He can argue his case honorably and with authority
Not in the Star Chamber into which he would be thrust. You assume that the people on the other side of the "debate" are honorable. That's an assumption that is, on its surface, laughable. I don't believe that lying to Congress is honorable. I don't believe that lying to the American people is honorable. I don't believe that unequal application of the law is honorable. Show me where the majority of the Executive Branch of the US Government has demonstrated honor, and I'll agree with you. From where I sit as a citizen, though, "honor" is conspicious by its absence.
If he really wanted to make a point, he should come back and argue his case in court. Plenty of lawyers would be happy to work for him due to the high-profile nature of the case..
And who guarantees he will get a fair trial, with a jury of his peers, before he returns? Who can give assurance that Snowden's attorneys can discover and submit all the evidence? If The System wants to be "fair" about this, then let them demonstrate their fairness by having a trial of those who violated the Constitution as exposed by the revelations to date. Will that happen?
Why hasn't US Attorney General Holder done anything yet about the violations? Because he's part of the problem, perhaps? (I'm a citizen, who thinks that with the current Administration there are legal "haves" and "have nots" in the USA today. Witness Fast and Furious as an example of the uneven application of justice.)
I've lived in a number of areas of the country. The common political element that rose above all the rest is the differences between the large cities and the rural areas. So, instead of a split by area, make each large city -- San Francisco/San Jose, Los Angeles/Hollywood -- its own state. (What to do about Sacremento? Is it a city or a condition as the State capitol?) Then City interests could be served by the City States, and the rest of the state with its agriculture base would be able to set policies and law for their own.
Other states/areas could be split the same way: Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington DC area, Michigin (peal Detroit from the rest of the State), New York/New Jersey/Connecticut...and the list goes on. We could combine small states into large states -- think Providence Rhode Island versus the rest of the State.
Everyone is missing the point. The space program was done one step at a time, finishing each step before moving on to the next. Yes, this is "waterfall" thinking, but in the space program it was the right way to do it. Properly done, the agile approach could also have been used in the moon program, as long as the result is that the final push is composed of fully-tested and vetted pieces. (Could it be that the agile approach was indeed used? People closer to the facts can answer that.)
The reason to have multiple contractors is to allow development of different parts to be done in parallel. The key to success with broad development is a really, really good architect specing the interfaces, and each people/group showing that their stuff works as specified at the interfaces. Then integration testing becomes a manageable exercise. This includes performance metrics -- at the interfaces. Was that done here? I highly doubt it.
And the Affordable Care Act missed a number of elements that would have made health care affordable. It's isn't about insurance, it's about the total experience. And Congress bungled it. At least, those people in Congress who were allowed to contribute did. What was wrong with stepwise refinement?
"Everyone knew what was in it, regardless of what Rush Limbaugh told you." Strange, what I recall during the run-up to the passing of this piece of art was the Democratic Speaker of the House saying "We need to pass it to find out what's in it." And we are finding out.
I'm a long-time Google Apps user, and my company's domain is on all mail receipents' mail, not "gmail.com". So how can you have implied consent when the sender doesn't know that the mail is being sent through Google?
OK, I have QA training in my background as well as programming skills, so apply appropriate amounts of salt: some of the most interesting blunders in design, and blunders in implementation, are exposed when a good technical writer tries to makes sense of what s/he sees, and fails. In the process of trying to teach others how it all works, all the warts, cracks, crocks, and kludges are exposed in all its glory. What doesn't make sense in a manual will most likely not make sense in the real world. Think of it as scaffolding for the mind. "According to the specification, when I do THIS then X is supposed to happen; instead Y happens." And so forth.
When I was in a large programming group in the 70s, I was the guy sitting at a Wang word processor, banging out design specs and cursing some of the square-heads that couldn't seem to design their way out of a paper bag. When my company decided they wanted to build their own replacement computer for one they had been buying for years, they turned to me to "reverse engineer" the computer -- including all the proprietary extensions and additions -- so the hardware group would have something to design to, and the SQA people to test the implementation against.
Actually, it's an old story in Engineering. When you try to explain something, you see holes that you were blind to for days, months, even years. It's an "Aha!" generator.
There is a benefit that no one has mentioned yet: HFT can cause the market for a stock to oscillate out of control very, very quickly, and that oscillation can disrupt the trading in the stock. The "circuit breakers" the NYSE put in to damp out-of-control oscillations are pretty much defeated by HFT. Further, HFT disassociates the value of the stock itself from the perceived value created by short-term movement in the market, and so affects the capitalization of a company trying to do business. HFT is also a way to quick ruin, if the algorithms used are not tuned carefully enough -- and particularly if two trading algorithms get into harmonic resonance: think Galloping Gertie, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940.
"I write excellent product specs" -- are these product specifications sufficiently detailed to have a consulting Software Quality Assurance person be able to test each feature of the product? Sufficiently detailed so the multiple people you hire can seamlessly do integration testing? What scaffolding do you provide for each of the developers? Do you have the same "source control" of your specifications as you do for the code generated from them? How do you handle "feature creep"?
"Bug tracking and source control" -- Do you have staff or contractors who confirm the bugs? And how do you handle regression testing during development and subsequent maintenance? How about code reviews? Who handles customer service queries?
"Empathy for developers" -- demanding bug-free code without the tools and processes to give the contract developers a fighting chance? How well do you anticipate corner cases in your products, so you can include them in your specification? What practices do you insist on to catch bugs early in the product development cycle?
"...hire someone full-time...know a lot of languages and be proficient in all of them...can't afford to pay someone $100k/year" -- Sounds like a version of the Universal Specification: "I want everything, now for, $1.98." As for pay, that one is easy: make him a partner, and he earns from the bottom line just like you do. You will probably have to take a bit of a pay cut to attract what is essentially a do-everything maintenance programmer, not exactly the career track that anyone with the type of experience you are looking for would choose. Have you looked at the pool of experienced programmers? There are quite a few who have been put out to pasture because they don't have the "zing" in their resume that most [In]Homan Resource people look for. Learning languages is a skill easily picked up. Learning how to un-muddle code written my others is an art, and people skilled in the art of decoding a mess are much harder to find, let alone identify.
Transition? One possibility is to find a contractor highly skilled in maintenance programms. If he works out, offer him a partnership.
As for the attitude that any piece of software can be completely bug-free: that's a holy grail. The ADA Programming Language was invented to try to provide an underpinning to achieving the holy grail -- when was the last time you heard about it seriously? Several research-based languages have been developed that purport to "prove" that they are correct...but watch what happens when an unanticipated corner case hits the code. Many of the advances in languages and compilers focus on finding easy and trivial problems quickly, so a programmer doesn't have to spend time finding and fixing them. (Scripting languages, particularly those that compile "on the fly" such as TCL and most shell scripts, point out the advantage of a proper compilable language; you lose some flexibility, but the overall programmer cost is far lower than tripping over mistakes one at a time, particularly if the programs run are measured in minutes and hours.)
Your business model will need to change. Count on it.
...that would take documentation of the plugboard wiring of the old 400 series "accounting machines" and produce source that would work exactly the same as the accounting machine, give 80-column card images for the data. It wouldn't emulate any cross-connects to other tab equipment (sorters, punches, interpreters) but it did a wonderful job of moving plug-board programming to the more modern computers (360, in particular). Anyone know where that software might be? As I recall, it was on a micro-spool of magnetic tape originally, purchased at user group meetings. Time to google...nothing so far...
One of the issues that always comes up when talking about H-1B is that employers say they can't satisfy their needs with the talent already available. So, how about adding the requirement that any H-1B applications require the company post a "Help Wanted" ad in a national database for three months before the application is approved. Let's see why companies don't like citizen talent. Let's see how citizens can fill those jobs.
If your school anticipated the problem, you can find the solution. First, see if your dorm has a segregated study area. At the school I went to, that study area was in the basement, down the hall from the laundry room -- the idea was that you should start some clothes washing, study, dry, study, fold, and be done. The room was soundproofed...but the lack of echo and noise unnerved some people, but I loved it. Also, there was a lounge in my dorm where -- most of the time -- you could find peace and quiet. Other people suggested the library as a place to study. The solutions don't have to cost money.
Regarding bridges/roads and tolls: One of the rationales for keeping tolls on roads and bridges is to collect money to maintain the roads/bridges once they are paid off. I've seen this reasoning used in three states, and in all cases the tolls were increased "because the cost of maintaining the roads keeps going up." In Cook County IL, the real reason the tolls were kept on is because sub-standard work had to be torn up and re-done -- multiple times. The reason the work was sub-standard is left as an exercise to the reader.
I've never lived in a state where the tolls were retired and the booths torn down.
Dig a little deeper, and you find out that the governments appreciate how tolls free up general revenue for other spending.
If you have ever been involved with regulated radio, the regulation " Carriers must approve of the use of each and every one of these boosters" makes perfect sense.
The introduction of a repeater into a cell system means that the engineering of the cell boundaries can be affected. Now, for boosters that are used in building that shield the RF, there is little engineering that needs to be done -- you are essentially extending the antenna outside the shield. (And you can get repeater antennas without boosters that do the same job, and I suspect they are *not* covered by this regulation.)
When you have an active repeater, that means the cell signals from the provider can be relayed as well as the signals from your cell phone. With microcell design, this can play hob with the clearances, so that a phone will see two cell site courtesy of your repeater.
I'm not an expert on cell systems, but I remember some of the arguments used to keep people from using cell phones from airplanes.
This reverse Polish language was not a "mainstream" language, but for astronomers, it was perfect for telescope automation. FORTH was also used in other robotic things. I was really surprised that FORTH wasn't included on anyone's list. In fact, how many of you have ever heard of FORTH, let alone did any programming in it?
I found that when I bought a bunch of 3-foot power cords, the power part of the cable tangle became much less of an issue. Using a long power strip (like the ones used in the sides of racks) also helps the snarl. For the rest, judicious use of velcro cable ties helps. Espeically when you have a chewing cat, like I do!
What a concept. Distance hair-trimming. How does that work again? You have to remove your scalp, FedEx it to the out-of-state barber, and then fit it back on the return leg?
My brother is a process chemical engineer. Numerous times I've heard him say "if you want to increase capacity of a process, you take the unit you have, duplicate it, and pipe it in parallel." In the early days, I remember servers with four NICs running in parallel to increase bandwidth, while each server was glowing slightly red from the load. If one needs the capacity, it's available today. In one enterprise network, I saw servers with multiple NICs, each NIC connected to a separate EtherSwitch. In other words, there were four separate networks. Routers would bring leaf systems (PCs) into the quad-net backbone. I never learned how server-to-server traffic was handled, but I was told that all four backbone sections were used. So you don't NEED terabit Ethernet NOW, there are other solutions that aren't quite as elegant, but work.
Way back when, while attending the University of Illinois (major: Computing Engineering), I wanted to take a junior-level CS course as a freshman. (CS306, to be exact, taught by Gillies.) In order to take the course, I had to satisfy the prerequisites. So I took the exams for the FORTRAN and ASSEMBLER courses. My advisor encouraged me to blow through the two lower courses: "I don't want you getting bored." Both exams were a piece of cake because I had been programming in both languages, plus PL/I, for two years in high school. (Funny story: for the ASSEMBLER course, the final exam was prepared by the professor, and the teaching assistants took the test with the students, to help set the curve. I missed one question, the TAs missed the same question plus one additional question, so I ended up setting the curve. The other members of the class were not amused.)
I was accepted into the CS306 class, and ended up teaching the first two weeks, because I was the only person in the classroom -- the teaching assistants included -- who knew PL/I cold, and PL/I was the languages used for the machine simulator. I also helped debug the simulator. I also was a "group of one" (the standard was to have three-people teams for the term project) because the professor thought that anyone who was on my team would not benefit. So I ran solo. And freely consulted to the other teams, with the professor's blessing and strict limitations on the kind of help I could provide.
(Calculus proved to be my downfall. Long story. Even the Dean of Engineering became involved, but the damage had been done. After working for a corporation for two years, I used the corporate tuition reimbursement program and went to junior college -- and aced all four calculus courses, all the way through Differential Equations. I just needed the right preparation.)
I'm sorry, I have a real problem with the underlying assumptions your answer makes about the process. There should not be a high wall between groups. Developers should not install it, but that doesn't mean the developers are not there when QA or Configuration Managment or whoever installs it. As a long-time developer, I learned more from the struggling of other people with my software than all the scaffolding and test-bedding done in isolation. Back when I was doing embedded programming, I made it a point to spend time in System Test to see how my software was being used...and misused. Next to me were the Documentation people, watching out for mistakes or head-scratching -- between us, we would see the holes that needed to be plugged so that the downstream processes would go more smoothly. And I would go out into the field, to customer sites, from time to time, particularly if a customer was reporting problems. This was particularly true of first launches, because sometimes the devils aren't seen until the customer hits them.
This was true for newspaper composition systems, newpaper press controls, bank check processing systems, key-entry systems, even a technical support group application.
I relate this story about the fallacy of compartmentalization: the General Manager gathers all the employees one Friday. Everyone had just been paid, the weeklies and the monthies. GM: "I'm not happy with the 'us versus them' attitude that seems to permeate this company. It's affecting our ability to get product customers want into their hands, so we all can get paid. So, tell you what: everyone pull out their paychecks, and fold them so the signature at the bottom is visable. See? All are signed by the same person. That should tell you something: that we should be working for the same goals, so we all continue to get paid." The change in that company was dramatic: instead of silos, it was more like an open-plan office writ large, with people talking with one another. One side benefit: sales stopped selling what we didn't have, and PARTICIPATED in the creation of new products. That company went from one step from closing it doors to being a booming business. My stock went from $1 to $65 a share. In six months. And the company was in the mid-West, not Silicon Valley
The softball team started doing a lot better, too.
I've tried to read through the comments, but got a little lost here and there. So I thought I'd share a way I did the job on a fairly large corpus of data to identify all the duplicates.
Build a file from the corpus with three fields: size (with leading zeros), hash of the first bytes (I used 32 kilobytes of CRC-16, using a really fast implementation taking from a comm program), and the file name
Sort the resulting file
Filter out the entries have unique size/CRC pairs; declare as duplicate any sets of file Based on the first filtered file, build a second file with three fields: size (with leading zeros), hash of the entire file (I used MD5) and the file name
Sort the resulting file
Filter out the entries having unique size/MD5 pairs; declare as duplicate any sets of file Compare the remaining sets of potentially duplicate files byte by byte.
Got really large files in your corpus? Then consider an intermediate step where you hash a larger and different portion of the file. For something different, you could hash the last bytes of the file so you don't end up duplicating work. Say a megabyte. In my case, I didn't need the extra pass because of the data involved.
My corpus was on magnetic tape, so I couldn't just compare files byte by byte, because I would have had to load them somewhere first to do the compare. So I had to identify the potential duplicates *first*.
Novell still could make some kinof comeback this way and sell the product for $10 I know millions of peopluld buy it instead of $125 Office student.
Are you sure? I've switched from Microsoft Word to LibreOffice (nee OpenOffice) and stopped looking back. And before you say "Linux nerd" I run the package on three platforms: Linux, Macintosh, and Windows. LibreOffice satisfies my needs to do techical documentation for a Fortune 5000 company, and does so without breaking the bank.
And, lest you forget, WordPerfect's "niche" was in law offices. Before GUIs. When you needed sensible keyboard shortcuts to keep your productivity up. Those days are long gone. Everyone has pretty much the same shortcuts, so there is no advantage of one word processor over another on that score.
Novell would need to something really, really interesting and useful to break through the reduced competition.
Slashdot Mirror
He can argue his case honorably and with authority
Not in the Star Chamber into which he would be thrust. You assume that the people on the other side of the "debate" are honorable. That's an assumption that is, on its surface, laughable. I don't believe that lying to Congress is honorable. I don't believe that lying to the American people is honorable. I don't believe that unequal application of the law is honorable. Show me where the majority of the Executive Branch of the US Government has demonstrated honor, and I'll agree with you. From where I sit as a citizen, though, "honor" is conspicious by its absence.
If he really wanted to make a point, he should come back and argue his case in court. Plenty of lawyers would be happy to work for him due to the high-profile nature of the case..
And who guarantees he will get a fair trial, with a jury of his peers, before he returns? Who can give assurance that Snowden's attorneys can discover and submit all the evidence? If The System wants to be "fair" about this, then let them demonstrate their fairness by having a trial of those who violated the Constitution as exposed by the revelations to date. Will that happen?
Why hasn't US Attorney General Holder done anything yet about the violations? Because he's part of the problem, perhaps? (I'm a citizen, who thinks that with the current Administration there are legal "haves" and "have nots" in the USA today. Witness Fast and Furious as an example of the uneven application of justice.)
I've lived in a number of areas of the country. The common political element that rose above all the rest is the differences between the large cities and the rural areas. So, instead of a split by area, make each large city -- San Francisco/San Jose, Los Angeles/Hollywood -- its own state. (What to do about Sacremento? Is it a city or a condition as the State capitol?) Then City interests could be served by the City States, and the rest of the state with its agriculture base would be able to set policies and law for their own.
Other states/areas could be split the same way: Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington DC area, Michigin (peal Detroit from the rest of the State), New York/New Jersey/Connecticut...and the list goes on. We could combine small states into large states -- think Providence Rhode Island versus the rest of the State.
I'm not sure the Democrats would go for this.
The reason to have multiple contractors is to allow development of different parts to be done in parallel. The key to success with broad development is a really, really good architect specing the interfaces, and each people/group showing that their stuff works as specified at the interfaces. Then integration testing becomes a manageable exercise. This includes performance metrics -- at the interfaces. Was that done here? I highly doubt it.
And the Affordable Care Act missed a number of elements that would have made health care affordable. It's isn't about insurance, it's about the total experience. And Congress bungled it. At least, those people in Congress who were allowed to contribute did. What was wrong with stepwise refinement?
"Everyone knew what was in it, regardless of what Rush Limbaugh told you." Strange, what I recall during the run-up to the passing of this piece of art was the Democratic Speaker of the House saying "We need to pass it to find out what's in it." And we are finding out.
I'm a long-time Google Apps user, and my company's domain is on all mail receipents' mail, not "gmail.com". So how can you have implied consent when the sender doesn't know that the mail is being sent through Google?
Are Obamaphones already unlocked? If so, what is "the government" paying for the phones? The associated service?
OK, I have QA training in my background as well as programming skills, so apply appropriate amounts of salt: some of the most interesting blunders in design, and blunders in implementation, are exposed when a good technical writer tries to makes sense of what s/he sees, and fails. In the process of trying to teach others how it all works, all the warts, cracks, crocks, and kludges are exposed in all its glory. What doesn't make sense in a manual will most likely not make sense in the real world. Think of it as scaffolding for the mind. "According to the specification, when I do THIS then X is supposed to happen; instead Y happens." And so forth.
When I was in a large programming group in the 70s, I was the guy sitting at a Wang word processor, banging out design specs and cursing some of the square-heads that couldn't seem to design their way out of a paper bag. When my company decided they wanted to build their own replacement computer for one they had been buying for years, they turned to me to "reverse engineer" the computer -- including all the proprietary extensions and additions -- so the hardware group would have something to design to, and the SQA people to test the implementation against.
Actually, it's an old story in Engineering. When you try to explain something, you see holes that you were blind to for days, months, even years. It's an "Aha!" generator.
There is a benefit that no one has mentioned yet: HFT can cause the market for a stock to oscillate out of control very, very quickly, and that oscillation can disrupt the trading in the stock. The "circuit breakers" the NYSE put in to damp out-of-control oscillations are pretty much defeated by HFT. Further, HFT disassociates the value of the stock itself from the perceived value created by short-term movement in the market, and so affects the capitalization of a company trying to do business. HFT is also a way to quick ruin, if the algorithms used are not tuned carefully enough -- and particularly if two trading algorithms get into harmonic resonance: think Galloping Gertie, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940.
"I write excellent product specs" -- are these product specifications sufficiently detailed to have a consulting Software Quality Assurance person be able to test each feature of the product? Sufficiently detailed so the multiple people you hire can seamlessly do integration testing? What scaffolding do you provide for each of the developers? Do you have the same "source control" of your specifications as you do for the code generated from them? How do you handle "feature creep"?
"Bug tracking and source control" -- Do you have staff or contractors who confirm the bugs? And how do you handle regression testing during development and subsequent maintenance? How about code reviews? Who handles customer service queries?
"Empathy for developers" -- demanding bug-free code without the tools and processes to give the contract developers a fighting chance? How well do you anticipate corner cases in your products, so you can include them in your specification? What practices do you insist on to catch bugs early in the product development cycle?
"...hire someone full-time...know a lot of languages and be proficient in all of them...can't afford to pay someone $100k/year" -- Sounds like a version of the Universal Specification: "I want everything, now for, $1.98." As for pay, that one is easy: make him a partner, and he earns from the bottom line just like you do. You will probably have to take a bit of a pay cut to attract what is essentially a do-everything maintenance programmer, not exactly the career track that anyone with the type of experience you are looking for would choose. Have you looked at the pool of experienced programmers? There are quite a few who have been put out to pasture because they don't have the "zing" in their resume that most [In]Homan Resource people look for. Learning languages is a skill easily picked up. Learning how to un-muddle code written my others is an art, and people skilled in the art of decoding a mess are much harder to find, let alone identify.
Transition? One possibility is to find a contractor highly skilled in maintenance programms. If he works out, offer him a partnership.
As for the attitude that any piece of software can be completely bug-free: that's a holy grail. The ADA Programming Language was invented to try to provide an underpinning to achieving the holy grail -- when was the last time you heard about it seriously? Several research-based languages have been developed that purport to "prove" that they are correct...but watch what happens when an unanticipated corner case hits the code. Many of the advances in languages and compilers focus on finding easy and trivial problems quickly, so a programmer doesn't have to spend time finding and fixing them. (Scripting languages, particularly those that compile "on the fly" such as TCL and most shell scripts, point out the advantage of a proper compilable language; you lose some flexibility, but the overall programmer cost is far lower than tripping over mistakes one at a time, particularly if the programs run are measured in minutes and hours.)
Your business model will need to change. Count on it.
...that would take documentation of the plugboard wiring of the old 400 series "accounting machines" and produce source that would work exactly the same as the accounting machine, give 80-column card images for the data. It wouldn't emulate any cross-connects to other tab equipment (sorters, punches, interpreters) but it did a wonderful job of moving plug-board programming to the more modern computers (360, in particular). Anyone know where that software might be? As I recall, it was on a micro-spool of magnetic tape originally, purchased at user group meetings. Time to google...nothing so far...
One of the issues that always comes up when talking about H-1B is that employers say they can't satisfy their needs with the talent already available. So, how about adding the requirement that any H-1B applications require the company post a "Help Wanted" ad in a national database for three months before the application is approved. Let's see why companies don't like citizen talent. Let's see how citizens can fill those jobs.
If your school anticipated the problem, you can find the solution. First, see if your dorm has a segregated study area. At the school I went to, that study area was in the basement, down the hall from the laundry room -- the idea was that you should start some clothes washing, study, dry, study, fold, and be done. The room was soundproofed...but the lack of echo and noise unnerved some people, but I loved it. Also, there was a lounge in my dorm where -- most of the time -- you could find peace and quiet. Other people suggested the library as a place to study. The solutions don't have to cost money.
Regarding bridges/roads and tolls: One of the rationales for keeping tolls on roads and bridges is to collect money to maintain the roads/bridges once they are paid off. I've seen this reasoning used in three states, and in all cases the tolls were increased "because the cost of maintaining the roads keeps going up." In Cook County IL, the real reason the tolls were kept on is because sub-standard work had to be torn up and re-done -- multiple times. The reason the work was sub-standard is left as an exercise to the reader.
I've never lived in a state where the tolls were retired and the booths torn down.
Dig a little deeper, and you find out that the governments appreciate how tolls free up general revenue for other spending.
The introduction of a repeater into a cell system means that the engineering of the cell boundaries can be affected. Now, for boosters that are used in building that shield the RF, there is little engineering that needs to be done -- you are essentially extending the antenna outside the shield. (And you can get repeater antennas without boosters that do the same job, and I suspect they are *not* covered by this regulation.)
When you have an active repeater, that means the cell signals from the provider can be relayed as well as the signals from your cell phone. With microcell design, this can play hob with the clearances, so that a phone will see two cell site courtesy of your repeater.
I'm not an expert on cell systems, but I remember some of the arguments used to keep people from using cell phones from airplanes.
This reverse Polish language was not a "mainstream" language, but for astronomers, it was perfect for telescope automation. FORTH was also used in other robotic things. I was really surprised that FORTH wasn't included on anyone's list. In fact, how many of you have ever heard of FORTH, let alone did any programming in it?
They've gone into plaid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7VWcuVOf0
I found that when I bought a bunch of 3-foot power cords, the power part of the cable tangle became much less of an issue. Using a long power strip (like the ones used in the sides of racks) also helps the snarl. For the rest, judicious use of velcro cable ties helps. Espeically when you have a chewing cat, like I do!
You forgot the burned-out light bulb
What a concept. Distance hair-trimming. How does that work again? You have to remove your scalp, FedEx it to the out-of-state barber, and then fit it back on the return leg?
My brother is a process chemical engineer. Numerous times I've heard him say "if you want to increase capacity of a process, you take the unit you have, duplicate it, and pipe it in parallel." In the early days, I remember servers with four NICs running in parallel to increase bandwidth, while each server was glowing slightly red from the load. If one needs the capacity, it's available today. In one enterprise network, I saw servers with multiple NICs, each NIC connected to a separate EtherSwitch. In other words, there were four separate networks. Routers would bring leaf systems (PCs) into the quad-net backbone. I never learned how server-to-server traffic was handled, but I was told that all four backbone sections were used. So you don't NEED terabit Ethernet NOW, there are other solutions that aren't quite as elegant, but work.
Way back when, while attending the University of Illinois (major: Computing Engineering), I wanted to take a junior-level CS course as a freshman. (CS306, to be exact, taught by Gillies.) In order to take the course, I had to satisfy the prerequisites. So I took the exams for the FORTRAN and ASSEMBLER courses. My advisor encouraged me to blow through the two lower courses: "I don't want you getting bored." Both exams were a piece of cake because I had been programming in both languages, plus PL/I, for two years in high school. (Funny story: for the ASSEMBLER course, the final exam was prepared by the professor, and the teaching assistants took the test with the students, to help set the curve. I missed one question, the TAs missed the same question plus one additional question, so I ended up setting the curve. The other members of the class were not amused.)
I was accepted into the CS306 class, and ended up teaching the first two weeks, because I was the only person in the classroom -- the teaching assistants included -- who knew PL/I cold, and PL/I was the languages used for the machine simulator. I also helped debug the simulator. I also was a "group of one" (the standard was to have three-people teams for the term project) because the professor thought that anyone who was on my team would not benefit. So I ran solo. And freely consulted to the other teams, with the professor's blessing and strict limitations on the kind of help I could provide.
(Calculus proved to be my downfall. Long story. Even the Dean of Engineering became involved, but the damage had been done. After working for a corporation for two years, I used the corporate tuition reimbursement program and went to junior college -- and aced all four calculus courses, all the way through Differential Equations. I just needed the right preparation.)
I'm sorry, I have a real problem with the underlying assumptions your answer makes about the process. There should not be a high wall between groups. Developers should not install it, but that doesn't mean the developers are not there when QA or Configuration Managment or whoever installs it. As a long-time developer, I learned more from the struggling of other people with my software than all the scaffolding and test-bedding done in isolation. Back when I was doing embedded programming, I made it a point to spend time in System Test to see how my software was being used...and misused. Next to me were the Documentation people, watching out for mistakes or head-scratching -- between us, we would see the holes that needed to be plugged so that the downstream processes would go more smoothly. And I would go out into the field, to customer sites, from time to time, particularly if a customer was reporting problems. This was particularly true of first launches, because sometimes the devils aren't seen until the customer hits them.
This was true for newspaper composition systems, newpaper press controls, bank check processing systems, key-entry systems, even a technical support group application.
I relate this story about the fallacy of compartmentalization: the General Manager gathers all the employees one Friday. Everyone had just been paid, the weeklies and the monthies. GM: "I'm not happy with the 'us versus them' attitude that seems to permeate this company. It's affecting our ability to get product customers want into their hands, so we all can get paid. So, tell you what: everyone pull out their paychecks, and fold them so the signature at the bottom is visable. See? All are signed by the same person. That should tell you something: that we should be working for the same goals, so we all continue to get paid." The change in that company was dramatic: instead of silos, it was more like an open-plan office writ large, with people talking with one another. One side benefit: sales stopped selling what we didn't have, and PARTICIPATED in the creation of new products. That company went from one step from closing it doors to being a booming business. My stock went from $1 to $65 a share. In six months. And the company was in the mid-West, not Silicon Valley
The softball team started doing a lot better, too.
Got really large files in your corpus? Then consider an intermediate step where you hash a larger and different portion of the file. For something different, you could hash the last bytes of the file so you don't end up duplicating work. Say a megabyte. In my case, I didn't need the extra pass because of the data involved. My corpus was on magnetic tape, so I couldn't just compare files byte by byte, because I would have had to load them somewhere first to do the compare. So I had to identify the potential duplicates *first*.
Are you sure? I've switched from Microsoft Word to LibreOffice (nee OpenOffice) and stopped looking back. And before you say "Linux nerd" I run the package on three platforms: Linux, Macintosh, and Windows. LibreOffice satisfies my needs to do techical documentation for a Fortune 5000 company, and does so without breaking the bank.
And, lest you forget, WordPerfect's "niche" was in law offices. Before GUIs. When you needed sensible keyboard shortcuts to keep your productivity up. Those days are long gone. Everyone has pretty much the same shortcuts, so there is no advantage of one word processor over another on that score.
Novell would need to something really, really interesting and useful to break through the reduced competition.