and so, when this person leaves college in 3 months - and brings that computer from school back home.. or worse, takes it with him to his first post-college job....
But seeing as he was promised the.Net Academic Edition, he wouldn't be allowed to use it for comercial purposes even with the licence.
You might want to consider getting a phone with T9 predictive text, like pretty much any phone you can buy in the UK (and most of Western Europe as well). One keystroke per character. Most teenagers I know can type quicker on their phones than they can on a keyboard.
As absolute zero is actually closer to -273.15deg.C, -272.99999C and -273C are still some way off (relatively), but I know what you mean and I'm just being really pedantic.
At this scale, components are not necessary. Someone should be capable of understanding the entirity of a 1K chip. The point of components is (partly) that most business applications are now absolutely huge, and no one person is capable of knowing the details of every part of the system. If you break this system into discrete parts, and clearly specify what those parts do, then it should be possible for people to be able to become experts in specific components, and for people to become experts in how those components tie together.
What you are building (I assume) is the internals of a component. Does your embedded chip plug into something? Do the systems using your chip talk through a clearly defined interface, or can they call randomly into any part of it? Do you know the bigger picture (all of the applications that your chip is used in? - you may have, I don't know how task specific your chip is, but I've got friends who design DSPs and, although they probably know every byte of the chip, they don't know the details of some of the systems that they are used in).
i think what you understand as "black box concept" is better described as encapsulation How else would you describe "black box"?
if two programmer/teams describe between their capsules/"black boxes" without taking the whole system into account you will start having problems
I disagree. The whole system, in the case of a CPU, includes everything up to the applications that you are running on it. The CPU designer doesn't worry about the design for the UI of your web browser. The actual designer of the CPU internals will be given a set of interfaces which the system designer will work to, and will be given a set of constraints (such as min/max temperature) that he will work within. Somebody will have had a bigger picture, and will have thought about things like how this chip will need to fit together with other components, but they should pass these constraints over as part of the component design.
the cooler designer have to check if the airflow in the case is big enough to take the heat away
The cooler designer does not see the case that it's going in to (at least in the componentised PC world). They design the cooler and specify details about the environment that it should work in (e.g., how much space there needs to be around it), and the case builder looks at the specs of this component and then builds the case accordingly. The cooler designer also knows nothing about the internals of the CPU that it's cooling. They have no need to directly know that theres a 64mb cache, or that it's running at 2gh or that it uses super-scaler architecture, or whatever. They care about one particular aspect (or interface) - the temperature behaviour of the chip. When I build my own PCs, I also have no interest in the internals of these components. I am interested in the external behaviour, and how to wire them all up, and the designers of these components had no direct knowledge of the kit (size of box/ type of expansion boards in there etc).
In a similar way, when my developers are building the "Payments" component of my system, I would provide them with a set of interfaces/methods (e.g., takePayment;listPaymentsFromAccount), specify the external behaviour that I expect from each one (using OCL or similar), and the external environment that they have to run in (the interface to the bank etc), and then expect them to go away and design/build a component that does this and nothing else. I don't want them to worry about what the GUI is going to look like, or whether a credit check needs to be carried out before this payments component is called. The designers of those systems will worry about that. In the same way, the GUI/business process component designers will know that there is a Payments component that, given the correct parameters, will go and apply a payment to the specified card. I don't need them to worry about the fact that the Payments component needs to make three calls to the bank in order to complete its transaction, just that the transaction will be completed within a specified time, otherwise it times out.
True to some extent, but then it partly comes down to what you've specified about your component. The vast amount of heat generated by a modern CPU is a known issue, and therefore systems are usually built with the ability to monitor CPU temperature and to shut down if a critical temperature is reached. In component terms this is a known error condition, and can be dealt with, in a similar way that a well behaved software component should define what happens in a disk full situation.
What CPUs don't allow you to do is go in and tweek random logic gates on the chip. If you could, then the behaviour of any call would no longer be guaranteed, and this is a closer analogy to the way that many non-black box systems are built today.
There's nothing wrong with developing to a black box model. This is what design by contract and component development are all about. Each method on each component should describe, with pre- and post-conditions, what that method requires in order to work, and what changes it will make to the external environment that it is operating in. Beyond that, the inner workings of the component should be a black box. I don't care how your component does what it says it will do, just that it does exactly that (and nothing else).
As the developer of that component, you will know exactly what the internals do, but then you treat the rest of the world as a black box, to be talked to through clearly defined interfaces.
It is the lack of a black box approach that often leads to unexpected side-effects.
Not entirely true. There are two common form of Chinese ideographs. Traditional script is used in places like Taiwan and Hong Kong, but in the mid-50's, the People's Republic (PRC) adopted a simplified form of writing, both reducing the number of characters and the number of strokes in many of the symbols. The two sets of characters are vaguely similar in structure, but different enough to make it impossible to read the other if you've only learned one.
I see your keyboard has recognition problems too:-)
Seriously, though, I use Transcriber all the time and I rarely get a problem with it. It's far quicker than the letter recogniser, and on the odd occasion where it refuses to read the letter that I put in, I tend to use the onscreen keyboard. Have you been through and 'trained' Transcriber (selected the relevant character styles)? That makes a big difference.
My wife is a primary school teacher, so is very precise with her character forming, and has so far got near enough 100% accuracy whenever she's played with mine (ooh err).
I assume that what you are trying to say is that everyone who knows C++ knows C by default, as C++ includes all of C's syntax, plus a load of extras.
While this is to some extent true (C++ does subtly change one or two bits of C behaviour), it doesn't mean that a C++ programmer can automatically be a C programmer. There are many techniques that you usually have to use in a C program that are often not used in C++, so the programmer may not be aware of them, or at least how to use them properly (for instance a polymorphic class will often be used in C++ where a function pointer might need to be used in C; a lot of memory management stuff that can be done using STL in C++ isn't there in C etc), which means that just translating your C++ knowledge to C will not make you a real C programmer.
All C++ programmers should be able to read and understand C, but not all will be able to write it effectively.
I've programmed in C, C++ and Java in my time (amongst many others), although I've not touched C professionally for about 10 years. The syntax is close enough to the other two (which I have used much more recently) that I could still code in it if I had to (something I can't say for many of the other languages that I've used), but I would no longer call myself a professional C programmer, as I have forgotten many of the nuances of using plain C effectively.
I thought the delay to non-XBox versions was due to Microsoft giving large amounts of money to them so that it would be an exclusive on XBox for a good period of time.
But when will you know that you've reached "financial freedom"? In 5 or 10 year's time will you take what you've got and live as much of the life you want that you can afford, or will you say "I've not quite saved enough yet, I'll wait another 5..10..15.. years"?
However carefully you plan, circumstances can change (being unable to find suitably paid work for an extended period; serious illness or injury;the bank that your savings are in collapses - all of these things have happened to people that I know).
I agree that "financial freedom" would make my life better - it would allow me to afford more of the things that I like, and spend less time doing the things that I don't, but I'm not going to put all of the pleasure in my life on hold for an indeterminate length of time on the vague hope that I'll eventually reach some financial nirvana.
I'm not advocating being frivolous, and living entirely for the moment, but you need to make sure you've got a sensible balance between long term plans and short term enjoyment.
it has been argued that the inventions of a century ago, from the cotton gin to the steam engine
A century ago? The steam engine was invented in 1763 (or 1698, if you want to be a bit flexible on the word 'engine'), and the cotton gin was patented in 1794.
This would not make a difference, as the browser sees and parses the URL before it gets anywhere near the net. IE could parse these extensions and do what it wants with them. There are currently things stopping this from happening (such as anti-trust issues), but proxies aren't one of them.
Well our place had a 4 lane scalextric track in the atrium today, and my boss was chasing a director round with his remote control car a couple of days ago. If you would get fired for this kind of behaviour at your place, I suggest it's time to quit.
There was no Vietnam war. It was an armed conflict between the US and the Communist influences in the area.
It may not have been declared a war by the US Government, but it was certainly a war as far as the Vietnamese were concerned, and the CIA consider it a war "His study shows that CIA analysts had a firm grasp of the situation in Vietnam and continually expressed doubts that heightened US military pressure alone could win the war."
there was no new expansion into South Vietnam
Huh? So who was streaming into Saigon (now Ho Chi Mihn City - named after the communist leader in the north - might give you a clue) as the US troops fled from their embassy? The entire country has been united under communuist rule since 1975. Or are you suggesting that there was no new expansion outside of Vietnam, such as in Cambodia, where the Vietnamese invaded in 1978 to fight the US-supported Khmer Rouge. (you might want to read "Heroes" by John Pilger for eye witness accounts of both events)
And are you seriously claiming that the US achieved their objectives in Vietnam? They must really teach you some strange things at school over there.
OK. I think you're wrong (or I've misunderstood you). The C++ STL (standard template library) works by type, not by method signature, e.g.,
vector <Shape> coll;
declares a variable called "coll", that contains a vector which can only contain objects of type "Shape". It does not allow any object that has the same methods as "Shape" to be included, just ones that are actually derived from "Shape".
Or to put it another way, he (or she) has provided a link that anyone can easily follow to read other posts about this topic. Don't get so hung up on other people's karma.
Slashdot Mirror
But seeing as he was promised the .Net Academic Edition, he wouldn't be allowed to use it for comercial purposes even with the licence.
You can already get these in Japan (can't remember what they are called), and the Cybiko has a similar thing where it will let you know when someone with the same interests entered into their Cybiko comes within signal range.
I'll tell my sister and her friends that they are wrong then. How do you know how fast the teenagers I know can type on a phone?
u r da bst! i luv u!
Have you ever used T9?
You might want to consider getting a phone with T9 predictive text, like pretty much any phone you can buy in the UK (and most of Western Europe as well). One keystroke per character. Most teenagers I know can type quicker on their phones than they can on a keyboard.
"One can say the Boomerang acts as a refrigerator,"
So you can see it because someone left the door open?
As absolute zero is actually closer to -273.15deg.C, -272.99999C and -273C are still some way off (relatively), but I know what you mean and I'm just being really pedantic.
What you are building (I assume) is the internals of a component. Does your embedded chip plug into something? Do the systems using your chip talk through a clearly defined interface, or can they call randomly into any part of it? Do you know the bigger picture (all of the applications that your chip is used in? - you may have, I don't know how task specific your chip is, but I've got friends who design DSPs and, although they probably know every byte of the chip, they don't know the details of some of the systems that they are used in).
How else would you describe "black box"?
if two programmer/teams describe between their capsules/"black boxes" without taking the whole system into account you will start having problems
I disagree. The whole system, in the case of a CPU, includes everything up to the applications that you are running on it. The CPU designer doesn't worry about the design for the UI of your web browser. The actual designer of the CPU internals will be given a set of interfaces which the system designer will work to, and will be given a set of constraints (such as min/max temperature) that he will work within. Somebody will have had a bigger picture, and will have thought about things like how this chip will need to fit together with other components, but they should pass these constraints over as part of the component design.
the cooler designer have to check if the airflow in the case is big enough to take the heat away
The cooler designer does not see the case that it's going in to (at least in the componentised PC world). They design the cooler and specify details about the environment that it should work in (e.g., how much space there needs to be around it), and the case builder looks at the specs of this component and then builds the case accordingly. The cooler designer also knows nothing about the internals of the CPU that it's cooling. They have no need to directly know that theres a 64mb cache, or that it's running at 2gh or that it uses super-scaler architecture, or whatever. They care about one particular aspect (or interface) - the temperature behaviour of the chip. When I build my own PCs, I also have no interest in the internals of these components. I am interested in the external behaviour, and how to wire them all up, and the designers of these components had no direct knowledge of the kit (size of box/ type of expansion boards in there etc).
In a similar way, when my developers are building the "Payments" component of my system, I would provide them with a set of interfaces/methods (e.g., takePayment;listPaymentsFromAccount), specify the external behaviour that I expect from each one (using OCL or similar), and the external environment that they have to run in (the interface to the bank etc), and then expect them to go away and design/build a component that does this and nothing else. I don't want them to worry about what the GUI is going to look like, or whether a credit check needs to be carried out before this payments component is called. The designers of those systems will worry about that. In the same way, the GUI/business process component designers will know that there is a Payments component that, given the correct parameters, will go and apply a payment to the specified card. I don't need them to worry about the fact that the Payments component needs to make three calls to the bank in order to complete its transaction, just that the transaction will be completed within a specified time, otherwise it times out.
What CPUs don't allow you to do is go in and tweek random logic gates on the chip. If you could, then the behaviour of any call would no longer be guaranteed, and this is a closer analogy to the way that many non-black box systems are built today.
As the developer of that component, you will know exactly what the internals do, but then you treat the rest of the world as a black box, to be talked to through clearly defined interfaces.
It is the lack of a black box approach that often leads to unexpected side-effects.
"Low flat fee
Unlimited surfing so you don't have to worry about high call charges"
Not entirely true. There are two common form of Chinese ideographs. Traditional script is used in places like Taiwan and Hong Kong, but in the mid-50's, the People's Republic (PRC) adopted a simplified form of writing, both reducing the number of characters and the number of strokes in many of the symbols. The two sets of characters are vaguely similar in structure, but different enough to make it impossible to read the other if you've only learned one.
I see your keyboard has recognition problems too :-)
Seriously, though, I use Transcriber all the time and I rarely get a problem with it. It's far quicker than the letter recogniser, and on the odd occasion where it refuses to read the letter that I put in, I tend to use the onscreen keyboard. Have you been through and 'trained' Transcriber (selected the relevant character styles)? That makes a big difference.
My wife is a primary school teacher, so is very precise with her character forming, and has so far got near enough 100% accuracy whenever she's played with mine (ooh err).
While this is to some extent true (C++ does subtly change one or two bits of C behaviour), it doesn't mean that a C++ programmer can automatically be a C programmer. There are many techniques that you usually have to use in a C program that are often not used in C++, so the programmer may not be aware of them, or at least how to use them properly (for instance a polymorphic class will often be used in C++ where a function pointer might need to be used in C; a lot of memory management stuff that can be done using STL in C++ isn't there in C etc), which means that just translating your C++ knowledge to C will not make you a real C programmer.
All C++ programmers should be able to read and understand C, but not all will be able to write it effectively.
I've programmed in C, C++ and Java in my time (amongst many others), although I've not touched C professionally for about 10 years. The syntax is close enough to the other two (which I have used much more recently) that I could still code in it if I had to (something I can't say for many of the other languages that I've used), but I would no longer call myself a professional C programmer, as I have forgotten many of the nuances of using plain C effectively.
I thought the delay to non-XBox versions was due to Microsoft giving large amounts of money to them so that it would be an exclusive on XBox for a good period of time.
However carefully you plan, circumstances can change (being unable to find suitably paid work for an extended period; serious illness or injury;the bank that your savings are in collapses - all of these things have happened to people that I know).
I agree that "financial freedom" would make my life better - it would allow me to afford more of the things that I like, and spend less time doing the things that I don't, but I'm not going to put all of the pleasure in my life on hold for an indeterminate length of time on the vague hope that I'll eventually reach some financial nirvana.
I'm not advocating being frivolous, and living entirely for the moment, but you need to make sure you've got a sensible balance between long term plans and short term enjoyment.
Especially as the computer game was invented way before pong (Space War was created in 1962).
A century ago? The steam engine was invented in 1763 (or 1698, if you want to be a bit flexible on the word 'engine'), and the cotton gin was patented in 1794.
This would not make a difference, as the browser sees and parses the URL before it gets anywhere near the net. IE could parse these extensions and do what it wants with them. There are currently things stopping this from happening (such as anti-trust issues), but proxies aren't one of them.
Of course, the fact that most predictive diallers hang up when they detect an answerphone anyway means that this is probably unnecccessary.
Well our place had a 4 lane scalextric track in the atrium today, and my boss was chasing a director round with his remote control car a couple of days ago. If you would get fired for this kind of behaviour at your place, I suggest it's time to quit.
It may not have been declared a war by the US Government, but it was certainly a war as far as the Vietnamese were concerned, and the CIA consider it a war "His study shows that CIA analysts had a firm grasp of the situation in Vietnam and continually expressed doubts that heightened US military pressure alone could win the war."
there was no new expansion into South Vietnam
Huh? So who was streaming into Saigon (now Ho Chi Mihn City - named after the communist leader in the north - might give you a clue) as the US troops fled from their embassy? The entire country has been united under communuist rule since 1975. Or are you suggesting that there was no new expansion outside of Vietnam, such as in Cambodia, where the Vietnamese invaded in 1978 to fight the US-supported Khmer Rouge. (you might want to read "Heroes" by John Pilger for eye witness accounts of both events)
And are you seriously claiming that the US achieved their objectives in Vietnam? They must really teach you some strange things at school over there.
vector <Shape> coll;
declares a variable called "coll", that contains a vector which can only contain objects of type "Shape". It does not allow any object that has the same methods as "Shape" to be included, just ones that are actually derived from "Shape".
Unlike the Americans, huh? Did they win the Vietnam war then?
Or to put it another way, he (or she) has provided a link that anyone can easily follow to read other posts about this topic. Don't get so hung up on other people's karma.