Define 'small team' - 5 people? 200? What's a 'small team' at Google?
The fact that Google makes such a big deal about only hiring the best and brightest and PhDs and such also indicates this isn't 'easy'. If it took a team of people who are regarded to be the best and brightest in their industry, with numerous PhDs on the team (or at least at their disposal on campus) *18 months* to do something (even part time) that still means that this is going to be a bigger issue for most companies.
Consider that the bulk of Google's apps that would need to be 'converted' have been written in the past 3-4 years (docs, maps, earth, etc.), and likely were written by people who put modularity and efficiency much higher than the average developer does (or is allowed to, in many cases) and you'll conclude that average developers who've inherited undocumented legacy code from previous average developers will have a much harder time than expected.
The core problem (as someone else pointed out) is consumer-level adoption - ISPs, routers, etc. It's somewhat chicken and egg, and perhaps having Google announce 100% support for it, this will give other players in the field the encouragement to put more effort in to transitioning over.
Lastly, why didn't Google (of all companies) bake IPv6 in to these main apps when they were first written?
I just haven't been able to justify the cost of moving to series 3 yet, and the netflix deal (and some other functionality) was only available for series 3 boxes. For something as basic as streaming or downloading a movie, series 2 should be fine (it was for amazon unbox, who, IIRC, cancelled unbox???).
So, use a compiled language and do web stuff..Net and Java are two platforms that encourage compiled languages (groovy/ironpython/etc notwithstanding) and they're not going away any time soon.
Between Flash, client-side tech like google gears, html5 canvas and other progressive tech, 'web' development can be as advanced or as basic as you want it to be.
The OP was also concerned about 'commercial' development experience. It's going to be easier to get that, and get it fast, in the web dev arena (in most areas, anyway).
There will always be a niche for low-level stuff - hardware drivers, embedded systems, etc. - but that's clearly not where the future of professional/commercial software development lies. Telling the OP what you think they want to hear rather might not serve them well in the long run.
As someone with a lot of PHP experience who is moving in to more Java (via Groovy) I tend to agree. Getting stuck with any 'label' is as much your own doing as that of the people doing the labelling, in whatever profession (just imo). I've done enough C# to see the appeal, and would agree that going down a.net path would be a good choice for many people, for many of the reasons you identified.
I don't disagree - principles and concepts are important. Being able to implement them in at least two languages demonstrates (imo) a solid understanding of the ideas themselves. I just think that it's easier to get exposed to many of those ideas that have 'commercial' application, and in a more rapid timeframe, in the web dev arena, which is why I'd suggested it. If the OP had stated he wanted to go in to chip design, or compiler design, or something more specific, I probably wouldn't have mentioned web tech:)
While it's good you've got solid grounding in C/C++/Java, there's quite a lot going on in the software world centered on the web. Taking your logic skills and applying them to the web arena may net you the "commercial ready" skillset you're thinking of much faster than just trying to hack away at Linux kernel code.
Most of these will make traditional CS people cringe a bit, but there's plenty to learn from and contribute to in the worlds of PHP, Perl, Python (Pylons, Django, etc), JavaScript, Ruby (Rails), Groovy (Grails), Flex/ActionScript, Silverlight, ASP.Net (new MVC framework out).
The tried and true recommendations of "pick an open source project and dive in" probably apply here as much as anywhere. The development cycles tend to be faster and more iterative using these technologies (broadly speaking) and you'll find plenty of people to learn from and, with your background, plenty of solid grounding in fundamentals to contribute.
As someone else already said, no one is going to expect a recent grad to be writing banking software (threaded or not). Few people actually *write* core banking software anyway. You'd more likely be writing web frontends for bank admin and report generation processes.
Remember that you can generally change direction later on as well. Just because you've studied Java for a few years doesn't mean your future is set in stone as a Java dev. Look at C# - there might be plenty there you'd like too.
I'm a bit biased, but JavaScript might be something worth teaching in addition to Python. It's in everyone's browser already, so no need to download anything. Can more or less work well on server-side or client-side (I'm not a SSJS guru, so I don't know if there's any major gotchas). It has a moderately simple syntax, and whitespace isn't as important as in Python.
If it's too blatant ("meltdown") trading will just be halted. Better to be small about it. Buy stock X. Start doing a few hundred buys against a small stock from various PCs, run up the price, sell stock X, keep profit. Not much different than the email scams that try to pump up penny stocks, except in this case rather than just trying to get someone to buy it, you'd just buy it from their account for them.
I've often wondered when viruses would start getting smarter. A virus that simply changed some of your appointments in Outlook's calendar (or emailed recipients stating that a meeting had been cancelled or changed) would cause HUGE amounts of damage. A virus that would just open Excel, change a few numbers, the resave it silently, would, again, do HUGE amounts of damage. It would be very hard to trace this at first, and may have long lasting results. But virus writers seem to want to be so "in your face" about the fact that you're infected (using up all your CPU/network, for example) that people immediately know they have a virus and take steps to remove it.
This little bugger sounds pretty smart, removing other viruses in an attempt to keep the host unaware of any compromise. Good thinking.
"Nowhere do they explain what extra value they're adding that will make people pay."
If they stop doing it, won't there be some value lost? Doesn't that mean that there's *some* value in what they're doing? If so, they're simply trying to extract that value from a different party in the consumption process, no?
Very little of MS is replaceable. There are alternatives that offer *some* degree of similar functionality, but I can't think of one thing that's a drop-in replacement for MS functionality that would cut the mustard at most companies. UNLESS your company doesn't use Exchange or Outlook functionality and doesn't ever use any macros in MSOffice, you're going to be tied to mainstream MS software.
The lost productivity costs in migrating files, reformatting, relearning, working around bugs and new features, etc. will *far* outweigh whatever short term benefits there might be in software licensing costs.
Long term there may be more benefit (likely *is* more benefit) but most businesses don't/can't think long term. And even those that can may still choose MS software anyway because it gets the job done nicely.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
"I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the LORD, do all these things."
"I am the giver of light and the maker of the dark; causing blessing, and sending troubles; I am the Lord, who does all these things."
Multiple translations, but all pretty much saying the same thing. God is taking credit for creating evil.
Good book - useful info for all experience levels
on
Managing Online Forums
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I had the pleasure of interviewing Patrick for his book when it first came out last year.
http://www.webdevradio.com/index.php?id=69
I was a bit surprised at how useful the book could be. I ran a forum years ago and had to learn how to deal with a lot of issues (involving unruly users, banning people, finding moderators, etc.) I'd say I had about 60-70% of the knowledge and info contained in Patrick's book, and that was after years of having to deal with forums "back in the day" (1997-2002).
It's not a *tech* book - there's not info in here about server admin stuff, or code samples, or anything like that. It's more about the social and behavioral aspects of communities.
If you're considering starting a community on your site, you owe it to yourself to read this book. As someone else said, I'm surprised there's not more books on this topic.
I never *got* American soaps. They're far too escapist for me - basically just watching the rich and powerful play around and get in to trouble. Corrie and EastEnders (UK soaps) sure have their share of that a bit, but they're basically showing "working class" people most of the time. And the people tend to look more "average". Not everyone in UK soaps is a model - many look like 'regular' folk. I do say they all have perfect teeth tho.:/ All American soaps I've taken a look at (admittedly few in recent years) seemed to be all fabulously good looking supermodels.
UK soaps tend to be on in the evening, when the whole family can watch. American soaps are all on the daytime when only the person doing the housework (usually a woman/wife) would be watching.
I've never seen the US get all excited about a soap as a country, but they've done it a lot in the UK ("free the weatherfield 1!", etc.)
While I tend to agree, it's also more likely to happen when people commissioning the software accurately define what "correct" means (in your "correct product" definition above).
* Ubuntu 8.10 with EXT3 filesystem boots in 31.8 seconds (on the AMD Sempron system); * Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT3 filesystem boots in 28.3 seconds (on the AMD Sempron system); * Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT4 filesystem boots in 23.1 seconds (on the AMD Sempron system).
* Ubuntu 8.10 with EXT3 filesystem boots in 26.8 seconds (on the Intel Core 2 Duo system); * Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT3 filesystem boots in 24.5 seconds (on the Intel Core 2 Duo system); * Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT4 filesystem boots in 21.4 seconds (on the Intel Core 2 Duo system)!
at least with default installation procedures. each 'profile' directory, where stuff like that is held, is randomly named. you'd need to script something to read the profile.ini file and update each profile accordingly. Moving stuff to specifically named directories is impossible to do with (at least default installs of) mozilla stuff.
Read the 'alternate versions' area. It explains the 'pakistani' version in more detail. It was a protest song - a dig at current political views on immmigration, and I highly doubt reflected personal views of any Beatle individually.
And that version was never released, simply something bandied about in rehearsals a bit.
I can have a much more personal and ongoing relationship with recorded music than I can a concert experience, however 'religious' or 'moving' that performance may be. And usually, people are performing pieces from an album that many people have already listened to and built a relationship with outside of the concert, and they're bringing that mindset in with them to the performance.
Yet it was the bastardized US Rubber Soul that Wilson credits with blowing his mind as to how all the tracks 'themed' together, and that spurred him on to Pet Sounds.
Replying to my own post, another part of the attraction to the Beatles' music is that they were 4 people (said above) *and* 3 of them sang regularly. You didn't care for Paul's voice or songs? Fine - listen to George or John tunes. Hate George? Play the Ringo songs and Paul songs. And so on.
Don't like Britney Spears? You don't listen to anything of hers then. Didn't care for Elvis' voice? Then you didn't buy any Elvis.
There was always something on a Beatles album that someone liked, even if they didn't care for all of it. And the competition for song space on albums kept the quality pretty high. No solo Beatles album has more than 2-4 *good* songs on it. Wow - that's pretty much the number of good songs each Beatle had on each Beatles album when they were together. So having 4 good or great songs from 3 talented songwriters (and 4 good performers) was a *very* winning combination.
We *rarely* see that in almost any band since. Everyone adopts the Rolling Stones model of "front man singer and backing band members". There might be exceptions to that, but they are exceptions, and most likely not notable.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, on a hung system where a poweroff like that might happen, your Firefox config file could be lost.
But, on a William Hung system, you might lose your 'shebangs'. That might be data loss we could all live with.
Define 'small team' - 5 people? 200? What's a 'small team' at Google?
The fact that Google makes such a big deal about only hiring the best and brightest and PhDs and such also indicates this isn't 'easy'. If it took a team of people who are regarded to be the best and brightest in their industry, with numerous PhDs on the team (or at least at their disposal on campus) *18 months* to do something (even part time) that still means that this is going to be a bigger issue for most companies.
Consider that the bulk of Google's apps that would need to be 'converted' have been written in the past 3-4 years (docs, maps, earth, etc.), and likely were written by people who put modularity and efficiency much higher than the average developer does (or is allowed to, in many cases) and you'll conclude that average developers who've inherited undocumented legacy code from previous average developers will have a much harder time than expected.
The core problem (as someone else pointed out) is consumer-level adoption - ISPs, routers, etc. It's somewhat chicken and egg, and perhaps having Google announce 100% support for it, this will give other players in the field the encouragement to put more effort in to transitioning over.
Lastly, why didn't Google (of all companies) bake IPv6 in to these main apps when they were first written?
I just haven't been able to justify the cost of moving to series 3 yet, and the netflix deal (and some other functionality) was only available for series 3 boxes. For something as basic as streaming or downloading a movie, series 2 should be fine (it was for amazon unbox, who, IIRC, cancelled unbox???).
Looking forward to learning more about this.
How do you "put it back"? I set up a custom theme in Gnome, then I 'try out' a new theme. It's just 'done'. I can't "go back" to my previous one.
So, use a compiled language and do web stuff. .Net and Java are two platforms that encourage compiled languages (groovy/ironpython/etc notwithstanding) and they're not going away any time soon.
Between Flash, client-side tech like google gears, html5 canvas and other progressive tech, 'web' development can be as advanced or as basic as you want it to be.
The OP was also concerned about 'commercial' development experience. It's going to be easier to get that, and get it fast, in the web dev arena (in most areas, anyway).
There will always be a niche for low-level stuff - hardware drivers, embedded systems, etc. - but that's clearly not where the future of professional/commercial software development lies. Telling the OP what you think they want to hear rather might not serve them well in the long run.
As someone with a lot of PHP experience who is moving in to more Java (via Groovy) I tend to agree. Getting stuck with any 'label' is as much your own doing as that of the people doing the labelling, in whatever profession (just imo). I've done enough C# to see the appeal, and would agree that going down a .net path would be a good choice for many people, for many of the reasons you identified.
I don't disagree - principles and concepts are important. Being able to implement them in at least two languages demonstrates (imo) a solid understanding of the ideas themselves. I just think that it's easier to get exposed to many of those ideas that have 'commercial' application, and in a more rapid timeframe, in the web dev arena, which is why I'd suggested it. If the OP had stated he wanted to go in to chip design, or compiler design, or something more specific, I probably wouldn't have mentioned web tech :)
While it's good you've got solid grounding in C/C++/Java, there's quite a lot going on in the software world centered on the web. Taking your logic skills and applying them to the web arena may net you the "commercial ready" skillset you're thinking of much faster than just trying to hack away at Linux kernel code.
Most of these will make traditional CS people cringe a bit, but there's plenty to learn from and contribute to in the worlds of PHP, Perl, Python (Pylons, Django, etc), JavaScript, Ruby (Rails), Groovy (Grails), Flex/ActionScript, Silverlight, ASP.Net (new MVC framework out).
The tried and true recommendations of "pick an open source project and dive in" probably apply here as much as anywhere. The development cycles tend to be faster and more iterative using these technologies (broadly speaking) and you'll find plenty of people to learn from and, with your background, plenty of solid grounding in fundamentals to contribute.
As someone else already said, no one is going to expect a recent grad to be writing banking software (threaded or not). Few people actually *write* core banking software anyway. You'd more likely be writing web frontends for bank admin and report generation processes.
Remember that you can generally change direction later on as well. Just because you've studied Java for a few years doesn't mean your future is set in stone as a Java dev. Look at C# - there might be plenty there you'd like too.
Good luck in whatever you choose!
I'm a bit biased, but JavaScript might be something worth teaching in addition to Python. It's in everyone's browser already, so no need to download anything. Can more or less work well on server-side or client-side (I'm not a SSJS guru, so I don't know if there's any major gotchas). It has a moderately simple syntax, and whitespace isn't as important as in Python.
If it's too blatant ("meltdown") trading will just be halted. Better to be small about it. Buy stock X. Start doing a few hundred buys against a small stock from various PCs, run up the price, sell stock X, keep profit. Not much different than the email scams that try to pump up penny stocks, except in this case rather than just trying to get someone to buy it, you'd just buy it from their account for them.
I've often wondered when viruses would start getting smarter. A virus that simply changed some of your appointments in Outlook's calendar (or emailed recipients stating that a meeting had been cancelled or changed) would cause HUGE amounts of damage. A virus that would just open Excel, change a few numbers, the resave it silently, would, again, do HUGE amounts of damage. It would be very hard to trace this at first, and may have long lasting results. But virus writers seem to want to be so "in your face" about the fact that you're infected (using up all your CPU/network, for example) that people immediately know they have a virus and take steps to remove it.
This little bugger sounds pretty smart, removing other viruses in an attempt to keep the host unaware of any compromise. Good thinking.
"Nowhere do they explain what extra value they're adding that will make people pay."
If they stop doing it, won't there be some value lost? Doesn't that mean that there's *some* value in what they're doing? If so, they're simply trying to extract that value from a different party in the consumption process, no?
Very little of MS is replaceable. There are alternatives that offer *some* degree of similar functionality, but I can't think of one thing that's a drop-in replacement for MS functionality that would cut the mustard at most companies. UNLESS your company doesn't use Exchange or Outlook functionality and doesn't ever use any macros in MSOffice, you're going to be tied to mainstream MS software.
The lost productivity costs in migrating files, reformatting, relearning, working around bugs and new features, etc. will *far* outweigh whatever short term benefits there might be in software licensing costs.
Long term there may be more benefit (likely *is* more benefit) but most businesses don't/can't think long term. And even those that can may still choose MS software anyway because it gets the job done nicely.
Or might it just be called K3?
They probably melted due to global warming.
http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
"I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the LORD, do all these things."
"I am the giver of light and the maker of the dark; causing blessing, and sending troubles; I am the Lord, who does all these things."
Multiple translations, but all pretty much saying the same thing. God is taking credit for creating evil.
I had the pleasure of interviewing Patrick for his book when it first came out last year. http://www.webdevradio.com/index.php?id=69 I was a bit surprised at how useful the book could be. I ran a forum years ago and had to learn how to deal with a lot of issues (involving unruly users, banning people, finding moderators, etc.) I'd say I had about 60-70% of the knowledge and info contained in Patrick's book, and that was after years of having to deal with forums "back in the day" (1997-2002). It's not a *tech* book - there's not info in here about server admin stuff, or code samples, or anything like that. It's more about the social and behavioral aspects of communities. If you're considering starting a community on your site, you owe it to yourself to read this book. As someone else said, I'm surprised there's not more books on this topic.
I never *got* American soaps. They're far too escapist for me - basically just watching the rich and powerful play around and get in to trouble. Corrie and EastEnders (UK soaps) sure have their share of that a bit, but they're basically showing "working class" people most of the time. And the people tend to look more "average". Not everyone in UK soaps is a model - many look like 'regular' folk. I do say they all have perfect teeth tho. :/ All American soaps I've taken a look at (admittedly few in recent years) seemed to be all fabulously good looking supermodels.
UK soaps tend to be on in the evening, when the whole family can watch. American soaps are all on the daytime when only the person doing the housework (usually a woman/wife) would be watching.
I've never seen the US get all excited about a soap as a country, but they've done it a lot in the UK ("free the weatherfield 1!", etc.)
While I tend to agree, it's also more likely to happen when people commissioning the software accurately define what "correct" means (in your "correct product" definition above).
Judging by the upcoming features in 3.1, there's still no outline mode that's even remotely comparable to MS Word. *sigh*. Maybe in 2011?
* Ubuntu 8.10 with EXT3 filesystem boots in 31.8 seconds (on the AMD Sempron system);
* Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT3 filesystem boots in 28.3 seconds (on the AMD Sempron system);
* Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT4 filesystem boots in 23.1 seconds (on the AMD Sempron system).
* Ubuntu 8.10 with EXT3 filesystem boots in 26.8 seconds (on the Intel Core 2 Duo system);
* Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT3 filesystem boots in 24.5 seconds (on the Intel Core 2 Duo system);
* Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha (Build 20090112.1) with EXT4 filesystem boots in 21.4 seconds (on the Intel Core 2 Duo system)!
at least with default installation procedures. each 'profile' directory, where stuff like that is held, is randomly named. you'd need to script something to read the profile.ini file and update each profile accordingly. Moving stuff to specifically named directories is impossible to do with (at least default installs of) mozilla stuff.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Back
Read the 'alternate versions' area. It explains the 'pakistani' version in more detail. It was a protest song - a dig at current political views on immmigration, and I highly doubt reflected personal views of any Beatle individually.
And that version was never released, simply something bandied about in rehearsals a bit.
I can have a much more personal and ongoing relationship with recorded music than I can a concert experience, however 'religious' or 'moving' that performance may be. And usually, people are performing pieces from an album that many people have already listened to and built a relationship with outside of the concert, and they're bringing that mindset in with them to the performance.
Yet it was the bastardized US Rubber Soul that Wilson credits with blowing his mind as to how all the tracks 'themed' together, and that spurred him on to Pet Sounds.
Replying to my own post, another part of the attraction to the Beatles' music is that they were 4 people (said above) *and* 3 of them sang regularly. You didn't care for Paul's voice or songs? Fine - listen to George or John tunes. Hate George? Play the Ringo songs and Paul songs. And so on.
Don't like Britney Spears? You don't listen to anything of hers then. Didn't care for Elvis' voice? Then you didn't buy any Elvis.
There was always something on a Beatles album that someone liked, even if they didn't care for all of it. And the competition for song space on albums kept the quality pretty high. No solo Beatles album has more than 2-4 *good* songs on it. Wow - that's pretty much the number of good songs each Beatle had on each Beatles album when they were together. So having 4 good or great songs from 3 talented songwriters (and 4 good performers) was a *very* winning combination.
We *rarely* see that in almost any band since. Everyone adopts the Rolling Stones model of "front man singer and backing band members". There might be exceptions to that, but they are exceptions, and most likely not notable.