I used to have one of these. It was very handy after I had an accident that put my right arm out of action for 6 weeks, but after I healed I wouldn't give it up.
Unfortunately I dumped a drink on it and it broke, so I'm waiting for them to come out with a newer, cheaper model. It used to be $99. But I loved it, and it would let me type full speed.
I have SPF on my domain, I've had it on my domain for nearly a year. When I set it up, Microsoft had nothing to do with SPF. In fact, at the time, they were touting their "Caller-ID" standard.
I am sick of hearing "I'm not a normal user." It is true that most users are not software developers, however there is a very wide range of users, with a very diverse range of needs.
What this means is that people who call for "similar applications" and "uniform experience" are just kidding themselves. The software I use and write works *very* well for me. Is pandering to a specific audience a problem? Or am I obliged to write software that I can't use?
Well, "Open Source stuff" is doing exactly that. Witness xpde, a group dedicated to re-creating the XP desktop. And of course the gnome and KDE groups are hard at work replicating a great deal of Windows.
I am a user of software, and the interface I've come to use more than any other for my professional work is vi.
From my perspective, OSS has no user interface problems. The interfaces I use are first rate - mostly that's why I use open source software. A good UI is something that can only be judged from the needs of the people that use it.
You've been writing computer code stoned for 20 years?
Weed is hardly a brain enhancer
on
Lysergically Yours
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Sorry to crash your party, dude, but smoking marijuana is not going to improve your brain in any way. Just because people have been consuming it for a millenia doesn't mean it gets the "safe as water" stamp.
Also, a rave is not where you will find unbiased information on the safety of the popular drugs. I for one would be curious for you to describe how the drugs you take improve your life and mind.
We've been making applications and operating systems smarter for 50 years. Just about everyone will agree that having computers 'just work' more often is a good thing.
Now, given the massive diversity of software, hardware, and users; how do you propose that we solve the problem? There's an entire world of programmers that would like to know.
The old school answer of "just do this here, and that there" isn't good enough anymore. You take the time to make a system perfectly responsive, and by then the space has changed; hardware is different, users expectations have changed.
Even if the "runtime" takes care of the algorithms for you, you still have to know what they do and why you might use one or the other. It is shocking how many programmers will iterate through an array over and over when what they really need is a hashtable or...
The *only* problem is when smart people don't do well on these tests. That's the people we need to figure out how to catch.
Well, how about we start expanding the test so that we catch all those smart people that you'd like to see pass. Then we'll expand it some more to catch some people that I'd like to see pass. Next thing you know, pretty much everyone passes.
The fact is, IQ tests do nothing but show who does well on a certain test. The test serves no purpose other than let people that do well on the test, when they subsequently do well at something else, claim that it was all because of or helped by the IQ score.
This world is full of great people that did poorly on an IQ test.
I used to agree. However, I've been in all kinds of bizarre situations where an object did suddenly appear, and I had to stop. Some examples are obviously called for:
A car ahead of you does a sudden lane change, to reveal a stopped car in front of them.
A person walking through slow or stopped traffic strolls into your lane - and your lane isn't moving slowly at all.
An accident occurs in front of you. It is good to not become part of accidents.
An large animal bolts across the road. I don't mean large like a cat or dog, I mean large like Elk or Moose, and those buggers will kill you.
A car ahead of you drops the exhaust, sending 2" pipes and 15 lb mufflers into your path.
Something falls off the truck in front of you.
The person in front of you slams on their brakes for no apparent reason. They have better traction than you, perhaps because you are on top of a bunch of gravel.
A large following distance based on the idea of sudden stopping is a good idea and perfectly reasonable.
I think you've hit on the only real answer to the virus problem. Computational diversity will help stop the spread of any program. It will also slow the spread of computational "common sense", but that's probably better for everyone.
How do you propose we do this? Applications must have a common protocol with which to share information, and there is no well defined means to do so today.
Sure, there are a hundred different libraries crossed with tens of popular platforms that can let two applications talk. As long as the libraries and platforms involved are the same.
"Managed languages" is one approach to solving this problem. So are "Web Services" and "XML", it just depends on who you ask. We've got hundreds of people proclaiming that they have the true solution, if only everyone would do it their way.
Open source excels at providing excellent commodity software. Microsoft claims that Open Source doesn't innovate, and when it comes to providing a well-financed unified vision, they are 100% correct.
However, open source does not need and cannot provide a single managed platform. A de-facto standard might emerge, but only after several generations of managed platform technology and only once managed platforms are already embedded in everyday computing.
It is hardly a failure of Java that it isn't used in your myopic definition of "apps". It is simply that Java has been found useful in other places. As a similar analogy, I have never held a bucket of jet fuel when flying on an airplane; I therefore conclude that jet fuel does not help me use a jet.
Using the Internet to link to other people (via chatting, forwarding silly emails, etc) seems like a pretty good use to me. In fact, it just might be this ability to freely associate by discovery that turns out to be the Internet's greatest impact on humans.
Some day the slashdot editors may learn that they wield the power to disrupt services and cause financial damages. Perhaps someone will sue them; they deserve it.
Until then, i'll be slightly uneasy when posting cool stuff on line. You never know when slashdot will strike!
but at least if a few more of those budding open source developers read it, the world would be a better place
I take exception to this. Open source flourishes at all levels; the inexperienced, the intermediate, and certainly at the expert level. In fact, it is the progression of people from distributing code to distributing useful code that makes open source what it is.
The day you can't download garbage code is the day open source dies.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to have one of these. It was very handy after I had an accident that put my right arm out of action for 6 weeks, but after I healed I wouldn't give it up.
Unfortunately I dumped a drink on it and it broke, so I'm waiting for them to come out with a newer, cheaper model. It used to be $99. But I loved it, and it would let me type full speed.
Didn't the VCF originate from Borland and the Delphi/Builder RAD suite?
I have SPF on my domain, I've had it on my domain for nearly a year. When I set it up, Microsoft had nothing to do with SPF. In fact, at the time, they were touting their "Caller-ID" standard.
I am sick of hearing "I'm not a normal user." It is true that most users are not software developers, however there is a very wide range of users, with a very diverse range of needs.
What this means is that people who call for "similar applications" and "uniform experience" are just kidding themselves. The software I use and write works *very* well for me. Is pandering to a specific audience a problem? Or am I obliged to write software that I can't use?
Well, "Open Source stuff" is doing exactly that. Witness xpde, a group dedicated to re-creating the XP desktop. And of course the gnome and KDE groups are hard at work replicating a great deal of Windows.
I am a user of software, and the interface I've come to use more than any other for my professional work is vi.
From my perspective, OSS has no user interface problems. The interfaces I use are first rate - mostly that's why I use open source software. A good UI is something that can only be judged from the needs of the people that use it.
Visual Basic generates jobs. The kinds where real professionals are called in to fix a big mess.
In other news, school-age child packs own lunch.
Hey, if it works as a marketing ploy and increases the number of people who want my skills, I'm all for it.
You've been writing computer code stoned for 20 years?
Sorry to crash your party, dude, but smoking marijuana is not going to improve your brain in any way. Just because people have been consuming it for a millenia doesn't mean it gets the "safe as water" stamp.
Also, a rave is not where you will find unbiased information on the safety of the popular drugs. I for one would be curious for you to describe how the drugs you take improve your life and mind.
We've been making applications and operating systems smarter for 50 years. Just about everyone will agree that having computers 'just work' more often is a good thing.
Now, given the massive diversity of software, hardware, and users; how do you propose that we solve the problem? There's an entire world of programmers that would like to know.
The old school answer of "just do this here, and that there" isn't good enough anymore. You take the time to make a system perfectly responsive, and by then the space has changed; hardware is different, users expectations have changed.
Even if the "runtime" takes care of the algorithms for you, you still have to know what they do and why you might use one or the other. It is shocking how many programmers will iterate through an array over and over when what they really need is a hashtable or...
Well, how about we start expanding the test so that we catch all those smart people that you'd like to see pass. Then we'll expand it some more to catch some people that I'd like to see pass. Next thing you know, pretty much everyone passes.
The fact is, IQ tests do nothing but show who does well on a certain test. The test serves no purpose other than let people that do well on the test, when they subsequently do well at something else, claim that it was all because of or helped by the IQ score.
This world is full of great people that did poorly on an IQ test.
(For the record, I've never had an IQ test.)
I used to agree. However, I've been in all kinds of bizarre situations where an object did suddenly appear, and I had to stop. Some examples are obviously called for:
A large following distance based on the idea of sudden stopping is a good idea and perfectly reasonable.
I did not say that computational diversity was good for tech support. I said that it helps slow the spread of worms and viruses.
I think you've hit on the only real answer to the virus problem. Computational diversity will help stop the spread of any program. It will also slow the spread of computational "common sense", but that's probably better for everyone.
How do you propose we do this? Applications must have a common protocol with which to share information, and there is no well defined means to do so today.
Sure, there are a hundred different libraries crossed with tens of popular platforms that can let two applications talk. As long as the libraries and platforms involved are the same.
"Managed languages" is one approach to solving this problem. So are "Web Services" and "XML", it just depends on who you ask. We've got hundreds of people proclaiming that they have the true solution, if only everyone would do it their way.
Open source excels at providing excellent commodity software. Microsoft claims that Open Source doesn't innovate, and when it comes to providing a well-financed unified vision, they are 100% correct.
However, open source does not need and cannot provide a single managed platform. A de-facto standard might emerge, but only after several generations of managed platform technology and only once managed platforms are already embedded in everyday computing.
In the meantime, keep on using the best tools.
It is hardly a failure of Java that it isn't used in your myopic definition of "apps". It is simply that Java has been found useful in other places. As a similar analogy, I have never held a bucket of jet fuel when flying on an airplane; I therefore conclude that jet fuel does not help me use a jet.
Using the Internet to link to other people (via chatting, forwarding silly emails, etc) seems like a pretty good use to me. In fact, it just might be this ability to freely associate by discovery that turns out to be the Internet's greatest impact on humans.
If the person asking the question knew enough about the unix way to use OpenBSD, they wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
Some day the slashdot editors may learn that they wield the power to disrupt services and cause financial damages. Perhaps someone will sue them; they deserve it.
Until then, i'll be slightly uneasy when posting cool stuff on line. You never know when slashdot will strike!
I take exception to this. Open source flourishes at all levels; the inexperienced, the intermediate, and certainly at the expert level. In fact, it is the progression of people from distributing code to distributing useful code that makes open source what it is.
The day you can't download garbage code is the day open source dies.
"Enterprise App" is an application serving a need such that when it fails, financial losses are incurred.