Good point, the support might be worth it, but my point was that getting an embedded browser working on Linux isn't that easy. With the source code to a browser it considerably easier (assuming you have the skill set), and you aren't limited as much as with a pre-packaged browser. Granted, opera is in business to make money, so they charge for their SDK, which is totally fine with me. It might cost less for an unskilled team to have opera do the integration, whereas a more skilled team will be able to complete it for a lower cost via open source.
Are there any major phones out there with Java VM's that actually run applets? I have several applets implemented, but as of yet, haven't seen them running on cell phones. Someone told me that iPhones don't have Java.
I was tasked with getting Opera to run on Set Top Boxes not too long ago, and the problem with opera is that its not just install and go like on windows or linux. Granted, it was a custom set-top-box build on linux, once you get the demo binary from opera, it doesn't run and says "cannot open fb0 frame buffer device". Apparently their business trick is to charge you for implementing every driver. They sell a very expensive sdk (more like a ddk), but then you have to develop all of your drivers. We were using a pretty well know SoC (system on chip) from sigma designs, but still didn't have the display drivers and ir drivers. I would suggest going with Mozilla or something that you have the source, otherwise a vendor will tie you in to their solution, and not even give you header files with which to get the embedded browser to work with custom hardware.
This must be something new, or I must have done something wrong, but some signed driver issue forced me to buy vmware workstation in order to install on Vista Ultimate x64 it was pretty cheap, and I think it was worth it, because now I can map it to individual cores (unsure if you can do this with vmware server).
Vista failed to run most of my legacy software, especially VS.NET on my 64-bit vista machine. I had to install VMWare Workstation (had to pay for this because 64-bit vista requires signed drivers) and configured it to use half of my RAM and to use one CPU core. I picked up XP for system builders pretty cheap and it installed flawlessly. It's pretty stable, and being 64-bit, you can exceed 4 GB of ram, and I find my self having Vista always running without shutting down, and just sleeping or hibernating and having an instant on experience all the time. With more RAM and cores, I can concurrently run LINUX as well. Otherwise, the only place I could find a laptop with XP in LA was across the street from Vista Ford on Ventura Blvd. What's interesting, is if you make a U turn up the hill by there, medina road is at the top of the hill. (Bill Gates lives in Medina, WA).
So you're saying that we are paying for the telco's bad engineering practices. Sounds like you're saying that a simple text communication system has been over engineered, and can't handle it's capacity very easily. That leads to building better protocols that will depricate SMS.
After the high taxes on blankets, it became prohibitivly expensive to send smoke signals. Wood and fire are already very expensive. What's next, taxing on that black goo that comes out of the ground?
My point is that text traffic only takes less than 1k total traffic and can cost $.25. Voice traffic can be $.25 a minute which is ~64k per second. Picture costs about the same as text but its about ~1Mb of traffic. Video is significantly more traffic than voice, yet is often charged at the same as voice. Why is texting so expensive? Its obvious.. a revenue model.. hence the point of the discussion is "To avoid getting screwed". Anyone against this is a bigot or shareholder for the telco's.
I think they are going for either $42/share or $42 Billion. Wonder what the total would be for per share, or what the share price would be for $42 Billion?
I think the point is that telco's are gouging people for text traffic, which has a very small impact on their infrastructure. If you compare the network traffic for text vs. picture vs. video, they are ripping people off. I even get messages sometimes from the telco, which means they are getting free money everytime they send a promotion to every cell phone. Say 1 million cell phones are sent one $0.25 message that's 1/4 million dollars for each message sent with very little impact on their infrastructure. What am I going to do? Spend an hour asking them to refund a quarter?
Because some stupid recruiter told me it was a great company and didn't even mentioned it was VB. They also sent me to another VB interview and I walked out in some 5 minutes into the interview. Interestingly the person interviewing me used to work at the company I walked out of.
I guess I was saying that I don't like VB programmers coding in a startup with 5 people in a run down studio telling me my code sux, when I've implemented high transactional billion dollar systems that have been in use for years.
I've shown some good code to people, and they start saying whats wrong with it without knowing what it's about. For instance, I interviewed with some small startup (some 5 dudes coding in a studio), and I showed them some heavy ajax code, and they said it would be too slow for a high traffic site. I told them it was an internal application with high functionality, and he proceeded to show me a simple html page with no javascript and told me "see this is high performance". I think its just deceit when the person interviewing you doesn't have a strong skill set and feels intimidated by a good candidate who will make him/her look bad.
I think sample code is a ploy to get rid of candidates. I have a complete site of sample code, and what happens is it just ends up being something to shoot holes at. Also, you can't give internal code that belongs to a company.
I can't believe that J2EE is still being used. I thought it just turned out to be huge overhead to use session and entity beans, and they don't integrate with anything but a thick J2EE stack. Have they integrated ejb's with web services yet? Can you easily bind ejb's to visual controls? Do ejb's scale? How much is overhead on the container stack vs. actual business logic? How much development do you have to do that is ejb related vs related to the actual business logic?
I've noticed several people post that HR asks for more years of experience than the technology has exisited. I've seen this happen with Java and.NET, and a liar ends of getting the job. I have been called by people more than 10 times asking for this, and they get mad when I've corrected them.
Right now.NET, J2EE, LAMP seem to be the key 3 divisions in the field. Whats really pissing me off is I was recently interviewing, and I was getting people wanting 1 years experience in.NET 3.5 which has only be released for a few months, and I was getting all these interview questions about brand new stuff that no one has done. J2EE is basically Weblogic jobs. LAMP doesn't seem to have much steam in the Enterprise, but mostly for small companies or small applications. Also I've been getting all kinds of screenings from people who don't know what they are talking about. Nowadays the trend seems to be how fancy of an AJAX UI can you create, barring the obvious difficulties of cross platform development and support for older browsers. I can see whats going to happen: many projects are going to fail because AJAX applications are very difficult to develop for a huge audience and reliably and requires much more skill than just html.
I don't know about that, but where I studied at Cal, you couldn't even be admitted or yet pass the first problem set if you couldn't program. I remember seeing people stading up and yelling "fuq this" and dropping out. Are you sure it wasn't some mail order degree or maybe an IT or CIS degree?
Most ajax developers (NOT USING SOME FANCY/LIMITING FRAMEWORK) will run into basic synchronization problems that will cause major problems. Basic critical sections and thread safety primitives are needed. The closest I've found is an implementation of the bakery algorithm. Many of these issues can be solved with synchronous ajax calls, but for true asynchronisity, you'll need these primitives.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, the support might be worth it, but my point was that getting an embedded browser working on Linux isn't that easy. With the source code to a browser it considerably easier (assuming you have the skill set), and you aren't limited as much as with a pre-packaged browser. Granted, opera is in business to make money, so they charge for their SDK, which is totally fine with me. It might cost less for an unskilled team to have opera do the integration, whereas a more skilled team will be able to complete it for a lower cost via open source.
Are there any major phones out there with Java VM's that actually run applets? I have several applets implemented, but as of yet, haven't seen them running on cell phones. Someone told me that iPhones don't have Java.
I was tasked with getting Opera to run on Set Top Boxes not too long ago, and the problem with opera is that its not just install and go like on windows or linux. Granted, it was a custom set-top-box build on linux, once you get the demo binary from opera, it doesn't run and says "cannot open fb0 frame buffer device". Apparently their business trick is to charge you for implementing every driver. They sell a very expensive sdk (more like a ddk), but then you have to develop all of your drivers. We were using a pretty well know SoC (system on chip) from sigma designs, but still didn't have the display drivers and ir drivers. I would suggest going with Mozilla or something that you have the source, otherwise a vendor will tie you in to their solution, and not even give you header files with which to get the embedded browser to work with custom hardware.
This must be something new, or I must have done something wrong, but some signed driver issue forced me to buy vmware workstation in order to install on Vista Ultimate x64 it was pretty cheap, and I think it was worth it, because now I can map it to individual cores (unsure if you can do this with vmware server).
Vista failed to run most of my legacy software, especially VS.NET on my 64-bit vista machine. I had to install VMWare Workstation (had to pay for this because 64-bit vista requires signed drivers) and configured it to use half of my RAM and to use one CPU core. I picked up XP for system builders pretty cheap and it installed flawlessly. It's pretty stable, and being 64-bit, you can exceed 4 GB of ram, and I find my self having Vista always running without shutting down, and just sleeping or hibernating and having an instant on experience all the time. With more RAM and cores, I can concurrently run LINUX as well. Otherwise, the only place I could find a laptop with XP in LA was across the street from Vista Ford on Ventura Blvd. What's interesting, is if you make a U turn up the hill by there, medina road is at the top of the hill. (Bill Gates lives in Medina, WA).
If you can get it to pass smog, then I think it is legal.
I heard that in some state that its illegal to put a ford engine in a chevy, or i think that was a redneck joke.
So you're saying that we are paying for the telco's bad engineering practices. Sounds like you're saying that a simple text communication system has been over engineered, and can't handle it's capacity very easily. That leads to building better protocols that will depricate SMS.
After the high taxes on blankets, it became prohibitivly expensive to send smoke signals. Wood and fire are already very expensive. What's next, taxing on that black goo that comes out of the ground?
I don't like what they charge for text messaging, so I'll choose to use a free alternative, and tell my friends how they can save some money.
My point is that text traffic only takes less than 1k total traffic and can cost $.25. Voice traffic can be $.25 a minute which is ~64k per second. Picture costs about the same as text but its about ~1Mb of traffic. Video is significantly more traffic than voice, yet is often charged at the same as voice. Why is texting so expensive? Its obvious.. a revenue model.. hence the point of the discussion is "To avoid getting screwed". Anyone against this is a bigot or shareholder for the telco's.
At SLAC: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/ I saw an interesting book in a Nobel Winner's book shelf:
Quantum Mechanics - Albert Messiah
Can anyone comment on whether or not this book is just a book cover or if it's for real?
I think they are going for either $42/share or $42 Billion. Wonder what the total would be for per share, or what the share price would be for $42 Billion?
I think the point is that telco's are gouging people for text traffic, which has a very small impact on their infrastructure. If you compare the network traffic for text vs. picture vs. video, they are ripping people off. I even get messages sometimes from the telco, which means they are getting free money everytime they send a promotion to every cell phone. Say 1 million cell phones are sent one $0.25 message that's 1/4 million dollars for each message sent with very little impact on their infrastructure. What am I going to do? Spend an hour asking them to refund a quarter?
Because some stupid recruiter told me it was a great company and didn't even mentioned it was VB. They also sent me to another VB interview and I walked out in some 5 minutes into the interview. Interestingly the person interviewing me used to work at the company I walked out of.
I guess I was saying that I don't like VB programmers coding in a startup with 5 people in a run down studio telling me my code sux, when I've implemented high transactional billion dollar systems that have been in use for years.
hehe.. funny... I've heard that before... I haven't updated that site in almost some 8 years.
I've shown some good code to people, and they start saying whats wrong with it without knowing what it's about. For instance, I interviewed with some small startup (some 5 dudes coding in a studio), and I showed them some heavy ajax code, and they said it would be too slow for a high traffic site. I told them it was an internal application with high functionality, and he proceeded to show me a simple html page with no javascript and told me "see this is high performance". I think its just deceit when the person interviewing you doesn't have a strong skill set and feels intimidated by a good candidate who will make him/her look bad.
I think sample code is a ploy to get rid of candidates. I have a complete site of sample code, and what happens is it just ends up being something to shoot holes at. Also, you can't give internal code that belongs to a company.
I can't believe that J2EE is still being used. I thought it just turned out to be huge overhead to use session and entity beans, and they don't integrate with anything but a thick J2EE stack. Have they integrated ejb's with web services yet? Can you easily bind ejb's to visual controls? Do ejb's scale? How much is overhead on the container stack vs. actual business logic? How much development do you have to do that is ejb related vs related to the actual business logic?
I've got program a computer, pitch manure, solve equations, build a wall, and butcher a hog down.
Design a building, plan an invasion and change a diaper seem to be the most difficult ones left.
I wonder what "Set a bone"and "conn a ship" means?
I've noticed several people post that HR asks for more years of experience than the technology has exisited. I've seen this happen with Java and .NET, and a liar ends of getting the job. I have been called by people more than 10 times asking for this, and they get mad when I've corrected them.
Right now .NET, J2EE, LAMP seem to be the key 3 divisions in the field. Whats really pissing me off is I was recently interviewing, and I was getting people wanting 1 years experience in .NET 3.5 which has only be released for a few months, and I was getting all these interview questions about brand new stuff that no one has done. J2EE is basically Weblogic jobs. LAMP doesn't seem to have much steam in the Enterprise, but mostly for small companies or small applications. Also I've been getting all kinds of screenings from people who don't know what they are talking about. Nowadays the trend seems to be how fancy of an AJAX UI can you create, barring the obvious difficulties of cross platform development and support for older browsers. I can see whats going to happen: many projects are going to fail because AJAX applications are very difficult to develop for a huge audience and reliably and requires much more skill than just html.
I don't know about that, but where I studied at Cal, you couldn't even be admitted or yet pass the first problem set if you couldn't program. I remember seeing people stading up and yelling "fuq this" and dropping out. Are you sure it wasn't some mail order degree or maybe an IT or CIS degree?
Most ajax developers (NOT USING SOME FANCY/LIMITING FRAMEWORK) will run into basic synchronization problems that will cause major problems. Basic critical sections and thread safety primitives are needed. The closest I've found is an implementation of the bakery algorithm. Many of these issues can be solved with synchronous ajax calls, but for true asynchronisity, you'll need these primitives.