I didn't mean to come off harsh and insulting (though I always do), but from what you'd said, it sounded like after you set up your system, you did as little work as you could get away with. And how motivating can it possibly be for your workers when you're never in the office? I'm just saying that your group could have been more productive. More than anything else, it sounds as if you had really good team members. How's your current team compared to that?
Guess what? High school is the real world, kid. If you don't work hard, and just barely pass, you're not going to get into a very good college. And you're going to be used to not working much or very hard, and will be in over your head at even the crappiest of schools. You'll drink a lot and party and have fun and then, after a semester or two, you'll drop out and move back home, and forever look back at how great it was in high school when you were carefree and worthless... never noticing that you're exactly the same as you were back then. Worthless and carefree. And people still treat you like a kid, because that's all you are.
Grow up. Do enough to get a B+. And more importantly, work harder on your own stuff than on your schoolwork. High school is a great place to spend several hours a day not at home. You see your friends, and make new ones. But when you go home, do something. Read books. Write computer programs. Learn things that you like learning, and that you like doing. If you've done a lot on your own time, school gets easier. You'll be able to spend even less time doing schoolwork, and you'll get better grades. And, more importantly, you won't have people like me telling you to stop being a complete moron, because you wouldn't be one any more.
So you're saying you made yourself redundant and successfully didn't do any work. Congratulations. I presume you made more money than your team members. I also presume you know that you are the reason people dislike middle management. You get paid more to do nothing. What would have happened if there had simply been an email forwarding program in your place, and anything that would have come to you instead got distributed to your team? The same work would have been done, they would have worked exactly as hard as they had been, and the company would have saved whatever your salary was.
Just so you know, making yourself useless is not a good way to keep a job. In fact, that's why getting fired is often called being "made redundant."
Actually AMD probably wouldn't be rushing to make IA64 clones. They wouldn't be allowed to. Decades ago, Intel was forced to license the x86 technology to another manufacturer to prevent a 100% monopoly in the general purpose consumer chip market. Obviously, Intel doesn't like this at all, since it basically means they can't beat AMD as long as the world is still on x86. (They can still hold the lion's share of the market and make a metric shit ton of money, but they can't win, because AMD has to be there.)
One of the lesser known reasons for Intel's plan to develop and push the Itanium was that it would be a clean break with x86, which means that AMD would not be allowed to make them. Intel would be the only supplier allowed to make the chip. Then they'd get sued for it, and would settle by giving rights to manufacture them to some small company with one fab that's a generation or two behind. AMD would have been stuck with x86, and Intel would have won. (Bear in mind that if the switch had been successful, Itanium would have been adopted long before x86-64 and the Opteron were developed.)
Frankly, I'm glad the Itanium failed. Even though it's a pretty cool chip with an interesting design, I'd rather have Opterons available than not.
What? Are you implying that you think the fact that there isn't a company whose business plan is "bunny suicide" proves that Google censors content? That's pretty idiotic. How about... bunnies have no money, so selling them suicide is even dumber than selling it to humans (who, of course, are capable of acquiriing it for free).
Remember, in a fascist oligarchy there is no true capitalist supply and demand.
Thanks for reminding us. Maybe that's why everyone's having such a hard time figuring out supply and demand these days when the only important things on the government's agenda are how to get more money for the large corporations who run the show and how to get more popular support for war. Fascist oligarchies DO make capitalism impossible. But China is Communist. The United States is moving closer and closer to the fascist oligarchy of your dreams every day.
What a bad name for a search engine! What if a new search engine site started up called "youwillneverfinditonthefirsttry.com"? Hundreds of times? What were they thinking? It should have been "one time, representing an ideal search."
You probably already know this, but it's not "de facto," it's "de jure." The public domain has been obliterated by our absurd, indefinite, corporation-friendly copyright law. It would be de facto if the copyright holders somehow simply didn't release their stuff into the public domain. It is de jure since they instead buy senators and tell them where to stick the public domain.
That's awesome. I do that kind of stuff all the time.
"You can play it on your computer and get high quality Windows Media tracks!" "It's illegal for me to play Windows Media files. Can I have a CD that I can play in my computer?" "Windows Media is legal!" "Playing it isn't necessarily." *scratches head* *leaves store*
Man, I hope you're kidding. In your tirade against the EFF's use of 'restrictive licensing,' you failed to notice that they licensed it under a Creative Commons license. Now, let me explain something to you. When you put something online, you are automatically assigned the copyright for that content. This means that legally, you can pursue anyone who quotes it, puts it on their own site, or does anything with it without your permission. By licensing it under the Creative Commons, you can choose what extra rights to grant your audience. In this case, the EFF has allowed anyone who wants to do take their content and change it, redistribute it, and reproduce it, as long as you credit them as the creator of the original work.
These are more rights than you would have if they had not put this 'restrictive license' on this document. So, in fact, it is not restrictive at all! Bear in mind that when they explicitly prohibit commercial use, they are still not taking away any of your rights. What other copyrighted content is it okay for you to take and sell for commercial gain? I certainly hope you were being facetious, but you got an Insightful mod, so I felt I had to explain some things to at least four moderators. I, personally, thought it was funny, until I saw the moderation. Good links, by the way. And look up Lawrence Lessig and his books. He created the Creative Commons as a modern public domain - esque license, because he fears that the public domain will disappear and he wants to protect it. The Creative Commons is actually a pretty cool way to do that. As a content creator, it gives you a choice between the perhaps-too-restrictive copyright laws and the public domain, which gives you no rights as a creator.
Not going after you here, but I've seen this attitude a lot here lately. "Who cares about this cool new tech, I want to buy things!" Seriously guys, that's a cool idea. Instead of whining that this thing somehow prevents you from enjoying you current car or buying a new one, why not think of other cool things that could be adapted from this. Like sending an encrypted signal from your bluetooth phone to your car to start it from 30+ feet away. How often would you use that? Every day?
Yeah. And maybe if the networks had the infrastructure in place to handle more than 10% of their subscribers, the service wouldn't suck so badly. Seriously. I've had far too many dropped calls lately, and my guess is they wouldn't happen so often (in some cases I have to call the person I'm talking to back every 3-5 minutes, and no 10+ minute conversation is possible) if they had enough infrastructure in the area to handle all their users.
This is in Chicago, by the way, where there are probably a shitload of people on cellphones.
$40 for pizza and coke with friends? Either you're talking about some strange, extremely expensive kind of coke (possible), or you're from New York City. Elsewhere, if it's more than $15 for said night, it's too expensive.
It's going to have no buttons, like the mighty mouse. You just squeeze it in a certain way to start a song, and a different certain way to call people. It's going to be so easy, nobody will be able to figure it out.
Actually Apple had increase the capabilities of FCP because Adobe wouldn't fully support OSX. They announced that Premier would only be available on Windows, and Apple wanted to keep their grip on the graphics/video market.
It basically amounts to the same thing, but it wasn't Apple that drove those developers away. They left and Apple stepped up to replace them with something of their own that just so happened to be far better.
You missed the fine print: "Your use of this program is considered explicit permission to make your computer's content available to Google. Thank you."
I'm assuming you didn't read the article, because it explains that CherryPy doesn't just call whatever function is passed in the URL. The programmer has to explicitly expose his functions to the CherryPy server instance. Otherwise, they won't be called. So unless for some reason you @cpg.expose rmdir or kill or any other system function (which you would obviously never do) this isn't an issue.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. I see a lot of posts saying "who cares? ASP is already like that!" or "You're supposed to have it in a single process anyway!"
What makes this cooler is that Python functions are exposed in the URL. Read through that IBM tutorial. It's fairly interesting. Put a function called hello() in your CherryPy application, and the return value of that function is displayed in your web browser when you visit http://address/hello
I don't know about you, but I think that's pretty cool. You could definitely do some interesting stuff with this, and I can see it saving a lot of time in the code-writing phase. And once you get your head wrapped around that concept pretty well, the design phase would probably get a lot shorter too. (Not to mention how much easier it would then become to add new features to the application.)
This is interesting for two reasons: Python frameworks are now catching up to things like ASP and PHP, but are doing some crucial things differently that might make it much easier/more powerful. I might start using this instead of PHP for small web apps that just need to talk to a database, and see how it goes from there.
I fail to understand how AJAX can stop XAML. AJAX, while it is great, has a lot of limitations, and you have to worry about being cross-browser. Why would people stick with it when XAML is available, considering how much more awesome XAML is going to be. My hope is that Microsoft continues their late trend of making their specifications more open, so that Miguel de Icaza or someone else can integrate.NET/Mono into Firefox and port XAML over. If we could use XAML cross-browser and cross-platform, then AJAX and everything else are dead.
My biggest fear is that XAML will still kill AJAX even if it's not cross-platform. I really don't want to see that happen. Nor do I want to be developing in AJAX a year or two from now when all my competitors are developing in XAML, and I have to double my development time to test in IE but they don't have the same limitation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an excellent point that I had not considered. Thank you. Leaving the workers alone to get work done certainly would make a huge difference.
I didn't mean to come off harsh and insulting (though I always do), but from what you'd said, it sounded like after you set up your system, you did as little work as you could get away with. And how motivating can it possibly be for your workers when you're never in the office? I'm just saying that your group could have been more productive. More than anything else, it sounds as if you had really good team members. How's your current team compared to that?
Guess what? High school is the real world, kid. If you don't work hard, and just barely pass, you're not going to get into a very good college. And you're going to be used to not working much or very hard, and will be in over your head at even the crappiest of schools. You'll drink a lot and party and have fun and then, after a semester or two, you'll drop out and move back home, and forever look back at how great it was in high school when you were carefree and worthless ... never noticing that you're exactly the same as you were back then. Worthless and carefree. And people still treat you like a kid, because that's all you are.
Grow up. Do enough to get a B+. And more importantly, work harder on your own stuff than on your schoolwork. High school is a great place to spend several hours a day not at home. You see your friends, and make new ones. But when you go home, do something. Read books. Write computer programs. Learn things that you like learning, and that you like doing. If you've done a lot on your own time, school gets easier. You'll be able to spend even less time doing schoolwork, and you'll get better grades. And, more importantly, you won't have people like me telling you to stop being a complete moron, because you wouldn't be one any more.
So you're saying you made yourself redundant and successfully didn't do any work. Congratulations. I presume you made more money than your team members. I also presume you know that you are the reason people dislike middle management. You get paid more to do nothing. What would have happened if there had simply been an email forwarding program in your place, and anything that would have come to you instead got distributed to your team? The same work would have been done, they would have worked exactly as hard as they had been, and the company would have saved whatever your salary was.
Just so you know, making yourself useless is not a good way to keep a job. In fact, that's why getting fired is often called being "made redundant."
Actually AMD probably wouldn't be rushing to make IA64 clones. They wouldn't be allowed to. Decades ago, Intel was forced to license the x86 technology to another manufacturer to prevent a 100% monopoly in the general purpose consumer chip market. Obviously, Intel doesn't like this at all, since it basically means they can't beat AMD as long as the world is still on x86. (They can still hold the lion's share of the market and make a metric shit ton of money, but they can't win, because AMD has to be there.)
One of the lesser known reasons for Intel's plan to develop and push the Itanium was that it would be a clean break with x86, which means that AMD would not be allowed to make them. Intel would be the only supplier allowed to make the chip. Then they'd get sued for it, and would settle by giving rights to manufacture them to some small company with one fab that's a generation or two behind. AMD would have been stuck with x86, and Intel would have won. (Bear in mind that if the switch had been successful, Itanium would have been adopted long before x86-64 and the Opteron were developed.)
Frankly, I'm glad the Itanium failed. Even though it's a pretty cool chip with an interesting design, I'd rather have Opterons available than not.
That's the whole idea! They want people to be confused, and think they have to buy all three.
"I only have Windows Vista, but I also need Longhorn and NT 6.0. I'd better get to the new Microsoft Store in Times Square!"
What? Are you implying that you think the fact that there isn't a company whose business plan is "bunny suicide" proves that Google censors content? That's pretty idiotic. How about ... bunnies have no money, so selling them suicide is even dumber than selling it to humans (who, of course, are capable of acquiriing it for free).
Remember, in a fascist oligarchy there is no true capitalist supply and demand.
Thanks for reminding us. Maybe that's why everyone's having such a hard time figuring out supply and demand these days when the only important things on the government's agenda are how to get more money for the large corporations who run the show and how to get more popular support for war. Fascist oligarchies DO make capitalism impossible. But China is Communist. The United States is moving closer and closer to the fascist oligarchy of your dreams every day.
What a bad name for a search engine! What if a new search engine site started up called "youwillneverfinditonthefirsttry.com"? Hundreds of times? What were they thinking? It should have been "one time, representing an ideal search."
*shrugs*
You probably already know this, but it's not "de facto," it's "de jure." The public domain has been obliterated by our absurd, indefinite, corporation-friendly copyright law. It would be de facto if the copyright holders somehow simply didn't release their stuff into the public domain. It is de jure since they instead buy senators and tell them where to stick the public domain.
That's awesome. I do that kind of stuff all the time.
"You can play it on your computer and get high quality Windows Media tracks!"
"It's illegal for me to play Windows Media files. Can I have a CD that I can play in my computer?"
"Windows Media is legal!"
"Playing it isn't necessarily."
*scratches head*
*leaves store*
Man, I hope you're kidding. In your tirade against the EFF's use of 'restrictive licensing,' you failed to notice that they licensed it under a Creative Commons license. Now, let me explain something to you. When you put something online, you are automatically assigned the copyright for that content. This means that legally, you can pursue anyone who quotes it, puts it on their own site, or does anything with it without your permission. By licensing it under the Creative Commons, you can choose what extra rights to grant your audience. In this case, the EFF has allowed anyone who wants to do take their content and change it, redistribute it, and reproduce it, as long as you credit them as the creator of the original work.
These are more rights than you would have if they had not put this 'restrictive license' on this document. So, in fact, it is not restrictive at all! Bear in mind that when they explicitly prohibit commercial use, they are still not taking away any of your rights. What other copyrighted content is it okay for you to take and sell for commercial gain? I certainly hope you were being facetious, but you got an Insightful mod, so I felt I had to explain some things to at least four moderators. I, personally, thought it was funny, until I saw the moderation. Good links, by the way. And look up Lawrence Lessig and his books. He created the Creative Commons as a modern public domain - esque license, because he fears that the public domain will disappear and he wants to protect it. The Creative Commons is actually a pretty cool way to do that. As a content creator, it gives you a choice between the perhaps-too-restrictive copyright laws and the public domain, which gives you no rights as a creator.
He also threatened Eric Schmidt, who is a person.
Not going after you here, but I've seen this attitude a lot here lately. "Who cares about this cool new tech, I want to buy things!" Seriously guys, that's a cool idea. Instead of whining that this thing somehow prevents you from enjoying you current car or buying a new one, why not think of other cool things that could be adapted from this. Like sending an encrypted signal from your bluetooth phone to your car to start it from 30+ feet away. How often would you use that? Every day?
My sports car gets 35 mpg. You can have it both ways.
Yeah. And maybe if the networks had the infrastructure in place to handle more than 10% of their subscribers, the service wouldn't suck so badly. Seriously. I've had far too many dropped calls lately, and my guess is they wouldn't happen so often (in some cases I have to call the person I'm talking to back every 3-5 minutes, and no 10+ minute conversation is possible) if they had enough infrastructure in the area to handle all their users.
This is in Chicago, by the way, where there are probably a shitload of people on cellphones.
$40 for pizza and coke with friends? Either you're talking about some strange, extremely expensive kind of coke (possible), or you're from New York City. Elsewhere, if it's more than $15 for said night, it's too expensive.
It's going to have no buttons, like the mighty mouse. You just squeeze it in a certain way to start a song, and a different certain way to call people. It's going to be so easy, nobody will be able to figure it out.
Actually Apple had increase the capabilities of FCP because Adobe wouldn't fully support OSX. They announced that Premier would only be available on Windows, and Apple wanted to keep their grip on the graphics/video market.
It basically amounts to the same thing, but it wasn't Apple that drove those developers away. They left and Apple stepped up to replace them with something of their own that just so happened to be far better.
She's only going to be 19 for so many weeks. Or are you assuming mainframe programmers have less than 52 rolls in the hay left in them?
You missed the fine print: "Your use of this program is considered explicit permission to make your computer's content available to Google. Thank you."
It's not x86. It's PPC. And no.
I'm assuming you didn't read the article, because it explains that CherryPy doesn't just call whatever function is passed in the URL. The programmer has to explicitly expose his functions to the CherryPy server instance. Otherwise, they won't be called. So unless for some reason you @cpg.expose rmdir or kill or any other system function (which you would obviously never do) this isn't an issue.
I think people are looking at this the wrong way. I see a lot of posts saying "who cares? ASP is already like that!" or "You're supposed to have it in a single process anyway!"
What makes this cooler is that Python functions are exposed in the URL. Read through that IBM tutorial. It's fairly interesting. Put a function called hello() in your CherryPy application, and the return value of that function is displayed in your web browser when you visit http://address/hello
I don't know about you, but I think that's pretty cool. You could definitely do some interesting stuff with this, and I can see it saving a lot of time in the code-writing phase. And once you get your head wrapped around that concept pretty well, the design phase would probably get a lot shorter too. (Not to mention how much easier it would then become to add new features to the application.)
This is interesting for two reasons: Python frameworks are now catching up to things like ASP and PHP, but are doing some crucial things differently that might make it much easier/more powerful. I might start using this instead of PHP for small web apps that just need to talk to a database, and see how it goes from there.
I fail to understand how AJAX can stop XAML. AJAX, while it is great, has a lot of limitations, and you have to worry about being cross-browser. Why would people stick with it when XAML is available, considering how much more awesome XAML is going to be. My hope is that Microsoft continues their late trend of making their specifications more open, so that Miguel de Icaza or someone else can integrate .NET/Mono into Firefox and port XAML over. If we could use XAML cross-browser and cross-platform, then AJAX and everything else are dead.
My biggest fear is that XAML will still kill AJAX even if it's not cross-platform. I really don't want to see that happen. Nor do I want to be developing in AJAX a year or two from now when all my competitors are developing in XAML, and I have to double my development time to test in IE but they don't have the same limitation.