You make some good points. But two details: (a) not everybody can afford to get the best academic credentials in their profession; (b) I've met a few people who've managed to get CS degrees (one of them a PhD!) without acquiring any serious understanding of real-world computing.
My guess is that most current spywear is not multithreaded due to universiality and size contraints, but as you state, we can soon look forward to better quality, bug free, multithreaded spyware soon.
First off, "good" spyware doesn't have to be multithreaded. It just has to be smart about yielding control, so it doesn't disable the process that it's infiltrated.
Second, most spyware is well written. Badly written spyware is ineffective -- by screwing up your system, it calls attention to itself, and encourages you to run a scan. Spyware and adware wouldn't have spread so thoroughly if it were all written by hacks.
...but most programs haven't even got the ability to hyperthread, so do we really need the extra cores?"
You think new systems are designed to run existing software? That's backwards. New software is designed to fully exploit existing systems. When more people have hyperthreading hardware there will be lots of software that uses it. Same for multi-core systems.
That said, most users run word processors, web browers, and other simple productivity software that doesn't even fully exploit the old P2s we were running a few years ago. But if you want to run the latest graphic-intensive games, you better have the lastest hardware.
It's not the number of processes -- even with a single slow processor, you can handle any number of background processes, provided they're written by programmers who know what they're doing. (Indeed, systems have turned up that had thousands of spyware/adware processes.) But it only takes one badly-written spyware processes to tie up a processor. And even if you have multiple processors or cores, a single badly-written spyware program can bring a system to its knees by making Windows Explorer or other basic software inoperable.
The problem here is that most teachers (most people for that matter) find it hard to rethink their jobs based on new technology. Computers are everywhere these days, but most people past a certain age -- those too old to have grown up with the technology -- are thoroughly intimidated by them. If they use them at all, they only use a few features they've timidly learned. Ever notice how many word processor users can't tell you what most of those buttons and menus actually do?
About ten years ago there was a big push to bring the Internet to U.S. classrooms. I was pretty cynical about the results, figuring that most of the teachers were too afraid of computers to leverage this opportunity.
As it turns out, I was completely wrong. Not about the teachers, but they didn't really matter. I was wrong about the technology not being used. All those kids who didn't know that computers were hard to learn just sat down and taught themselves how to use these new toys, while the teachers just did their best to play catchup. I should have known better, since that's how I acquired my own skills.
So the big problem at your school would seem to be that the teachers "own" the new smart whiteboards. To them, education is just students sitting passively while the teachers lecture. If they went to a more participatory model -- which is a good idea, even without the technology -- the story would be rather different.
Tell me about it. But for a simple programming job, any kind of degree with some programming coursework will do. You don't really need a CS or SE degree for most jobs. Though there are some managers who will insist that only Computer Scientists are "real" programmers.
I have to point out that Science and Engineering are two different things -- and that you don't have to be a computer scientist or a software engineer to have a career in programming. Computer science and software engineering do have useful things to teach all programmers, but you don't have to have a degree in these fields to write code.
The assumption that white southerners are all bigots is itself pretty bigoted.
I've always thought it was dumb to call a malicious hacker a "cracker". It makes a hash of the whole concept of "hacking", and it just confuses non-techies. Besides, it sounds silly.
Another word we need to get rid of: "FUD". Started out as Sun's way of saying that all criticism of Java was Microsoft propaganda. Then it became a way of dismissing anybody you disagreed with as being dishonest. Now this submitter is using it to mean "unfounded fear". It's always been bad jargon, now it's meaningless jargon! Time to drop it.
If you're developing a powerful new software application from scratch, three to five years is a reasonable time frame, no matter how much cash you have. There's an optimal size for a development team. If you hire more people you might get the project done faster -- but you will certainly make the project harder to manage. Which means confusion, miscoordination, bugs, bureaucratization and all that fun stuff. There's a good chance you're actually slowing a project down when you're throwing money at it!
What is dumb is that they're building this CLI from scratch. It's not as if nobody's every done a CLI before! But of course they can't just adapt somebody else's CLI. That would mean admitting that they've ignored an important OS feature for over 20 years!
Lighten up dude, and learn to read. My ethical issue is with OSTG, not the reviewer. I'm not saying they wouldn't have published the review if it had been less positive, but good ethics demands that they be clear about the fact that they benefit.
Just a small oversight -- they're usually more careful about such things.
In journalism, it's considered unethical to pretend you don't have an interest or bias, even if you honestly believe you're writing objectively. Full disclosure is enough to resolve this ethical problem -- and Slashdot is usually pretty good about such things, revealling that Slashdot is owned by OSTG whenever they report on an OSTG-owned company. But they really should reveal that they have an interest in people buying the book. Either that, or just not provide the buy-me link.
You can purchase Effective C++, Third Edition from bn.com.
With a small commission for OTSG. Kind of unethical to take a commission for a book you're reviewing. Alternatives: Use my Amazon link, which is blatant spam on my part, but a tad more ethical, since I don't make any claims about the quality of the book. (Besides, I need the money more than they do!) Or you can feed the ISBN into Wikipeia, and find various libraries and booksellers that have the book. Finally, you can just feed the ISBN to Google, and come up with all kinds of useful links. Your choice.
Diminished property values are a good thing for people who don't plan to move any time in the near future.
So, you don't need to worry about an ugly cell tower next to your house, as long as you're sure it'll be torn down by the time you sell. Yeah, that's logical.
Actually, I'm guessing you don't own a house -- you just like to lecture people who do.
You're talking about analog clocks, which nobody uses anymore. Now we have digital clocks, which just go blank when they're screwed up. An upgrade I do wish Mr. Dvorak would consider.
Ironically, the first time I realized that Dvorak was an idiot had to do with processor issues. Back in 83 I was working for a company that sold a line of x86-based workstations, and also had two secret development projects, one a 68010-based Unix timesharing/server box, the other a portable computer based on a Hitachi chip. Dvorak reported that we were rumored to be working on a 68010-based portable computer, but the rumor had to be false, because we were x86 people!
I couldn't get full framerate on a Dual G5 box at the apple store
I'm no expert on video decoding, but isn't the generalized power of your main processors matters a lot less than the specialized processing power built into your video adapter card?
If just a few people ID their scrolls, then yeah, it's only good for recovery. (And recovery is very very unlikely -- there's no Torah Police to go around inspecting everybody's scrolls.) But if these IDs become universal -- and they probably will, given the amount of money involved -- it will suddenly become very hard to fence an "hot" scroll.
Pre-theft security and post-theft security are hardly mutually exclusive. People who own expensive gems do keep them under lock and key. But they also x-ray them, just in case. Up until now, synagogues have been limited to just one kind of security, while both are valuable.
I'm a little suprised that no Slashdotter has commented on the irony of widespread theft of the book that's the original source for the "Thou Shalt Not Steal". Which would have allowed me to point out that the Christian Bible (of which the Jewish Torah is the first 5 parts) is the most widely shoplifted book!
Does anybody know anyone that has made their own diamond to set in a ring?
This is a joke right? You're trolling or something? If I knew how to make precious gems in my garage, I certainly wouldn't share the secret on Slashdot!
Sorry, you'll still have to go outside now and then. Simple cheap displays obviously aren't going to be based on electron guns or backlit LCDs. Pervasive displays would almost certainly resemble paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this headline deliberately cute, or just sloppy? Either way, saying "North Pole" when you mean "magnetic North Pole" is lame.
You seem to think that because spyware authors are morally challenged, they must be inept programmers too. Doesn't follow.
...references to the People's Democratic Republic!
You make some good points. But two details: (a) not everybody can afford to get the best academic credentials in their profession; (b) I've met a few people who've managed to get CS degrees (one of them a PhD!) without acquiring any serious understanding of real-world computing.
Second, most spyware is well written. Badly written spyware is ineffective -- by screwing up your system, it calls attention to itself, and encourages you to run a scan. Spyware and adware wouldn't have spread so thoroughly if it were all written by hacks.
That said, most users run word processors, web browers, and other simple productivity software that doesn't even fully exploit the old P2s we were running a few years ago. But if you want to run the latest graphic-intensive games, you better have the lastest hardware.
It's not the number of processes -- even with a single slow processor, you can handle any number of background processes, provided they're written by programmers who know what they're doing. (Indeed, systems have turned up that had thousands of spyware/adware processes.) But it only takes one badly-written spyware processes to tie up a processor. And even if you have multiple processors or cores, a single badly-written spyware program can bring a system to its knees by making Windows Explorer or other basic software inoperable.
About ten years ago there was a big push to bring the Internet to U.S. classrooms. I was pretty cynical about the results, figuring that most of the teachers were too afraid of computers to leverage this opportunity.
As it turns out, I was completely wrong. Not about the teachers, but they didn't really matter. I was wrong about the technology not being used. All those kids who didn't know that computers were hard to learn just sat down and taught themselves how to use these new toys, while the teachers just did their best to play catchup. I should have known better, since that's how I acquired my own skills.
So the big problem at your school would seem to be that the teachers "own" the new smart whiteboards. To them, education is just students sitting passively while the teachers lecture. If they went to a more participatory model -- which is a good idea, even without the technology -- the story would be rather different.
Tell me about it. But for a simple programming job, any kind of degree with some programming coursework will do. You don't really need a CS or SE degree for most jobs. Though there are some managers who will insist that only Computer Scientists are "real" programmers.
I have to point out that Science and Engineering are two different things -- and that you don't have to be a computer scientist or a software engineer to have a career in programming. Computer science and software engineering do have useful things to teach all programmers, but you don't have to have a degree in these fields to write code.
You crack me up!
You're saying that anybody overstates a security problem is creating propaganda. That's absurd.
I've always thought it was dumb to call a malicious hacker a "cracker". It makes a hash of the whole concept of "hacking", and it just confuses non-techies. Besides, it sounds silly.
Another word we need to get rid of: "FUD". Started out as Sun's way of saying that all criticism of Java was Microsoft propaganda. Then it became a way of dismissing anybody you disagreed with as being dishonest. Now this submitter is using it to mean "unfounded fear". It's always been bad jargon, now it's meaningless jargon! Time to drop it.
What is dumb is that they're building this CLI from scratch. It's not as if nobody's every done a CLI before! But of course they can't just adapt somebody else's CLI. That would mean admitting that they've ignored an important OS feature for over 20 years!
Just a small oversight -- they're usually more careful about such things.
In journalism, it's considered unethical to pretend you don't have an interest or bias, even if you honestly believe you're writing objectively. Full disclosure is enough to resolve this ethical problem -- and Slashdot is usually pretty good about such things, revealling that Slashdot is owned by OSTG whenever they report on an OSTG-owned company. But they really should reveal that they have an interest in people buying the book. Either that, or just not provide the buy-me link.
Actually, I'm guessing you don't own a house -- you just like to lecture people who do.
Thank you for laying to rest the myth that all publicity is good publicity!
Ironically, the first time I realized that Dvorak was an idiot had to do with processor issues. Back in 83 I was working for a company that sold a line of x86-based workstations, and also had two secret development projects, one a 68010-based Unix timesharing/server box, the other a portable computer based on a Hitachi chip. Dvorak reported that we were rumored to be working on a 68010-based portable computer, but the rumor had to be false, because we were x86 people!
I think the copyright on the Bible has lapsed. Even the Bono act doesn't cover stuff that old!
Pre-theft security and post-theft security are hardly mutually exclusive. People who own expensive gems do keep them under lock and key. But they also x-ray them, just in case. Up until now, synagogues have been limited to just one kind of security, while both are valuable.
I'm a little suprised that no Slashdotter has commented on the irony of widespread theft of the book that's the original source for the "Thou Shalt Not Steal". Which would have allowed me to point out that the Christian Bible (of which the Jewish Torah is the first 5 parts) is the most widely shoplifted book!
Sorry, you'll still have to go outside now and then. Simple cheap displays obviously aren't going to be based on electron guns or backlit LCDs. Pervasive displays would almost certainly resemble paper.