You miss the point. While there are devices that do this, they are expensive. This one is relatively cheap.
And as for the doctor, I would rather trust a doctor that uses a reference book than one that tries to impress me by "knowing everything"(TM).
Also, the electronic chart he is looking at might contain information that was gathered at a different hospital or treatment centre. Which I do want him to know about in case there are interactions between what he/she wants to do and what was done before.
These types of device are not revolutionary but evolutionary.
Sadly, programming is not like assembling a car, where it can be broken down into infinitesimally smaller chunks, then added back together to get a whole.>/i>
Sort of. There are parts of any project that are repeats of what has been done before. Things like utility methods, the framework, NLS, how to read property (ini, options,...) files. These things can be estimated with a high degree of accuracy.
Then there are the unknowns. New functionality that no one in your organization has done before. These are the parts that can be wildy off target. The design process should identify these parts. Then you do risk management around them. The risk estimate will give you the potential unknowns, which is useful in determining how much "skull work" is required.
So finally you add up the parts that you do know how to do. Then you look at each risk area and apply some sort of fudge factor (several have been mentioned) and you have an estimate that can be useful.
It makes no sense to apply a fudge factor to the entire project when you understand the problems in 90% of it. Only the final 10% needs a +/- to be applied.
Of course that final 10% could take over 90% of the time, but hey, that's where the fun is....
I can see the need to shorten compile times, etc. especially for big projects.
Compiles of really large projects are disk I/O bound. A faster processor does not really give that much of a boost. Invest in a fast drive and fast controller. It will save more time.
I hope you are not basing your dislike of Java just on JUnit.
Because CUnit is even worse. If you want/need to add an extra test, you must re-compile/link your application before you can run the test. So in effect the test bed becomes part of your application.
In Java and JUnit, the JUnit part is separate from your application. It simply instantiates the classes from a.JAR file (or however you have set it up). Then, if everything works correctly, you can send your app to integration testing without changing one line. In CUnit, you must at the very least change which libraries are linked in, or change #defines to exclude the test code, then re-compile/link your app again. And if you have a memory leak, then just the fact that you have different code between your test app and your production app can change where the leak manifests itself. That is if your test code does not its own memory leak.
I have worked in both C, C++, and Java (and many more languages, but that's a different thread) and I vastly prefer Java. I too miss pointers and #defines, but in reality when I am looking at code written by someone else or code I wrote a year ago, give me Java every time. The minor performance difference (in the order of micro-seconds) is a small price to pay (server side).
As for the GUI, IBM has created a FAST set of classes for their new Workbench called Ecplise.
When creating something new, like life, mistakes will be made even given the sum total of all knowledge and limitless power.
An interesting term "sum of all knowledge"....
And I answer the "what if" question with "it doesn't matter; the world would be a better place if everyone, including all christians, followed the Christian morals, so they're objectively good."
including all christians
Curious that you would specifically include this sub-group in the statement......
But have you actually tested to make sure that gravity doesn't change?
Yup. I tested gravity in school. Used a paper tape and a clapper. Every time I ran the experiment it produced the same result. Everyone else in the class had the same results.
Science can be tested and verified. Religion cannot. In Religion, you must take everything on faith.
If you cannot see the difference, then your are deluding yourself.
Voice Portals retrieve data for you, and read it over standard cell or PSTN network. There are many benefits to this approach, principal among them being improved processing power for additional functionality such as voice-processing (speech to text, or compressing speech for reply email voice attachment). By putting the power into the phone, instead of at an expensive central office, this chip could either be a great advancement for text-to-speech technology, or a "killer app" that puts my company out of business:)
No, the place for the voice processor IS on the server. Think "thin client". If the the micro-code in the phone is wrong, then you need to upgrade all the phones, rather than just the server code.
Um, you mistyped that. You added a comma and three zeros....
Re:Interesting point of departure...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 1
Yes, well that is because OS/2 came with its own browser. A very good browser (though it was not updated when frames came out, that is when Netscape was first ported over at the 2.02 level).
It had some really nice features, the most memorable being a map of where you had gone that session. This was in a tree form with links, so you could re-visit.
Re:Interesting point of departure...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
There is an OS/2 port (called Warpzilla) on Hobbes. It is at the 0.95 level, just posted yesterday.
OS/2 is alive and doing well, thank-you for asking....
Slashdot Mirror
You miss the point. While there are devices that do this, they are expensive. This one is relatively cheap.
And as for the doctor, I would rather trust a doctor that uses a reference book than one that tries to impress me by "knowing everything"(TM).
Also, the electronic chart he is looking at might contain information that was gathered at a different hospital or treatment centre. Which I do want him to know about in case there are interactions between what he/she wants to do and what was done before.
These types of device are not revolutionary but evolutionary.
And that's just off the top of my head....
IBM got out becuase the IOC was demanding too much money. Yes IBM paid all the costs, but the IOC still wanted extra payment.
And the site during Sydney handled 13 BILLION hits in a two week period (synopsis). The IBM search engine provides more links.
If everyone wasn't so busy re-inventing the wheel...
Like a Web based message board where NNTP would do?
Yup, that's what we need. A protocol that bypasses your firewall.
Yup, we need this alright.
Most cars these days already have multiple interconnected computers running the engine and breaking system ...
So that is why my car is in the shop every so often. It has a built-in breaking system. Well, at least my brakes work....
Grumble grumble. I missed-typed the ending italics tag.
If not editing a post, maybe we can get a warning when a tag is not closed, and give us the chance to close it??
Sadly, programming is not like assembling a car, where it can be broken down into infinitesimally smaller chunks, then added back together to get a whole.>/i>
...) files. These things can be estimated with a high degree of accuracy.
Sort of. There are parts of any project that are repeats of what has been done before. Things like utility methods, the framework, NLS, how to read property (ini, options,
Then there are the unknowns. New functionality that no one in your organization has done before. These are the parts that can be wildy off target. The design process should identify these parts. Then you do risk management around them. The risk estimate will give you the potential unknowns, which is useful in determining how much "skull work" is required.
So finally you add up the parts that you do know how to do. Then you look at each risk area and apply some sort of fudge factor (several have been mentioned) and you have an estimate that can be useful.
It makes no sense to apply a fudge factor to the entire project when you understand the problems in 90% of it. Only the final 10% needs a +/- to be applied.
Of course that final 10% could take over 90% of the time, but hey, that's where the fun is....
You do enjoy this stuff, right?
I can see the need to shorten compile times, etc. especially for big projects.
Compiles of really large projects are disk I/O bound. A faster processor does not really give that much of a boost. Invest in a fast drive and fast controller. It will save more time.
to show who has what relationship with me.
Right beside their name when I am logged in.
Don't hold your breath, ... er, branching tubes.
Because it shows an inconsistency. If a story is submitted that the site controllers feel is not good, well it is their site.
But if a story is submitted, then later accepted from someone else, it smacks of favouritism.
I can accept my submission being rejected, if the story was not "things that matter". But then it should have stayed rejected.
So why was my submission rejected?
2002-01-02 22:12:44 Eye Lie Detector (articles,news) (rejected)
Come on now, what is the criteria for accept/reject, how the reviewer feels? Don't you people TALK to each other??
Ah yes, but which pole is which?
I hope you are not basing your dislike of Java just on JUnit.
.JAR file (or however you have set it up). Then, if everything works correctly, you can send your app to integration testing without changing one line. In CUnit, you must at the very least change which libraries are linked in, or change #defines to exclude the test code, then re-compile/link your app again. And if you have a memory leak, then just the fact that you have different code between your test app and your production app can change where the leak manifests itself. That is if your test code does not its own memory leak.
Because CUnit is even worse. If you want/need to add an extra test, you must re-compile/link your application before you can run the test. So in effect the test bed becomes part of your application.
In Java and JUnit, the JUnit part is separate from your application. It simply instantiates the classes from a
I have worked in both C, C++, and Java (and many more languages, but that's a different thread) and I vastly prefer Java. I too miss pointers and #defines, but in reality when I am looking at code written by someone else or code I wrote a year ago, give me Java every time. The minor performance difference (in the order of micro-seconds) is a small price to pay (server side).
As for the GUI, IBM has created a FAST set of classes for their new Workbench called Ecplise.
How do you bill someone in China, if the Chinese government says up yours.
Well you don't. But I WOULD pay a small fee ($1 year?) to China, and then route all my Web hits through their proxy server.
Now who gets the money? I have in effective bypassed the funding model, and am making some non-compliant country rich.
When creating something new, like life, mistakes will be made even given the sum total of all knowledge and limitless power.
An interesting term "sum of all knowledge"....
And I answer the "what if" question with "it doesn't matter; the world would be a better place if everyone, including all christians, followed the Christian morals, so they're objectively good."
including all christians
Curious that you would specifically include this sub-group in the statement......
And you concluded by this that gravity never changes?
The result that we collectively obtained was consistent with the result that other people obtained in a different time and space.
Harsh words, and bad grammar, too. (It's "you're deluding yourself," btw)
Yes, I mistyped an 'r' at the end of "you", then missed it. It should have been "you are".
od could have created many different forms of life, and then tweaked them, replaced them, et al
God makes mistakes? Is He/She not Omnipotent?
But have you actually tested to make sure that gravity doesn't change?
Yup. I tested gravity in school. Used a paper tape and a clapper. Every time I ran the experiment it produced the same result. Everyone else in the class had the same results.
Science can be tested and verified. Religion cannot. In Religion, you must take everything on faith.
If you cannot see the difference, then your are deluding yourself.
Voice Portals retrieve data for you, and read it over standard cell or PSTN network. There are many benefits to this approach, principal among them being improved processing power for additional functionality such as voice-processing (speech to text, or compressing speech for reply email voice attachment). By putting the power into the phone, instead of at an expensive central office, this chip could either be a great advancement for text-to-speech technology, or a "killer app" that puts my company out of business :)
No, the place for the voice processor IS on the server. Think "thin client". If the the micro-code in the phone is wrong, then you need to upgrade all the phones, rather than just the server code.
Let's not go backwards here....
Bragging rights!
Maybe your karma should be shown right after your UI, You know:
by UI (49)
Um, you mistyped that. You added a comma and three zeros....
Yes, well that is because OS/2 came with its own browser. A very good browser (though it was not updated when frames came out, that is when Netscape was first ported over at the 2.02 level).
It had some really nice features, the most memorable being a map of where you had gone that session. This was in a tree form with links, so you could re-visit.
There is an OS/2 port (called Warpzilla) on Hobbes. It is at the 0.95 level, just posted yesterday.
OS/2 is alive and doing well, thank-you for asking....