Sometimes questions are so easy to answer that you wonder how the hell someone asks them.
What is software? Its information. What is a film on a CD? Information again. This confuses people.
What sort of information is software? It consists of two essential properties: instructions and data. The instructions tell a computer what to do with the data.
A movie, quite in contrast, consists only of data. Where are the computer-understandable instructions in that stream of data that is on a DVD?
That stream of data would crash your computer in seconds if you try to use it as instructions (side-question: would that make Windows sort of a movie?) Software on a DVD doesn't transform the movie into software for exactly the same reason that staying in a garage doesn't make you a car.
The real question is: can you trust your OEM?
Then you can negotiate all the details. And remember: 99.999% uptime does not mean that your server stay up that long, but that you have only an unscheduled downtime of 0.001% or less. Applying a patch is, in nearly every case, a scheduled downtime and does not count.
Now imagine you really, really need this patch: you can urge your OEM to install it and keep him free from all responsibility (e. g. a server crash after this does not count to the unscheduled downtime, because it was your decision to apply it). If you trust him to play fair, that's fair for both of you.If the OEM is trustworthy, he'll do what you order him to do, but in that case you will be responsible for the outcome as well.You can't burden someone with responsibility if he can't make the decision (unless you don't play fair).
This is not quite correct. Those copy protected cd's mis-use the error correction.
When you have a defect (fingerprint or something
nastier) on a normal cd, you won't hear it, because there is the error correction.
With a copy protected cd you will hear most effects. So a copy protected cd has a lower quality. And I'm deprived from my right of fair use, too.
And it won't play on cd players with a bad error correction - so yes, Joe Public will care.
...I checked my browser settings.
Though I live in germany and have nothing to fear I have to got through my settings:
- Yes, I connect through a proxy, so the IP address is unuseable for the MPAA
- Yes, junkbuster is active and sending only the information I want to send
- Yes, the rest is filtered by my firewall
Best thing, really, that it will be very difficult to track my IP address. All tests state that my IP address is either 127.0.0.1 (haha) or the address of the proxy of my provider.
Maybe you should check imedeately if you ISP offers the same service to you...
A discussion of "multitasking for programmers" and why it hurts is at Distraction: the one big obstacle.
This is written for programmers, but it is true for everbyody who works with knowledge.
is explained, in depth, at
Gibson Research
If you don't get through to this site, its not becaused they are slashdotted, but because someone is inflicting a DDoS on them (which has the same impact, though). For this reason, I can't give you the complete address, but its just a from mouseclicks away (as soon as the attack stops).
Yes, it may be amazing, but (to some extend) sub-pixel rendering improves quality on a CRT, too! If you don't believe me (and even if you do), check out that small programm that is offered on the web-page above. But notice why it works: it does so because antialiasing and sub-pixel rendering is similiar.
And contrary to some believes Microsoft didn't invent subpixel rendering!
Instead, this technique was used on Apple computers 26 years ago (this has been a topic on/. AFAIR).
Yeah, fact is: the opt-out address on spam is a
sort of social engineering. Not every mail
address a spammer has is a correct address or an active address.
Now if you reply using your emailer, the spammer knows for sure that the address is correct an actively used! Now this address has more value for the spammer! You've helped him!
The reason that so many addresses are really dead is that everyone on the internet wants to have your email address (to sent you spam). Now many people act like me: they set up an account at a free mail service (I use hotmail for this: I like the idea that M$ takes care of my spam) but never read mail sent to this address. This is a worthless address for a spammer.
I'm developing programs for financial institutions. Here are the advantages of commercial solutions over the free ones. That said, YMMV.
1. Support - you get support around the clock from the commercial vendors. This goes so far that, for Informix for example, the actual source code is handed every 8 hours to the next team that starts working (so the source code wanders around the world in 24 hours).
2. Transactions - yes, they will add transactions to MySQL in the future, but for now I go for safety. The database vendors have years of experience, and considering how complicate it is to do reliable transactions, I'll go with the experienced ones.
3. Scaleability - you get the commercial databases for nearly every platform that you can lay your hands on. If your database is too slow, you can always change your hardware (this is the major reason why I don't think that SQLServer from M$ is good solution for my needs).
4. Migration - with commercial vendors, you can always upgrade to the next version without pain (it killed Sybase nearly when they didn't do it right once). You can easily migrate to other platforms (but not necessarily to another RDBMS).
5. Standards - only the big databases confirm very rigid to standards (though they all try to lock you in by offering enough "nice goodies", and if you're dumb enough to take the offering, you're lost). For all major database vendors you get ODBC, JDBC, native drivers etc.
6. Interoperability - if you work with tools like ER/Win, development tools like Prolifics Panther or Power Builder, they are supported. Don't count too much on ODBC, its slow, and it does not support everything you need.
7. Multi-tier - if you need to support many , many users, you will have to use n-tier environments, and the transaction monitors (Tuxedo, JetNet etc.) will support only the major database vendors. And one day you'll wake up and need just that. And with the internet, this day will come earlier than you think.
8. Database replication, load balancing, fail-over and such things are, to my knowledge, only supported by big database vendors. It took them more than ten years to get this right (and M$ is still not able to do it right, though they claim the opposite).
9. Performance - simple databases are fast with simple queries, but sophisticated databases are fast with complex queries (and, maybe, slower with simple queries...). M$ uses simple benchmarks to tell their customers that they are fast (TCP-C), but most other vendors have stopped three years ago to post TCP-C benchmarks, so M$ is able to beat three year old databases on three year old hardware... TCP-D is more complex, and M$ couldn't show that their database wasn't 100 (one hundred) times slower on a specific TCP-D part than Oracle - though they tried hard. But benchmarking is a complex matter...
10. Added values - like Object-relational databases - are a speciality of Informix and Oracle. If you need this, there is not much choice. E. g. storing, retrieving and searching of word-documents (with indexing), is it possible with MySQL? No.
11. OLTP - in this area you have no choice but use a big vendor. If your database has to run 24x7, can you do a reliable backup on tape or anything? Can you restore parts of your database while the database is online? Reliable backup means: a transaction-safe backup which will make a snapshot of the database where every transaction is in its correct state, and a continously running backup.
12. If you ever need data mining etc.: look what databases are supported.
13. If you have a few TB to store, you can't use MySQL. It might be possible, but I doubt that this will be fast. Most simple databases don't scale with sheer size.
I can only stress that reliability has its price. And there is more to reliability than just transactions.
If M$ has a monopol, its hard to compare prices to anything - if you have no competition, you can't be compared with your competition.
The evidence that M$ has a monopol is drawn by the following conclusion:
1. Software prices have gone down in the last 10 years constantly
2. The price of Windows 9x hasn't gone down, it has risen a little - it has moved in the opposite direction of the market
3. Even adding many new features to software didn't brought prices up
4. They haven't added many features to Windows 9x
5. Conclusion: only a monopolist can act this way
You can't compare Solaris with Windows - Solaris is a server OS, Windows 9x is a home OS. You can't use Windows 9x on a server, and you can't use Solaris on your home PC for the same services.
You can't compare Acrobat nor FrameMaker with Word: these are different leagues ("Porsche is a very cheap car compared to Rolls Royce").
of open source is, that it is marked as "stable"
when and only when it is really stable (and not
when marketing has decided to ship the product),
and yet you can still have your bleeding edge program when you like it.
But dividing this into three different states is likely to confuse most people. It is better done if you obey the rule: "release often" (Eric Raymond). During testing phase you will find out which of these "unstable" releases are just "stable enough" to be used (that is, it is in the same state as most commercial software...). In Linux mailing lists, you'll see sometimes postings like "2.3.XX" is a stable version, use it if you really, really need feature YY".
I think debian should use the same rulings. Just produce more developer releases, and if things turn out to be good enough, tell everyone about it (with a few warnings left). Its is better to be more specific: either, it is stable and tested and ready for the masses, or it ist bleeding edge where feature X works, feature Y is broken, and Z is useable if we have full moon. You just know what you're doing. And if you don't know, don't do it, even if it might work.
Writing code is a creative work - and so you will some day suffer the same fate as an author of a novel: the creative block. First thing: don't panic. This will happen to everyone. It has happened to me, and you too can overcome it. This block is a sign of stress that your brain sends: it signals that you have to take a break. Rest a while. Take a day off. And do something unrelated to your work. Relax. Having a method to invoke relaxation will help a lot. After this: write your problem down or tell someone. Try to explain why you think you can't solve the problem. The person you talk to can be someone in the know or someone who doesn't care about programming - it doesn't make much difference. Try to view your problem from different angles. What if your problem is a person? What if your problem is a car? A dog? A cat? A highway?. I know, this sounds silly, but it is amazing. Most of the time we get stuck because we can't change our view of it, so its time to get silly and change our vision to anything. If the obvious does not work, try something silly. Make a fun out of a problem. A joke. Something we laugh about can't be a threat. Read books about the subject (this shouldn't be the first step, though others may suggest otherwise). And then try to remember how you felt when you once solved a difficult problem. What were your thoughts? What were your feelings? describe them to yourself and try to feel them again.If this still does not work, no need to worry. Try to imagine that you have solved your problem: what was the last step you were taking before you solved this problem? What was the step before that step and so on. Try working backwards. Sometimes this is much easier. Try to solve some of the problems you encounter: minor ones that can be solved easily. You have to regain you trust in yourself, and this is easier if you make something successfully. Next read a few books about creativity. There are some amazing ideas.Most people, if stuck, try it harder than before the same way they did it before. If everything fails, try something different. Otherwise, your thoughts will go in circles until you can't think of something else. And if nothing works: Maybe your problem is impossible to solve.
I don't like it if someone changes my message that I'd written - in no way. So I think people are right to 'bitch' about it. On the other hand Deja News is a free service, so you can't protest too much. I would not mind if the links were put below my message: that would be just as good for Deja, but my text hasn't been altered. It would be clear that this link has been added by Deja. It's a good thing that you can change the behaviour of this feature and switch it off. But what I find really annoying is that you have to do something to archieve this. It would be much better if that feature is off by default, and can be switched on if you like. Deja should either put the link below the message in its own area or change their policy to opt-in instead of opt-out.
Well, SQL is a widely used functional language (4GL, a fourth generation language). Most people have a hard time to grasp the use of a non-procedural language: just think about it how long it took to get object-orientated languages to be applied widely. And even now, most languages that you find in programs are still 3GL. And even if you will see a program advertised as written in C++: most of the time this is written in C, but compiled with a C++ compiler. Which hardly counts as object-orientated. We are so used to program in 3GL that it will take us a long time to make full use of other concepts. This is even true for SQL: most people tend to program cursors where a shift to 4GL would be a lot better. It will just take time...
To me, this is just another reason to use PGP for my email. Let's face it, email is insecure in every way you look at it: it can be wiretapped, it can be faked, it can be changed on the way, and so on.
So I think that stories like this should be brought to a greater attention (read: Joe User should notice that). And we should get used to "sealing" our email with PGP like we're used to seal our envelopes.
One other nice thing about encrypted email is: your ISP couldn't be held responsible for anything you say. I'm responsible for what I say, and you are responsible for what you say, and not vice versa. And this should be true for everyone.
As long as PGP can't be decrypted, we can shrug our shoulders at stories like this.
...how to find out if a system is overclocked or not? That's easy: Every CPU has a unique serial number (like the PIII). AMD publishs a database on their web site which shows which serial number runs with which clock speed. You can even create a little program that will read that serial, log on to the web site, and display the clock speed of your CPU vs. the clock speed of your system. Of course this rises a few privacy questions... but this could be overcome.
This will give every user the chance to overclock his/her CPU and complain about the instability of the software without too much effort... Now you can even crash Linux...
I think that adhering to formals specs don't make your software more or less trustable. Formal specs are a good thing, no doubt. But take a look at CERT advisory or BugTraq: most security problems don't stem from bad designs but from bad implementations (e. g. buffer overruns). It doesn't help if your spec says "don't allow buffer overruns". Now just let assume that you have a perfect formal design for a secure system. Vendor X implements his system according to this design... or so he claims. How do you know? You just have moved your trust from the specs to the Vendor X... which does not help, even if the Vendor X has never before been caught by bad implementations (and such a vendor does not exist). If the system is open, at least you don't have to trust, you can see for yourself. Formal specs will make it easier to discuss implementation details. You need a formal test to see if it is implemented right. And if these formal tests exist, you can apply them no matter if the system has been hacked together, is open source, closed source or any combination. And still, in practice, you will get caught occasionally, even if the test will support the illusion that everything is OK. Security is a process, not a state. Never be fooled into thinking a system is secure because you can't spot a flaw. Design is theory, implementation is practice. It doesn't matter a bit what a theory tells you... you can ONLY trust the practice.
Hopefully, this will put an end to a long story soon. Microsoft has hoped to continue on for years like they've done before. Every year they can leverage their monopoly means big money and new ways to grow (and get our money). Don't get me wrong: I don't want Microsoft to vanish. But I agree with Mr. Jackson that they have used illegal methods to enforce their monopoly. If this is taken away from them, everyone will benefit: the customer (choice is good, and competition will enhance innovation - monopolies don't feel the need to innovate, and they seldom do), and, in the end, even Microsoft (or why do you think that analysts think that TWO Microsofts are more worth than ONE?).
of StarOffice - once upon a time someone spread the rumour that there will be StarOffice for Linux - and everybody kept on asking: "When will StarOffice for Linux ship?". Actually, there was no plan to port it to Linux. But so many people asked for it that the rumour became a selff-fullfilling prophesy (sort of). So, maybe, we should keep on asking the KDE and the GNOME teams: "When will you finish the merge of your components?". Even if they don't plan to do so for now, keep on asking, and in a short while they will do it. It will "scratch an itch". It will make the people doing it famous. And after they started it, everybody should write to the developers and tell them how much this was appreciated... Maybe that is just a dream, but I think that it would work. To cite Fogel (Open Source Development with CVS): "The sheer pleasure of working in partnership with a group of commited developers is a strong motivation in itself". Yep. And if done right, the component model won't touch the QT libs, so there is no need to worry about licenses.
I know which way I look (most of the time, but I have to admit, sometimes in the morning I look into the mirror and say to myself: "Hey! I don't know who you are, but I brush your teeth anyway."). And I don't see myself in the game, so I think it isn't worth it.
But if someone finds out how I manage to get my boss scanned this way, hey, I'll do it...
...because I live in germany. Those shrink-wrapped licenses are outlawed in our country (and I guess every other country should follow this).
I find it very interesting that most of the time you pay for something, than find out that your rights are stomped on by a license you haven't had a chance of reading, and than this license concludes that you won't get anything in exchange (no warranty etc.).
Imagine buying a car under that circumstance... you won't do it, will you?
This isn't all new to you, just redundant. But I think you should not only collect stupid EULA's, but also rulings of courts in other countries.
One thing you forgot: Take a look at the software-prices. In the last decade, software prices went in only one direction: down. With one noteable exception: Windows. Sure it has more features, but again, look at all the other software: more features, less price, almost for every release (but not less bugs...). Only a monopoly can hold prices high for a very long time. And this is hurting the consumer where it hurts most: in their purse. Esp. when you have no choice and have to buy the product.
This might be a bit off-topic, but dividing companies that have been grown too big (e. g. Microsoft) would be one countermeasure against the building of mega-corporations. But then again, it is too slow, too little, too late. If you take a look at the latest fusions you will notice that you don't have to be very imaginative to see where it leads to. If only the big survive, small people like us will be crushed.But wait, of course, this is all done for he convenience of the consumer (says Microsoft)!
Re:It's not the knowledge, it's the hours ...
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 5
I wish more people would read Tom deMarcos books.
There ARE a few studies out there that show clearly: you CAN'T work efficiently more than 8 hours a day.
I know it from experience (and I've been working for 20 years in this business - makes me feel like a kind of dino). One year long I attached a timestamp to program lines I wrote or changed. The result:
The most stupid bugs and the worst design decisions I made at the late hours. Sometimes, I introduced a bug after over-working 3 hours that took me three days to find and fix. Now that's a lot of time to waste!
If you look at the case studies, this is not only me. The productivity of a programmer does not increase after working more than 8 hours. The productivity will stagnate until ten or eleven hours are reached and will then start to decrease.
But oh, its so cool to work more. Pity that this does not show up in the results.
The reason for overworking is simple: if you don't finish at that impossible deadline, you can always say: "Look, its not my fault, I've worked hard". Maby you've worked hard, but you haven't worked smart. Maybe you should start to learn that programming is about working smart, not hard.
Slashdot Mirror
What is software? Its information. What is a film on a CD? Information again. This confuses people.
What sort of information is software? It consists of two essential properties: instructions and data. The instructions tell a computer what to do with the data.
A movie, quite in contrast, consists only of data. Where are the computer-understandable instructions in that stream of data that is on a DVD?
That stream of data would crash your computer in seconds if you try to use it as instructions (side-question: would that make Windows sort of a movie?) Software on a DVD doesn't transform the movie into software for exactly the same reason that staying in a garage doesn't make you a car.
Then you can negotiate all the details. And remember: 99.999% uptime does not mean that your server stay up that long, but that you have only an unscheduled downtime of 0.001% or less. Applying a patch is, in nearly every case, a scheduled downtime and does not count.
Now imagine you really, really need this patch: you can urge your OEM to install it and keep him free from all responsibility (e. g. a server crash after this does not count to the unscheduled downtime, because it was your decision to apply it). If you trust him to play fair, that's fair for both of you.If the OEM is trustworthy, he'll do what you order him to do, but in that case you will be responsible for the outcome as well.You can't burden someone with responsibility if he can't make the decision (unless you don't play fair).
This is not quite correct. Those copy protected cd's mis-use the error correction.
When you have a defect (fingerprint or something
nastier) on a normal cd, you won't hear it, because there is the error correction.
With a copy protected cd you will hear most effects. So a copy protected cd has a lower quality. And I'm deprived from my right of fair use, too.
And it won't play on cd players with a bad error correction - so yes, Joe Public will care.
...I checked my browser settings.
Though I live in germany and have nothing to fear I have to got through my settings:
- Yes, I connect through a proxy, so the IP address is unuseable for the MPAA
- Yes, junkbuster is active and sending only the information I want to send
- Yes, the rest is filtered by my firewall
Best thing, really, that it will be very difficult to track my IP address. All tests state that my IP address is either 127.0.0.1 (haha) or the address of the proxy of my provider.
Maybe you should check imedeately if you ISP offers the same service to you...
A discussion of "multitasking for programmers" and why it hurts is at Distraction: the one big obstacle. This is written for programmers, but it is true for everbyody who works with knowledge.
is explained, in depth, at Gibson Research If you don't get through to this site, its not becaused they are slashdotted, but because someone is inflicting a DDoS on them (which has the same impact, though). For this reason, I can't give you the complete address, but its just a from mouseclicks away (as soon as the attack stops). Yes, it may be amazing, but (to some extend) sub-pixel rendering improves quality on a CRT, too! If you don't believe me (and even if you do), check out that small programm that is offered on the web-page above. But notice why it works: it does so because antialiasing and sub-pixel rendering is similiar. And contrary to some believes Microsoft didn't invent subpixel rendering! Instead, this technique was used on Apple computers 26 years ago (this has been a topic on /. AFAIR).
Yeah, fact is: the opt-out address on spam is a sort of social engineering. Not every mail address a spammer has is a correct address or an active address. Now if you reply using your emailer, the spammer knows for sure that the address is correct an actively used! Now this address has more value for the spammer! You've helped him! The reason that so many addresses are really dead is that everyone on the internet wants to have your email address (to sent you spam). Now many people act like me: they set up an account at a free mail service (I use hotmail for this: I like the idea that M$ takes care of my spam) but never read mail sent to this address. This is a worthless address for a spammer.
I'm developing programs for financial institutions. Here are the advantages of commercial solutions over the free ones. That said, YMMV. 1. Support - you get support around the clock from the commercial vendors. This goes so far that, for Informix for example, the actual source code is handed every 8 hours to the next team that starts working (so the source code wanders around the world in 24 hours). 2. Transactions - yes, they will add transactions to MySQL in the future, but for now I go for safety. The database vendors have years of experience, and considering how complicate it is to do reliable transactions, I'll go with the experienced ones. 3. Scaleability - you get the commercial databases for nearly every platform that you can lay your hands on. If your database is too slow, you can always change your hardware (this is the major reason why I don't think that SQLServer from M$ is good solution for my needs). 4. Migration - with commercial vendors, you can always upgrade to the next version without pain (it killed Sybase nearly when they didn't do it right once). You can easily migrate to other platforms (but not necessarily to another RDBMS). 5. Standards - only the big databases confirm very rigid to standards (though they all try to lock you in by offering enough "nice goodies", and if you're dumb enough to take the offering, you're lost). For all major database vendors you get ODBC, JDBC, native drivers etc. 6. Interoperability - if you work with tools like ER/Win, development tools like Prolifics Panther or Power Builder, they are supported. Don't count too much on ODBC, its slow, and it does not support everything you need. 7. Multi-tier - if you need to support many , many users, you will have to use n-tier environments, and the transaction monitors (Tuxedo, JetNet etc.) will support only the major database vendors. And one day you'll wake up and need just that. And with the internet, this day will come earlier than you think. 8. Database replication, load balancing, fail-over and such things are, to my knowledge, only supported by big database vendors. It took them more than ten years to get this right (and M$ is still not able to do it right, though they claim the opposite). 9. Performance - simple databases are fast with simple queries, but sophisticated databases are fast with complex queries (and, maybe, slower with simple queries...). M$ uses simple benchmarks to tell their customers that they are fast (TCP-C), but most other vendors have stopped three years ago to post TCP-C benchmarks, so M$ is able to beat three year old databases on three year old hardware... TCP-D is more complex, and M$ couldn't show that their database wasn't 100 (one hundred) times slower on a specific TCP-D part than Oracle - though they tried hard. But benchmarking is a complex matter... 10. Added values - like Object-relational databases - are a speciality of Informix and Oracle. If you need this, there is not much choice. E. g. storing, retrieving and searching of word-documents (with indexing), is it possible with MySQL? No. 11. OLTP - in this area you have no choice but use a big vendor. If your database has to run 24x7, can you do a reliable backup on tape or anything? Can you restore parts of your database while the database is online? Reliable backup means: a transaction-safe backup which will make a snapshot of the database where every transaction is in its correct state, and a continously running backup. 12. If you ever need data mining etc.: look what databases are supported. 13. If you have a few TB to store, you can't use MySQL. It might be possible, but I doubt that this will be fast. Most simple databases don't scale with sheer size. I can only stress that reliability has its price. And there is more to reliability than just transactions.
The evidence that M$ has a monopol is drawn by the following conclusion:
1. Software prices have gone down in the last 10 years constantly
2. The price of Windows 9x hasn't gone down, it has risen a little - it has moved in the opposite direction of the market
3. Even adding many new features to software didn't brought prices up
4. They haven't added many features to Windows 9x
5. Conclusion: only a monopolist can act this way
You can't compare Solaris with Windows - Solaris is a server OS, Windows 9x is a home OS. You can't use Windows 9x on a server, and you can't use Solaris on your home PC for the same services.
You can't compare Acrobat nor FrameMaker with Word: these are different leagues ("Porsche is a very cheap car compared to Rolls Royce").
of open source is, that it is marked as "stable" when and only when it is really stable (and not when marketing has decided to ship the product), and yet you can still have your bleeding edge program when you like it. But dividing this into three different states is likely to confuse most people. It is better done if you obey the rule: "release often" (Eric Raymond). During testing phase you will find out which of these "unstable" releases are just "stable enough" to be used (that is, it is in the same state as most commercial software...). In Linux mailing lists, you'll see sometimes postings like "2.3.XX" is a stable version, use it if you really, really need feature YY". I think debian should use the same rulings. Just produce more developer releases, and if things turn out to be good enough, tell everyone about it (with a few warnings left). Its is better to be more specific: either, it is stable and tested and ready for the masses, or it ist bleeding edge where feature X works, feature Y is broken, and Z is useable if we have full moon. You just know what you're doing. And if you don't know, don't do it, even if it might work.
I know lots of computer geeks, but even in this group, having ethernet is not the standard.
It will take some time... years to come...
Writing code is a creative work - and so you will some day suffer the same fate as an author of a novel: the creative block. First thing: don't panic. This will happen to everyone. It has happened to me, and you too can overcome it. This block is a sign of stress that your brain sends: it signals that you have to take a break. Rest a while. Take a day off. And do something unrelated to your work. Relax. Having a method to invoke relaxation will help a lot. After this: write your problem down or tell someone. Try to explain why you think you can't solve the problem. The person you talk to can be someone in the know or someone who doesn't care about programming - it doesn't make much difference. Try to view your problem from different angles. What if your problem is a person? What if your problem is a car? A dog? A cat? A highway?. I know, this sounds silly, but it is amazing. Most of the time we get stuck because we can't change our view of it, so its time to get silly and change our vision to anything. If the obvious does not work, try something silly. Make a fun out of a problem. A joke. Something we laugh about can't be a threat. Read books about the subject (this shouldn't be the first step, though others may suggest otherwise). And then try to remember how you felt when you once solved a difficult problem. What were your thoughts? What were your feelings? describe them to yourself and try to feel them again.If this still does not work, no need to worry. Try to imagine that you have solved your problem: what was the last step you were taking before you solved this problem? What was the step before that step and so on. Try working backwards. Sometimes this is much easier. Try to solve some of the problems you encounter: minor ones that can be solved easily. You have to regain you trust in yourself, and this is easier if you make something successfully. Next read a few books about creativity. There are some amazing ideas.Most people, if stuck, try it harder than before the same way they did it before. If everything fails, try something different. Otherwise, your thoughts will go in circles until you can't think of something else. And if nothing works: Maybe your problem is impossible to solve.
I don't like it if someone changes my message that I'd written - in no way. So I think people are right to 'bitch' about it. On the other hand Deja News is a free service, so you can't protest too much. I would not mind if the links were put below my message: that would be just as good for Deja, but my text hasn't been altered. It would be clear that this link has been added by Deja. It's a good thing that you can change the behaviour of this feature and switch it off. But what I find really annoying is that you have to do something to archieve this. It would be much better if that feature is off by default, and can be switched on if you like. Deja should either put the link below the message in its own area or change their policy to opt-in instead of opt-out.
Well, SQL is a widely used functional language (4GL, a fourth generation language). Most people have a hard time to grasp the use of a non-procedural language: just think about it how long it took to get object-orientated languages to be applied widely. And even now, most languages that you find in programs are still 3GL. And even if you will see a program advertised as written in C++: most of the time this is written in C, but compiled with a C++ compiler. Which hardly counts as object-orientated. We are so used to program in 3GL that it will take us a long time to make full use of other concepts. This is even true for SQL: most people tend to program cursors where a shift to 4GL would be a lot better. It will just take time...
So I think that stories like this should be brought to a greater attention (read: Joe User should notice that). And we should get used to "sealing" our email with PGP like we're used to seal our envelopes.
One other nice thing about encrypted email is: your ISP couldn't be held responsible for anything you say. I'm responsible for what I say, and you are responsible for what you say, and not vice versa. And this should be true for everyone.
As long as PGP can't be decrypted, we can shrug our shoulders at stories like this....how to find out if a system is overclocked or not? That's easy: Every CPU has a unique serial number (like the PIII). AMD publishs a database on their web site which shows which serial number runs with which clock speed. You can even create a little program that will read that serial, log on to the web site, and display the clock speed of your CPU vs. the clock speed of your system. Of course this rises a few privacy questions... but this could be overcome.
This will give every user the chance to overclock his/her CPU and complain about the instability of the software without too much effort... Now you can even crash Linux...
I think that adhering to formals specs don't make your software more or less trustable. Formal specs are a good thing, no doubt. But take a look at CERT advisory or BugTraq: most security problems don't stem from bad designs but from bad implementations (e. g. buffer overruns). It doesn't help if your spec says "don't allow buffer overruns". Now just let assume that you have a perfect formal design for a secure system. Vendor X implements his system according to this design... or so he claims. How do you know? You just have moved your trust from the specs to the Vendor X... which does not help, even if the Vendor X has never before been caught by bad implementations (and such a vendor does not exist). If the system is open, at least you don't have to trust, you can see for yourself. Formal specs will make it easier to discuss implementation details. You need a formal test to see if it is implemented right. And if these formal tests exist, you can apply them no matter if the system has been hacked together, is open source, closed source or any combination. And still, in practice, you will get caught occasionally, even if the test will support the illusion that everything is OK. Security is a process, not a state. Never be fooled into thinking a system is secure because you can't spot a flaw. Design is theory, implementation is practice. It doesn't matter a bit what a theory tells you... you can ONLY trust the practice.
Hopefully, this will put an end to a long story soon. Microsoft has hoped to continue on for years like they've done before. Every year they can leverage their monopoly means big money and new ways to grow (and get our money). Don't get me wrong: I don't want Microsoft to vanish. But I agree with Mr. Jackson that they have used illegal methods to enforce their monopoly. If this is taken away from them, everyone will benefit: the customer (choice is good, and competition will enhance innovation - monopolies don't feel the need to innovate, and they seldom do), and, in the end, even Microsoft (or why do you think that analysts think that TWO Microsofts are more worth than ONE?).
of StarOffice - once upon a time someone spread the rumour that there will be StarOffice for Linux - and everybody kept on asking: "When will StarOffice for Linux ship?". Actually, there was no plan to port it to Linux. But so many people asked for it that the rumour became a selff-fullfilling prophesy (sort of). So, maybe, we should keep on asking the KDE and the GNOME teams: "When will you finish the merge of your components?". Even if they don't plan to do so for now, keep on asking, and in a short while they will do it. It will "scratch an itch". It will make the people doing it famous. And after they started it, everybody should write to the developers and tell them how much this was appreciated... Maybe that is just a dream, but I think that it would work. To cite Fogel (Open Source Development with CVS): "The sheer pleasure of working in partnership with a group of commited developers is a strong motivation in itself". Yep. And if done right, the component model won't touch the QT libs, so there is no need to worry about licenses.
But if someone finds out how I manage to get my boss scanned this way, hey, I'll do it...
I find it very interesting that most of the time you pay for something, than find out that your rights are stomped on by a license you haven't had a chance of reading, and than this license concludes that you won't get anything in exchange (no warranty etc.).
Imagine buying a car under that circumstance... you won't do it, will you?
This isn't all new to you, just redundant. But I think you should not only collect stupid EULA's, but also rulings of courts in other countries.
This might be a bit off-topic, but dividing companies that have been grown too big (e. g. Microsoft) would be one countermeasure against the building of mega-corporations. But then again, it is too slow, too little, too late. If you take a look at the latest fusions you will notice that you don't have to be very imaginative to see where it leads to. If only the big survive, small people like us will be crushed.But wait, of course, this is all done for he convenience of the consumer (says Microsoft)!
There ARE a few studies out there that show clearly: you CAN'T work efficiently more than 8 hours a day.
I know it from experience (and I've been working for 20 years in this business - makes me feel like a kind of dino). One year long I attached a timestamp to program lines I wrote or changed. The result:
The most stupid bugs and the worst design decisions I made at the late hours. Sometimes, I introduced a bug after over-working 3 hours that took me three days to find and fix. Now that's a lot of time to waste!
If you look at the case studies, this is not only me. The productivity of a programmer does not increase after working more than 8 hours. The productivity will stagnate until ten or eleven hours are reached and will then start to decrease.
But oh, its so cool to work more. Pity that this does not show up in the results.
The reason for overworking is simple: if you don't finish at that impossible deadline, you can always say: "Look, its not my fault, I've worked hard". Maby you've worked hard, but you haven't worked smart. Maybe you should start to learn that programming is about working smart, not hard.