, or increase communication at the start. Ad Hoc programming and reusable code go together like oil and water.
We're all different.
I really like his work. His words are good, I apologize.
We're all different.
I actually like Katz and agree with a lot that he says, I just noticed a strong string of mildly upset posts in his direction in response to this article.
We're all different.
Jon, my man, buddy... We need to have a little talk. I like you man, I really do, you funny man. Openning your story, by calling the people who like X-Men alienated from society, and pretty much starting on a round of geek bashing, and slamming people who are into comics (I don't even get that much into comics, but I picked up on it), in /., which has been all a twitter since the day this damned movie was announced... Really bad idea man. Come on dude, you don't write columns to people, and have them want to continue reading your column, by saying "I'd first like to say that you're all a bunch of raging assholes." Dude, I'm not trying to be mean here, but a lot of people here don't seem to like you much already, but I do, which is why I'm trying to help you man. Bashing the audience is not a good way to help your case man. Please refrain from it.
This just in, JonKatz has yet again managed to alienate programmers and developers everywhere... And nobody even woke up to read the headline since this is becoming his modus operandi.
We're all different.
Something tells me, that these people are looking at their options... Hrmm, lets see, real, windows media player, doh, why can't people just get the whole file at once, oh, look, I bet the kind people at Napster could come up with something, and we could save them a lot of legal trouble.
Yes, and now we can set up a buggy distribution network.
Of course, we could have just set up an FTP site. Duh.
We're all different.
If you can still call Yahoo a search engine *GRIN*
If they trusted him not to testify against them, then he should not testify against them, it's that simple. He entered into a deal, and it would be morally wrong to testify against them. He couldn't be trusted by anybody to be tipped off if tipping him off meant jail time.
Besides, this will get him an even bigger media position. The media loves people who are in media, and this will shoot him right into it.
We're all different.
The article wasn't PUBLISHED in LinuxToday, also, articles are submitted by /. users. Why does LinuxToday deserve a credit? Are they paying you for this? Did you get a free copy of LinuxToday for plugging them?
That given, I wouldn't make my job operating a web site given that I hadn't the ability to produce a web site myself.
I wouldn't trust a programmer to write things that are designed specifically for certain systems/chips that are not in common use if they couldn't write a few lines of HTML. That's sort of like saying, why does Leon Lederman need to understand Newtonian Mechanics? Of course he doesn't use Newtonian Mechanics, but if he didn't understand that, I would find it hard to believe that he is as good as he is.
That said, I said that I understood why they went with a third party... They have their own real jobs.
At any rate, all of this is moot since the article pointed to the wrong site, it's IAM.com, which the only job of the people over there is running the site, which makes me wonder what they do all day.
Why would such a company buy a site from a 3rd party anyway? It seems that all that that company does is operate that site. It's kind of like operating a search engine and buying all of the data from another search engine.
If all that they do is operate that site, how do they expect to be competitive? How are they going to keep current, and add features, if they have not got the ability to do so in house?
Another point, why would you enter into such an agreement. "Here kid, write me a website that I will operate and make money off of. I will pay you a one time flat rate for your services, and I will make all of the real money that is to be made from this site." Again, it doesn't make sense. If someone said, "I have a great idea for a site, want to write it for me but not get the money for it." The words "screw you, buddy," would probably be the first to come to my mind.
They have no room to complain that the site is not everything that they expected. In software engineering, it is discussed that specifications need to be excellent in order to determine that the programmer's vision is the same as the client's vision. If you didn't specify something in these documents, and it isn't as you magically guessed that they would appear in the final product, you really don't have much room to complain. This is a good part of the process of software engineering, that's why we have "validation." Verification and Validation. Is it working right? and Is it doing the right thing?
In short, if your only product is your web site, you should at least write the daggon web site.