Must have the following qualities, in no particular order:
- Able to manage the client's expectations! This has been the biggest failing of nearly all my manager's to date.
- Has enough specific technical knowledge and general intelligence to understand the task, the design, and the implementation, at least at a high level.
- Very well organized. Must keep track of all of a project's details, schedules, technical issues, budgets, etc.. Seems obvious but it's a good reason why I wouldn't make a good manager.
- Good communication skills (for obvious reasons).
- Able to hash out cohesive, complete, and unambiguous requirements with the client.
- Willing to kick some programmer ass (including mine) when they're slacking off. This won't win you friends amongst the programmers but will make projects run much smoother.
- Willing to act as a shield for the programmers to allow them to remain focused.
Firewire doesn't run over Cat-5 at all. You have to buy special Fireware cables. I'm guessing you can get Cat-5 cheaper than an equivalent length of Firewire, though I haven't checked.
Don't know how much dual-tuner DirecTivos cost to make but Hughes is selling one now for 99 bucks!! (Yahoo)
It has a Digital Optical output and up to 35 hours of storage.
I just got one for Christmas.
The menuing system is slower than dirt but I love the dual-tuners. Our old standalone Tivo used to interrupt our TV watching nightly to record something... Very annoying.
If I was designing a broadband municipality, I'd do both. FTTH for high speed, data, phone, & video fixed-point access and 802.11b for roaming data-only coverage.
802.11b has range, LOS and frequency interference limitations (everyone turn off your microwaves during peak surfing hours) that'd hamper complete coverage in a community, plus many homeowners association don't like residents to have external antennas on their houses. Also, wireless limits you to a max data rate of 11mbps for.11b (or ~50mbps for the new.11a) shared amongst everyone in range. You'd have a hard time running one video channel over it, let alone a full DBS or CATV feed.
Exactly! I live in downtown Springfield Virginia, only, 10 or so miles from the Pentagon *sic* and D.C.. We have two Metro stops no more than 3 miles from our house! Verizon says they have no plans to upgrade my CO enable DSL and Cox Communications has halted plans to roll out Cable Modems to my community for unspecified reasons.
Even if either or both finally got around to offering services in my area, I'd be stuck with their definition of broadband -- an asymetric line with a pathetic up-channel (128k-ish) and so-so down-channel (640k to 1Mb).
RBOCs and cable companies don't have the vision, will or financing to provide true broadband - fiber to the home.
These folks are on the right track, IMHO, though I hope they're planning for higher data rates in the future.
A company called DataPlay is building a drive that uses proprietary, matchbox-sized DVD-ish rewritable disks. They come in two sizes: 250MB & 500MB. Don't know if any companies have announced products based on it though. Unfortunately, the disks aren't compatable with regular DVD or CD drives. Still, it seems like a neat technology.
Ok, I have to admit I'm not a relational scholar. I've read Chris Date's An Introduction to Database Systems and Foundation for Object/Relational Databases : The Third Manifesto. Both contain excellent reasons NOT to using OODBMSs for most database applications, at least in the form you refer to. Here are some of my observations on OODBMSs,
Composite Objects and Relationships:
OODBMSs may be able to outperform an RDBMS for a specific data model, but ONLY using queries and transactions that are defined up front in your modeling/design process. Relational systems will often perform better when all of the possible queries/transaction are not known up front. (as is often the case)
OODBMSs often fall down when their datasets exceed the amount of RAM in your system. Because the relational model is mathematically well defined, RDBMS implementers can build generic query analyzers that can often find an optimal data retrieval path for a large set of queries that aren't known up front. Also, you can tweak a query's performance using indexes and storage specifications. This is much harder to do in OODBMSes - which don't have a well defined mathematical model.
Date's Third Manifesto shows the proper future for DBMSs, IMHO - add OO to RDBMSs.
Class Hierarchy: Data in the real world is usually has hierarchical characteristics.
In the real world, data can be modeled hierarchically, but often shouldn't be. Imposing a hierarchy limits you to viewing the world through that hierarchy.
Improper OO modeling can cause a ton of headaches. In your Employee/Manager hierarchy, what happens when an Employee becomes a Manager? Does the object change its type on the fly? Say you have a MangerList that contains a list of Manager objects (and only Manager objects). What happens when a Manager is demoted to Employee? Is the OODBMS smart enough to remove them from the ManagerList dynamically? Or do you have to write code to auto-magically remove them? Or do you destroy the Manager object and recreate them as an Employee?
Circumventing the Need for a Query Language:
Without a generic query language, any OODBMS "queries" you perform must involve massive amounts of recursive pointer chasing. It is possible to use query languages in an OODBMS but they have a much harder time optimizing the queries due to the lack of a formal mathematical model for OO and the lack of emphasis on normalization.
No Impedence Mismatch
This is not a problem with the relational model, it's a problem with the interface layer you are using (ODBC, ADO,..). These interface layers are designed to be generic to all RDBMSs, this causes the impedance.
No Primary Keys
My primary beef with OIDs is an OID defines a value that has no meaning to the object it represents. It is extra information that takes up space. Often OODBMSs have to resort to 128-bit or larger values to be able to generically identify every possible instance of every class in a system. These large values can greatly increase the storage space needed for objects. Say I have a class that just has one 32-bit integer member. In an OODBMS, the space required for an OID is many times larger than an instance of the class itself!! (Very inefficient!) Also, every lookup of an OID potentially requires a search through every object in the system, not just the primary key of one table. For large datasets this is a killer.
Also it's incorrect to say a user of an RDBMS has to worry about primary keys. It's the designer of a relational data model has to worry about keys. A user just uses the data model.
Defining primary keys is one of the easier tasks in relational modeling, IMHO.
One Data Model
I agree, current RDBM Systems don't model behavior very well but that's not a fault of the relational model, it's the fault of RDBMS vendors. Transact-SQL sucks ass, PL/SQL isn't much better.
With a wired or wireless Ethernet adapter, you could send compressed video and audio streams to any TV or computer in the house that has the appropriate playback hardware and software.
Also, add a web site to the box so you can schedule recordings from work or on the road.
The IEEE is working on a new set of standards that specifically address so-called Metropolitan Area Networks. They're talking about using an unlicensed band in the UNII 5-6Ghz range.
You can read about it at WirelessMAN
Fund Raisers seem like an implicit form of the Street Performer Protocol. In the SPP, content providers explicitly say, "I won't release another article/song/content item until I get a certian amount of cash."
Fund raising providers just point out all the great things they've done, and will continue to do if they get your pledge. Their implicit threat is that they'll go out of business without your support.
A standard 4.75-inch CD is VERY inconvenient in a Walkman-sized (approx. 3-inch X 2-inch X 1/2-inch) Rio...
Dataplay disks aren't meant to replace CDs or DVDs, they're meant to compete with CompactFlash cards and IBM Microdrives in the ultra-portable MP3/PDA/Digital Camera segment.
To tell you the truth, I learned more about programming on the job then I ever did in school. However, school does give you an important general understanding of the field, and pads your resume. To get a good programming job I'd say choose the major that has the best reputation at your school, or the one that interests you the most. I'd shy away from the pseudo-CompSci majors offered by some business schools. You'll get the most out of an Engineering, Math, CompSci or other hard science degree.
In defense of my major, I think CompE gave me a broader practical understanding of the inner workings of a computer than I would've had with a CompSci or Math degree. You play with UARTs, microprocessors, etc., on a chip level and use them to build devices. From a programming perspective, this can be helpful in understanding and debugging some performance problems and in dealing with low-level code such as device drivers.
Also, I've found that my degree's focus on hardware, really helps me understand the latest hardware specs from NVidia and Intel...
UACVs could still be useful even without perfect IFF, if employed correctly. The key is to reduce the possibility that the UACV will encounter a friendly target. That means restricting them to operations deep in enemy territory or away from friendly forces. You could send flights of air-to-air UACVs to patrol over enemy airfields or in a designated defensive corridor, and use ground attack UACVs as reusable cruise missles to attack fixed targets or for air defense supression as mentioned in the Economist article.
Humans may be better combat pilots but they aren't nearly as expendable. Dollar-for-dollar, the human pilot in an F-22 or JSF could, potentially, be up against three or more UACVs. Even Q3 bots can be pretty tough if you had three of them gunning for you.
There are a large number of web sites specializing in job postings. If you don't find anything interesting on one, try another. A (not so) short list includes,
Slashdot Mirror
Must have the following qualities, in no particular order:
- Able to manage the client's expectations! This has been the biggest failing of nearly all my manager's to date.
- Has enough specific technical knowledge and general intelligence to understand the task, the design, and the implementation, at least at a high level.
- Very well organized. Must keep track of all of a project's details, schedules, technical issues, budgets, etc.. Seems obvious but it's a good reason why I wouldn't make a good manager.
- Good communication skills (for obvious reasons).
- Able to hash out cohesive, complete, and unambiguous requirements with the client.
- Willing to kick some programmer ass (including mine) when they're slacking off. This won't win you friends amongst the programmers but will make projects run much smoother.
- Willing to act as a shield for the programmers to allow them to remain focused.
Correction, there is a specification to run Firewire over Cat-5 but you're restricted to 100Mb/sec.
a .h tm
http://www.1394ta.org/Press/2001Press/may/5.21.
Firewire doesn't run over Cat-5 at all. You have to buy special Fireware cables. I'm guessing you can get Cat-5 cheaper than an equivalent length of Firewire, though I haven't checked.
Don't know how much dual-tuner DirecTivos cost to make but Hughes is selling one now for 99 bucks!! (Yahoo) It has a Digital Optical output and up to 35 hours of storage. I just got one for Christmas.
The menuing system is slower than dirt but I love the dual-tuners. Our old standalone Tivo used to interrupt our TV watching nightly to record something... Very annoying.
If I was designing a broadband municipality, I'd do both. FTTH for high speed, data, phone, & video fixed-point access and 802.11b for roaming data-only coverage.
.11b (or ~50mbps for the new .11a) shared amongst everyone in range. You'd have a hard time running one video channel over it, let alone a full DBS or CATV feed.
802.11b has range, LOS and frequency interference limitations (everyone turn off your microwaves during peak surfing hours) that'd hamper complete coverage in a community, plus many homeowners association don't like residents to have external antennas on their houses. Also, wireless limits you to a max data rate of 11mbps for
Exactly! I live in downtown Springfield Virginia, only, 10 or so miles from the Pentagon *sic* and D.C.. We have two Metro stops no more than 3 miles from our house! Verizon says they have no plans to upgrade my CO enable DSL and Cox Communications has halted plans to roll out Cable Modems to my community for unspecified reasons.
Even if either or both finally got around to offering services in my area, I'd be stuck with their definition of broadband -- an asymetric line with a pathetic up-channel (128k-ish) and so-so down-channel (640k to 1Mb).
RBOCs and cable companies don't have the vision, will or financing to provide true broadband - fiber to the home.
These folks are on the right track, IMHO, though I hope they're planning for higher data rates in the future.
A company called DataPlay is building a drive that uses proprietary, matchbox-sized DVD-ish rewritable disks. They come in two sizes: 250MB & 500MB. Don't know if any companies have announced products based on it though. Unfortunately, the disks aren't compatable with regular DVD or CD drives. Still, it seems like a neat technology.
"The upside is that this effectively removes many of the limitations of existing PVRs"
By reintroducing all of the limitations and annoyances of existing cable TV (commercials, network outages, etc.).
Ok, I have to admit I'm not a relational scholar. I've read Chris Date's An Introduction to Database Systems and Foundation for Object/Relational Databases : The Third Manifesto. Both contain excellent reasons NOT to using OODBMSs for most database applications, at least in the form you refer to. Here are some of my observations on OODBMSs,
Composite Objects and Relationships:
OODBMSs may be able to outperform an RDBMS for a specific data model, but ONLY using queries and transactions that are defined up front in your modeling/design process. Relational systems will often perform better when all of the possible queries/transaction are not known up front. (as is often the case)
OODBMSs often fall down when their datasets exceed the amount of RAM in your system. Because the relational model is mathematically well defined, RDBMS implementers can build generic query analyzers that can often find an optimal data retrieval path for a large set of queries that aren't known up front. Also, you can tweak a query's performance using indexes and storage specifications. This is much harder to do in OODBMSes - which don't have a well defined mathematical model.
Date's Third Manifesto shows the proper future for DBMSs, IMHO - add OO to RDBMSs.
Class Hierarchy: Data in the real world is usually has hierarchical characteristics.
In the real world, data can be modeled hierarchically, but often shouldn't be. Imposing a hierarchy limits you to viewing the world through that hierarchy.
Improper OO modeling can cause a ton of headaches. In your Employee/Manager hierarchy, what happens when an Employee becomes a Manager? Does the object change its type on the fly? Say you have a MangerList that contains a list of Manager objects (and only Manager objects). What happens when a Manager is demoted to Employee? Is the OODBMS smart enough to remove them from the ManagerList dynamically? Or do you have to write code to auto-magically remove them? Or do you destroy the Manager object and recreate them as an Employee?
Circumventing the Need for a Query Language:
Without a generic query language, any OODBMS "queries" you perform must involve massive amounts of recursive pointer chasing. It is possible to use query languages in an OODBMS but they have a much harder time optimizing the queries due to the lack of a formal mathematical model for OO and the lack of emphasis on normalization.
No Impedence Mismatch
This is not a problem with the relational model, it's a problem with the interface layer you are using (ODBC, ADO,..). These interface layers are designed to be generic to all RDBMSs, this causes the impedance.
No Primary Keys
My primary beef with OIDs is an OID defines a value that has no meaning to the object it represents. It is extra information that takes up space. Often OODBMSs have to resort to 128-bit or larger values to be able to generically identify every possible instance of every class in a system. These large values can greatly increase the storage space needed for objects. Say I have a class that just has one 32-bit integer member. In an OODBMS, the space required for an OID is many times larger than an instance of the class itself!! (Very inefficient!) Also, every lookup of an OID potentially requires a search through every object in the system, not just the primary key of one table. For large datasets this is a killer.
Also it's incorrect to say a user of an RDBMS has to worry about primary keys. It's the designer of a relational data model has to worry about keys. A user just uses the data model.
Defining primary keys is one of the easier tasks in relational modeling, IMHO.
One Data Model
I agree, current RDBM Systems don't model behavior very well but that's not a fault of the relational model, it's the fault of RDBMS vendors. Transact-SQL sucks ass, PL/SQL isn't much better.
Windows 2000 BSODs on me whenever I try to run RealPlayer. The latest NVidia drivers for my TNT2 M64 haven't helped.. So much for a solid M$ OS.
With a wired or wireless Ethernet adapter, you could send compressed video and audio streams to any TV or computer in the house that has the appropriate playback hardware and software.
Also, add a web site to the box so you can schedule recordings from work or on the road.
The IEEE is working on a new set of standards that specifically address so-called Metropolitan Area Networks. They're talking about using an unlicensed band in the UNII 5-6Ghz range. You can read about it at WirelessMAN
Fund Raisers seem like an implicit form of the Street Performer Protocol. In the SPP, content providers explicitly say, "I won't release another article/song/content item until I get a certian amount of cash."
Fund raising providers just point out all the great things they've done, and will continue to do if they get your pledge. Their implicit threat is that they'll go out of business without your support.
A standard 4.75-inch CD is VERY inconvenient in a Walkman-sized (approx. 3-inch X 2-inch X 1/2-inch) Rio...
Dataplay disks aren't meant to replace CDs or DVDs, they're meant to compete with CompactFlash cards and IBM Microdrives in the ultra-portable MP3/PDA/Digital Camera segment.
To tell you the truth, I learned more about programming on the job then I ever did in school. However, school does give you an important general understanding of the field, and pads your resume. To get a good programming job I'd say choose the major that has the best reputation at your school, or the one that interests you the most. I'd shy away from the pseudo-CompSci majors offered by some business schools. You'll get the most out of an Engineering, Math, CompSci or other hard science degree.
In defense of my major, I think CompE gave me a broader practical understanding of the inner workings of a computer than I would've had with a CompSci or Math degree. You play with UARTs, microprocessors, etc., on a chip level and use them to build devices. From a programming perspective, this can be helpful in understanding and debugging some performance problems and in dealing with low-level code such as device drivers.
Also, I've found that my degree's focus on hardware, really helps me understand the latest hardware specs from NVidia and Intel...
UACVs could still be useful even without perfect IFF, if employed correctly. The key is to reduce the possibility that the UACV will encounter a friendly target. That means restricting them to operations deep in enemy territory or away from friendly forces. You could send flights of air-to-air UACVs to patrol over enemy airfields or in a designated defensive corridor, and use ground attack UACVs as reusable cruise missles to attack fixed targets or for air defense supression as mentioned in the Economist article.
Humans may be better combat pilots but they aren't nearly as expendable. Dollar-for-dollar, the human pilot in an F-22 or JSF could, potentially, be up against three or more UACVs. Even Q3 bots can be pretty tough if you had three of them gunning for you.
I think John Carmack once mentioned that Q3 performance seemed to fall roughly between SPECint and SPECfp. I think it was in a .plan.
- American Banker
- Americas Job Bank
- Black Enterprise
- Business Week
- Career Pulse
- CareerBuilder*
- CareerCity
- CareerExchange
- CareerMosaic
- Caree rPath
- CareerWeb
- CareerFuture
- CitySearch
- CNET
- Dallas Morning News
- DICE
- EDN
- Hispanic Online
- HotJobs
- Internet.com
- JobOptions
- Monster
- MSBET
- NationJob
- Phillips
- QuestLink
- SelectJobs
- Test and Measurement World
- USAToday
- WETA
- WomenConnect
- Yahoo
* - my employer and a damn fine place to work (-plug -plug)If you're more interested the relational theory behind SQL databases, try An Introduction to Database Systems by Chris Date.