There was a project back in the seventies, about building a very fast boat. The design had the engines mounted in a pair of torpedo-shaped nacelles, which ran under water, some stilts going 10+ feet up (streamlined, and only a few inches wide), and a flat bottomed 'boat' - designed to run above the water. The boat would float at rest, but didn't move very well on the surface. Height was controlled by wings on the stilts. One of the spin-offs virtually abandoned the platform above water, such that the stilts were used solely for getting air down to the engines, and for maintaining position.
The reason I remember that platform was a comment at the time - about it being functionally invisible to both radar and sonar - not enough of the boat above water, and sonar really sucks when something is that close to the surface. Not that this beast was built with quiet engines .
These 'stealth' boats are more along the lines of 'reduced profile'. I'd think a true stealth boat would require a fundamental redesign, perhaps something like the above.
The aim of athletics is to be the best at some (overall pretty pointless) pursuit. So why shouldn't athletes be genetically improved in order to become even better?
As long as the competitor is still human, what is the problem? I draw the line at cyborgs though...
Because the competitions are supposed to be about the athletes, not about who has the better 'technology' support group behind them. That's one of the reasons why they keep trying to ban drugs... those with more money tend to do better (In the Seoul gams, frex, certain tests revealed the presence of performance enhancing drugs behind 27 (!!!) layers of blockers.)
When you start in with genetic engineering, you're going down what is essentially the same path... those with more money will produce the better athlete. It isn't the athlete who's performing, it's the horde of scientific types behind him.
The article mentioned one natural mutant (doubled haemoglobin levels), which apparently is a family trait. Predessor also took the gold a few decades back. And the family also has a far higher than average rate of heart attacks and strokes (so much for all that good exercide!)
Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between drugs, gene therapy, or cybernetics in this regard - they all remove the competition from between the athletes to between the money behind the athletes.
First off, let me say, I agree with what you've said - the comment you were replying too was way off; and your numbers on statistics were correct.
However, you are making one assumption that is quite likely incorrect here - that the error is random. When one is discussing DNA computers, there are times when a 'process' will go one way 99.9% of the time, and 0.099999 for most of the rest, and the remaining.000001 be truly random.
Given the numbers above, running the calculation five times will tend to improve the answer, but by a smaller amount than your calculations give.
As far as I can see, conditions are worsening. It used to be a reasonable deal with most companies - bonuses for being on call, and pay/time off for actual on call hours. That's changed.
There's been a trend over the last decade towards getting more and more work out of less and less people, particularly in the IT field. I once had the joy of joining a company, and watching every other technical teammate - read, on call - bail in the next six months. Did management hire replacements? Nyet. After six months solid on call, I quit.
A small study that _didn't_ get published by a previous company actually gathered stats for on-call hours, over the previous five years. The conclusions were rather predicatable - more hours, less people - but I also thought it interesting that actual calls were up - the study believed it to be the result of 'overly aggressive timelines'. I know that doesn't help much with your question, but one small additional note - this was a company up until 2 years ago actually had a third class: hourly, salary and hourly-exempt. As in exempt from any laws like overtime, on-call bonuses and the like.
I will give one piece of advice regarding lawyers. Talking to one, and then mentioning it to your employers, is a _bad_ idea. Talking to a lawyer, in and of itself, isn't bad. But mentioning it will get the little black mark on your record - "Not a team player" - and you can expect things to worsen (possibly to the point of dismissal).
Do whatever it takes to make the situation better, without doing anything that would actually antagonize management.
OK, if this doesn't show they were productive and do other things than just sue other companies, what does?
Read the article. The big issue that may shoot them down is that they may have attended meetings with the sole goal of directing the 'standards' down a path they had already patented, a clear violation of the terms of being a member.
European courts have, historically, been far less friendly towards unethical behaviour, and (by US standards) virtually hostile to monopolies (with the exception of gov't monopolies;).
Rambus may have the patent locked up, but, if the courts feel they intentionally messed up the standards for gaining a monopoly, it's likely to be shot down... and then Rambus will be toast, both in Europe and elsewhere.
Don't look for them getting support from others... all the memory manufacturers would be quite happy to keep the money they're currently forking over. Without the cash flowing in, it's hard to imagine Rambus - a company with virtually zero in tangible assets - fighting an appeal.
Seriously? I used to read the sports section, just so I could converse on a common topic with co-workers. Attend the 'after-work' get-togethers. Keep a list of birthdays, and use it to say 'Happy Birthday'. Dress somewhere between your co-workers and your boss (assuming bosses tend to have better fashion sense than us programmers.)
Of course, don't fake things. Nothing worse than fake interest/concern. Tough balance to achieve, but recognizing that other people have other concerns (What? You don't care that AMD is using non-standard caching?;), and those are valid too, no matter how stupid;)
A rec sports league is useful... keeps you in shape, and co-workers tend to be less into playing politics in the field/arena/court. All of these take some conscious thought, but, then again, the subconscious cues that most people have is what we geeks tend to miss.
Bingo! I had a good laugh at one previous employer. First, their non-compete/non-disclosure contract arrived on my desk months after I joined... illegal in itself. Next, several of the points on it had already been shot down in the courts. And this was before the weasels started adding the line 'One thing wrong with this contract does not invalidate the rest' (which is completely contrary to what the courts held.
After I left, I made a few calls back to former co-workers. Through the switchboard, doh! And received a message from my former boss, who, as it turned out, was under the impression I was trying to poach. (Actually, I was moving out of state, and two co-workers had expressed an interest in my house). But not trying to lure co-workers was part of the non-compete contract. He did have a legitimate right to be concerned.
Comments, OTOH, as long as they don't violate the non-disclosure, are perfectly legit. The simple act of them calling your current employer _might_ be considered grounds for harrassment... I cannot think of a good (i.e. legal) defense they could raise. Talk to the people in your company they spoke with, and find out what was said. Depending on that, you may want to see a lawyer.
It also depends on your boss's attitude, and also to some extent on how you act outside of direct work behavior.
I started in the suited, corporate world... put up with the tie, glad for the $$$, and went nuts in my own way after hours. Also got spectacular reviews, saved the company bundles... blah blah blah... which saved my ass not at all when they downsized, and the axe decision was made by one of the 'older' types.
Some people consider your personal life to be a reflection on their business. I consider that to be way over the line. But the comment about acting 10 years older than you are has worked for me. My programming skills have improved greatly, but, perhaps the most important point, at 16, most people don't have the social and political skills to thrive in the workplace. Computer geeks are notorious for poor interpersonal skills (while not applicable for all, it holds for many). Career advancement sorta requires those skills.
Jumping tracks, last place I was at had a real problem. Programmers were (almost) all sub-25, fresh from the local community college... and generally worse programmers than I could believe. Management were all 45+. The total lack of respect both ways was stunning, even more scary because of the problems it was causing - management suits avoiding anything resembling 'coding' because, as one put it, "...That's what we hire you monkeys for." Programmers learned it wasn't getting your code working, it was getting the minimum possible assigned to you, and then getting it done before the deadline. Respect? Absent. Completely f$cked project? You bet. Programmer turnover was obscene (30-40%). Management kept hiring young people (lower salary). I fit right in the middle, age wise, and felt way out of place in such a polarized environment
The other bit of info missing is knowledge of the biz. Programming is all well and good, but it's rarely the whole job. Trying to understand some MBA who failed high school math is a learned skill. Trying to translate a specification written by an actuary into code changes is a learned skill.
I'm envious if your position doesn't require anything but computer skills, but such positions are rare. And hey, picking up new skills is vital - make office socialization/politics one of them!
Has anyone done any serious investigation into context-modifiable keyboards?
I can give one fabulous example - AutoCAD - that uses modifiable mouse pads. You've got a central drawing area on your tablet, and then you've got a huge number of areas outside this, where you can stick functions, and assorted pre-drawn pieces. This 'template' area can be changed at will.
Another (lesser) example is the good old MVS system. Your function keys vary depending where you are. Kinda nice, really, although I tend to drastically reprogram mine. Thus PF20 (Same as PF8, Page Down, by default) gets reprogrammed as 'Next' for one app (SDSF), 'Find not'blank' 8' in Edit (goes to next paragraph) and so on.
WPM? Geez, as an analyst, that's the least of my concerns - programmers should be hired for their brains, not their typing speed.
That said, I've had the opportunity to work with code that was written based on the 'per line' model. My Gawd, I've never seen so much empty space!
But yeah, keyboards rock, especially if you like macros. One combo, and 50 keystrokes get played out...
I did have one real problem when I tried to implement that kind of efficiency in DragonSpeak. Started subbing one and two syllable words for multi-syllabic, and for frequently occuring phrases. Terible when that carries over into everyday conversation! The worst part is, I've discovered there were others who do the same thing, with the same consequences.
The best general style for using speech recognition is still for word processing... first draft dictated, then go through with keboard to edit. (The cat prefers the first part, but the second interferes with lap time;)
Yah. Kinda like, although always loved tweakin my race the way I wanted. With Civ, it's which direction you push your tech. With MOO, you've got that, plus a fair bit more. Civ and MOO both allows you to select what you're gonna build, and in what order (also the option to do it auto (bad choice)). I can't wait to see how many hours I can waste on the latest version!
Win95/98 are an extension of the DOS/Win 3.1 path. Win2K is more NT ish. Using the FAT file structure for one, NTFS for the other. There are some real differences in how things run. For instance, I can kill 99% of the background garbage in Win95, haven't figured that out completely under Win2K.
Heck, I only gave up on DOS a while back... you oughta see how fast some programs run on the latest chips, when you don't have bloatware sucking back all the improvements.
There are also real reasons for having different versions of software... WordX does not, in fact, actually save stuff properly in the WordX-1 format when you select it. There are a few glitches here and there, so running two copies makes sense. Even OS have the same problem.
My original comment was more pointed at WinMe. Why anyone would play Russian Roulette with their machine is beyond me. M$ won't give out the figures, but somewhere between 15-30% of all users have their machines totally fried by this 'upgrade'... and the 'restore' feature (to be used when this happens) is even worse (seems to be working less than 50%).
But the point is that Windows 2000 IS secure out of the box
Of course, then you have to stick that pesky thing called M$ Office 2000, and you're back to having every virus run gleefully through your system, just much faster than before;)
Why are they attacking the companies, when the companies have done nothing wrong?
Nothing wrong?!?! Excuse me, but they've patented something they had no right to. They've threatened people with lawsuits for 'infringement', when they themselves have either no right to make the claim, or are guilty of the same offense. There's nothing wrong with making an honest living... threatening other people with cease-and-desist orders, and extorting money, when they have no legal right to do so, does not qualify as 'honest'
More seriously, the chips are good these days, but bloatware sucks back the advances. If you want fast, try running some of the older stuff... such as WP 5.1 on DOS, on a PIII. Your problems stem from one source - M$. Win2K? Bloat. Lousy memory management, but worse, 50 gazillion background processes sucking back cycles (OK, the number is closer to 50, but the point still stands) MS Office? Bloat. Doesn't even matter which version. M$ Outlook? Bloat^nth, on both PC (and Server, if your using one), and the biggest security hole to come out of Redmond. RTF? WTF! Use text or HTML, but avoid M$ formats. It also kinda sucks that certain M$ progs check files for M$ tags before loading... and they load significantly faster if the tags are present.
Boy, I gotta agree with this wholeheartedly! Last place I was at was attempting to implement M$ Project. So they punch in historical data for projects already done. Didn't come close to the actual time involved. So then, they started telling us that we were behind. "Behind what?" I asked. Behind the projected timeline. Yep, projected by M$ Project. So, being the nice, security conscious type that I am, nabbed their historical projects, realized that everything needed a multiple of (at least) 2.7, stuck that on the 'timelines', and started giving them as the 'actual' figures. Caused a lot of conflict between the people attempting to implement the M$ PoS, and the programming side. Worse, was that the adjusteded figures came in almost spot on (which, when you're talking 1,000+ hours, is pretty good). When I left, they still were railing at the programmers for taking too long, but hadn't fixed their tools.
A lot of management types haven't got a clue when it comes to computers and programming. I've had one virtually freaking out at me because I refused to give an estimate on how long to solve a problem. Ya know, the kind where the 'Where's it going wrong' part could take between minutes and days to find.
Management likes nice, clear deadlines; they also like squeezing as much work out of programmers as possible - and unrealistic deadlines are one such way they do that.
The only point to going back to re-doing something is if the users are ready for a significantly enhanced product.
There is another reason - system performance. I'm not talking about stability - that should be part of any working program. I'm talking about things like actual run-time, memory usage, storage usage, and the like. I once worked at a company that had a very narrow batch window (8:00 p.m. California to 5:00 a.m. London), and was starting to get seriously concerned about programs which, due to the huge increases in number of records processed, was starting to exceed that window. Re-writes were ordered, and hours shaved off a number of the largest programs. Another I worked at had a program that built a DB (RedBrick) from nine different user-supplied files. All initially on tape. With 5 or six of them less than a thousand records (the rest were around the 100 million count). The original program could be using up to nine different tape drives, and ran for eight hours. Loading the 5 or so files into memory dropped run time to under an hour.
You _can_ generally sell management on a rewrite if you can cost justify it to them. Most places are scarce on personnel resources, which kinda conflicts, but telling the management that a week of your time will save x odd hundred thou a year tends to make them perk up and listen.
Never been in a company where people would leave rather than work on the existing codebase?
Worked with a really bright guy once, had an amusing story about his brother, another really bright guy, just a few circuits missing. Managed to convince management - through a very good looking cost benefit ananlysis study - that removing all documentation from the programs would save on storage and thus money. They bought it; he wrote the code that wiped out all comments; and they have had virtually zero new employees last a year before quitting in disgust (this for the last decade). The programs there are old, huge, and insanely modified/complex.
Yep, it's a gov't installation. Remember - most gov't employees are not paid for how well they do their job, they're paid for how many people they have (i.e. NEED!) working under them. This sorta qualifies as a negative incentive towards efficiency.
I agree that current filtering programs are laughable, but that does not imply that a reasonable filtering cannot be created.
Actually, there are many reasons why a reasonable filtering program cannot be created. First and foremost, I think everyone has heard of the laughable excesses of key-word filters. That path is out. No amount of technical expertice can overcome a problem that cannot be resolved in plain English. Second, there's serious problems - as in, it can't be done - distinguishing between the Miss December centerfold and much of the stuff hanging in the Louvre. Calling the first 'porn' and the latter 'art' just doesn't translate into rules one can put into a program.
Sorry for not being more explicit, but many of the really bad sites (use your imagination) use numeric addresses and redirects. If you haven't seen them, then you're obviously not looking hard enough;)
It costs them no more for me to browse Penthouse.com online than it does for me to browse Bookfinder.com.
Yes, it could cost them. Taxpayers will not want to fund libraries if people are using library computers for browsing penthouse.com and the like.
That is, quite frankly, a BS argument. There are a huge number of libraries that already have unrestricted web access. Viewing pr0n at them hasn't been a problem. As more of society gets wired, I expect it to become even less of a problem than it's current non-problem state.
Finally, we get to the central argument. I am queasy about this kind of censorship, too, but I don't want my taxes funding porn-viewing.
I think it's a misuse of library resources, too. But the answer does not lie down the path that paves over the Constitution. A more realistic approach would be to limit web access to half hour slots if anyone is waiting.
To take an extreme example, what if I wanted to do a research project on how changing media images have contributed to the growth in anorexia/bulimia rates in the US. Part of that research involves taking pictures of female models from various mainsteam magazines and calculating their weights. That's legitimate. A half hour limit is fine. But blocking my access to something is censorship. That said, Tom the Trucker two terminals down could be looking at the same images, kleenex in hand, so to speak. Can you make a suggestion as to how a program can distinguish between the two of us? Until you can, I'd much rather stay in the spirit of 'Freedom', the Constitution, and strangely enough, the Law, and not implement something that reeks of Big Brother, tramples the Constitution, and is against the law.
I agree that any filtering will not work perfectly, but that's not a very good reason.
EXCUSE ME?!?! There's a slight difference between a spell-checker not having a specific word in it, and a 'filtering' program that blocks thousands of legitimate sites.
Personally, I have no problem with filtering software provided it is implemented properly and openly, so that you could see what agenda was
being pushed. In particular, I would like to see that the librarians have the capability of adding or removing any sites.
There are some filtering programs that work on blocking specific sites. Pretty bloody useless, too, as the main class they're trying to block is pr0n, which change their names on a daily basis. So, unless you've got some company scanning the web 24/365, and sending updates as they come in to every library/school/whatever running their software, it isn't 100%, in fact, it's closer to 10%. The second class, which is being pushed far more, blocks based on 'key' words (or if other words contain these words). So forget going to a site on breast cancer, any site on sexual diseases,... the list is huge.
Perhaps banning porn is a good goal, but the primary software being pushed tramples all over the constitution, if implemented in public places.
I use libraries for both research and recreation: I use the web the same way. If what I do is legal, then why the f$ck is it being prohibited in a library? My local library doesn't carry Penthouse, nor does it carry pr0n videos (although it does have some 'soft' literature in the fction section). This presents no problem - the library has limited resources, and chose not to get them. However, they also have net access. It costs them no more for me to browse Penthouse.com online than it does for me to browse Bookfinder.com. If they block access to a legal product (Penthouse), then that is active censorship, unconstitutional, and illegal. I did run into a situation that was laugable... research into Goodyear kept getting me the big red X at the library... probably because of the use of the word 'rubber'. Had to continue that work at home. Tell me again how that's implemented 'properly and openly'.
There are laws in the US about what constitutes illegal pr0n. This mandatory filtering (on publicly funded institutions) goes way beyond that, attempting to legislate software into existence that just doesn't exist. And, while the site specific software doesn't raise my hackles on the 1st amendment issue as badly as key-word specific software, if it's legal in the real world, then it should be legal online. The sole problem here is that pr0n is legal if you're over 18, illegal if under. Libraries don't normally have the personnel to monitor who's browsing what. This could be resolved with 'Over 18 only' machines. Personally, I reached the point long ago of getting thouroughly P.O.d over having legitimate research blocked, and the first thing I do with any library computer is disable the filter (along with the monitoring and anti-virus, but hey!;)
BTW, gotta love the new image filtering stuff. The best tests I've seen show that a program randomly blocking 20% of all requests would do better.
In reality, only closed-source business models will EVER turn a profit. It's the business model that has worked for hundreds of years, and it'll
be the only one working for the next couple hundred.
Good thing I'm a history buff, otherwise this blanket bullsh$t statement might convince me. I dunno, but it seems that carriage/cart makers could be considered 'open source', in that their product will work with any 'operating' system out there: horses, donkeys, mules, oxen, people. Worse, in times past, trade secrets just didn't exist... yes, everybody knew how to make everyone elses products! Heck, even today, an industry as huge as life insurance is based on a few simple tables that everyone has access to.
I happen to like WordPerfect, especially in preference to Word. Reality is, the reason M$ is so successful has nothing to do with the quality of their product (hugely inferior for most of it's life), but the fact it's been sold as part of a 'package'... a package which, strangely enough, includes it's own OS. M$ virtually gave it's various OS away, for the sole purpose of making the playing field more biased (on many levels) to their other products, such as Word.
Looking at just the OS is shortsighted: look at the whole package... and then figure how much money they made on the combination.
Face it. Linux is communism, plain and simple
Of course, one could point out that it's more correctly socialistic,or even anarchistic, than communist, but your drivel seems to indicate you believe anything that isn't CAPITALISM (U.S. Version, T.M.) is communism. . Most of the world lives under a system that combines capitalism and socialism. Pure Capitalism is about as viable as Pure Communism, that is, not at all. Based on architecture alone, I suspect *nix will kick WinWhatever: the minor detail that tens of thousands of socially minded geeks are making a better product than the capitalistic monkeys at M$ can kinda proves that IT DOES WORK.
Completely neglecting the minor inconvenient detail that it's impossible to define 'porn', let alone 'Child Porn'. Anyone under 18? Sorry, perfectly legit to marry under that age in many places (in the US, too). And those terrible art museums, hundreds, even thousands of paintings of nekkid people!!!
I don't agree with porn period.
Geez, it's only got a history going back several thousand years. I guess you've managed to find a way to clearly define what qualifies as 'porn', and have great ideas about what punishment to inflict on those who dare to contravene your idea of correctness. No? Then shut the f$ck up until you realize the total hypocracy, not to mention stupidity of your position! Taking your point about 'wheting the appetite' apart has been done so very well by others here, but I think your statement shows another facet of the same mindset: stupid, really stupid, ignores facts, and f$cking stupid.
P.S. This comment contains more than the usual amount of profanities, in celebration of the 1st amendment.
P.P.S. BTW, did anyone catch the bit at the end... that no-talent Bolton _still_ has to pay $5.4 million for plagarism!
First, the ultimate protector of free speech (the first principle of 'net freedom) is the Supreme Court. Even if Congress passes stupid laws
abridging freedom, the Supreme Court can strike them down.
This would be the same court that recently pulled a couple of fast ones to get 'their' boy into power - a move that still has most constitutional lawyers shaking their heads in disgust?
The Constitution and a Supreme Court willing to enforce it are all the 'net really needs.
Ya know, we had a Constitution party candidate here. One of his lines kinda engraved itself on my brain... 'If you want to know how I'll vote on an issue, look at the Constitution! The answer is there!' Of course, at this point certain smart-asses might note that there are certain things technology has brought us, that the framers of the U.S. constitution never considered. Abortion, yeah, you can make an argument about that. What about private crypto? It isn't covered, so can we assume that the Constitution protects it? How about human cloning? What, that's not in there either? Then why do ignorant right wing nutcases, as epitomized by the Shrub in the White House, who claim the Constitution as their inspiration, outlaw it?
Belief in the 'Constitution' is either naive or stupid. It has some good points. The best of which might be that it's somewhat flexible. But it says nothing about many important issues facing us today. That requires new laws, or, for those who need something on faith, a new 'interpretation' of the Constitution.
BTW, I'm particularly amused by your line '...freedom of speech means freedom of speech.' This from the same guy who uttered the famous line "There ought to be limits to, uh, to freedom"
I _love_ Nachos too... and think Cringely is a bit of a dip on this.
Why the f$ck would anyone think computers are going this way? Smaller is a trend. Wearable is a trend. Remote processing is a trend. All of which can be pushed to utterly ridiculous limits within the next decade! This Rolltronics seems more like a scam, especially with lines like "This is a multi-billion dollar opportunity."
My wristwatch has more processing power than the first computers./. Ran an article on a wristwatch that runs Linux. The ultimate CyberGeek I know had LCD glasses (prototype), Nintendo gloves, and a book sized unit that made Xbernaut look archaic. Not to mention full time wireless hookup to the net. While Cringely discounts 'incremental' changes, in ten years that's going to be reduced down to contacts, a wrist wrap (nerve sensors), and something the size of a pager. Hopefully running on an ethanol fuel cell.
For my $.03 CDN, the reversible switch is probably a better bet, as it allows 3D 'chips', without the heat problems. Quantum is still a ways off. And Rolltronics is going nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a project back in the seventies, about building a very fast boat. The design had the engines mounted in a pair of torpedo-shaped nacelles, which ran under water, some stilts going 10+ feet up (streamlined, and only a few inches wide), and a flat bottomed 'boat' - designed to run above the water. The boat would float at rest, but didn't move very well on the surface. Height was controlled by wings on the stilts. One of the spin-offs virtually abandoned the platform above water, such that the stilts were used solely for getting air down to the engines, and for maintaining position.
The reason I remember that platform was a comment at the time - about it being functionally invisible to both radar and sonar - not enough of the boat above water, and sonar really sucks when something is that close to the surface. Not that this beast was built with quiet engines .
These 'stealth' boats are more along the lines of 'reduced profile'. I'd think a true stealth boat would require a fundamental redesign, perhaps something like the above.
Because the competitions are supposed to be about the athletes, not about who has the better 'technology' support group behind them. That's one of the reasons why they keep trying to ban drugs ... those with more money tend to do better (In the Seoul gams, frex, certain tests revealed the presence of performance enhancing drugs behind 27 (!!!) layers of blockers.)
When you start in with genetic engineering, you're going down what is essentially the same path ... those with more money will produce the better athlete. It isn't the athlete who's performing, it's the horde of scientific types behind him.
The article mentioned one natural mutant (doubled haemoglobin levels), which apparently is a family trait. Predessor also took the gold a few decades back. And the family also has a far higher than average rate of heart attacks and strokes (so much for all that good exercide!)
Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between drugs, gene therapy, or cybernetics in this regard - they all remove the competition from between the athletes to between the money behind the athletes.
First off, let me say, I agree with what you've said - the comment you were replying too was way off; and your numbers on statistics were correct.
However, you are making one assumption that is quite likely incorrect here - that the error is random. When one is discussing DNA computers, there are times when a 'process' will go one way 99.9% of the time, and 0.099999 for most of the rest, and the remaining .000001 be truly random.
Given the numbers above, running the calculation five times will tend to improve the answer, but by a smaller amount than your calculations give.
There's been a trend over the last decade towards getting more and more work out of less and less people, particularly in the IT field. I once had the joy of joining a company, and watching every other technical teammate - read, on call - bail in the next six months. Did management hire replacements? Nyet. After six months solid on call, I quit.
A small study that _didn't_ get published by a previous company actually gathered stats for on-call hours, over the previous five years. The conclusions were rather predicatable - more hours, less people - but I also thought it interesting that actual calls were up - the study believed it to be the result of 'overly aggressive timelines'. I know that doesn't help much with your question, but one small additional note - this was a company up until 2 years ago actually had a third class: hourly, salary and hourly-exempt. As in exempt from any laws like overtime, on-call bonuses and the like.
I will give one piece of advice regarding lawyers. Talking to one, and then mentioning it to your employers, is a _bad_ idea. Talking to a lawyer, in and of itself, isn't bad. But mentioning it will get the little black mark on your record - "Not a team player" - and you can expect things to worsen (possibly to the point of dismissal).
Do whatever it takes to make the situation better, without doing anything that would actually antagonize management.
Read the article. The big issue that may shoot them down is that they may have attended meetings with the sole goal of directing the 'standards' down a path they had already patented, a clear violation of the terms of being a member.
European courts have, historically, been far less friendly towards unethical behaviour, and (by US standards) virtually hostile to monopolies (with the exception of gov't monopolies ;).
Rambus may have the patent locked up, but, if the courts feel they intentionally messed up the standards for gaining a monopoly, it's likely to be shot down ... and then Rambus will be toast, both in Europe and elsewhere.
Don't look for them getting support from others ... all the memory manufacturers would be quite happy to keep the money they're currently forking over. Without the cash flowing in, it's hard to imagine Rambus - a company with virtually zero in tangible assets - fighting an appeal.
Of course, don't fake things. Nothing worse than fake interest/concern. Tough balance to achieve, but recognizing that other people have other concerns (What? You don't care that AMD is using non-standard caching? ;), and those are valid too, no matter how stupid ;)
A rec sports league is useful ... keeps you in shape, and co-workers tend to be less into playing politics in the field/arena/court. All of these take some conscious thought, but, then again, the subconscious cues that most people have is what we geeks tend to miss.
After I left, I made a few calls back to former co-workers. Through the switchboard, doh! And received a message from my former boss, who, as it turned out, was under the impression I was trying to poach. (Actually, I was moving out of state, and two co-workers had expressed an interest in my house). But not trying to lure co-workers was part of the non-compete contract. He did have a legitimate right to be concerned.
Comments, OTOH, as long as they don't violate the non-disclosure, are perfectly legit. The simple act of them calling your current employer _might_ be considered grounds for harrassment ... I cannot think of a good (i.e. legal) defense they could raise. Talk to the people in your company they spoke with, and find out what was said. Depending on that, you may want to see a lawyer.
I started in the suited, corporate world ... put up with the tie, glad for the $$$, and went nuts in my own way after hours. Also got spectacular reviews, saved the company bundles ... blah blah blah ... which saved my ass not at all when they downsized, and the axe decision was made by one of the 'older' types.
Some people consider your personal life to be a reflection on their business. I consider that to be way over the line. But the comment about acting 10 years older than you are has worked for me. My programming skills have improved greatly, but, perhaps the most important point, at 16, most people don't have the social and political skills to thrive in the workplace. Computer geeks are notorious for poor interpersonal skills (while not applicable for all, it holds for many). Career advancement sorta requires those skills.
Jumping tracks, last place I was at had a real problem. Programmers were (almost) all sub-25, fresh from the local community college ... and generally worse programmers than I could believe. Management were all 45+. The total lack of respect both ways was stunning, even more scary because of the problems it was causing - management suits avoiding anything resembling 'coding' because, as one put it, "...That's what we hire you monkeys for." Programmers learned it wasn't getting your code working, it was getting the minimum possible assigned to you, and then getting it done before the deadline. Respect? Absent. Completely f$cked project? You bet. Programmer turnover was obscene (30-40%). Management kept hiring young people (lower salary). I fit right in the middle, age wise, and felt way out of place in such a polarized environment
The other bit of info missing is knowledge of the biz. Programming is all well and good, but it's rarely the whole job. Trying to understand some MBA who failed high school math is a learned skill. Trying to translate a specification written by an actuary into code changes is a learned skill.
I'm envious if your position doesn't require anything but computer skills, but such positions are rare. And hey, picking up new skills is vital - make office socialization/politics one of them!
I can give one fabulous example - AutoCAD - that uses modifiable mouse pads. You've got a central drawing area on your tablet, and then you've got a huge number of areas outside this, where you can stick functions, and assorted pre-drawn pieces. This 'template' area can be changed at will.
Another (lesser) example is the good old MVS system. Your function keys vary depending where you are. Kinda nice, really, although I tend to drastically reprogram mine. Thus PF20 (Same as PF8, Page Down, by default) gets reprogrammed as 'Next' for one app (SDSF), 'Find not'blank' 8' in Edit (goes to next paragraph) and so on.
That said, I've had the opportunity to work with code that was written based on the 'per line' model. My Gawd, I've never seen so much empty space!
But yeah, keyboards rock, especially if you like macros. One combo, and 50 keystrokes get played out ...
I did have one real problem when I tried to implement that kind of efficiency in DragonSpeak. Started subbing one and two syllable words for multi-syllabic, and for frequently occuring phrases. Terible when that carries over into everyday conversation! The worst part is, I've discovered there were others who do the same thing, with the same consequences.
The best general style for using speech recognition is still for word processing ... first draft dictated, then go through with keboard to edit. (The cat prefers the first part, but the second interferes with lap time ;)
Yah. Kinda like, although always loved tweakin my race the way I wanted. With Civ, it's which direction you push your tech. With MOO, you've got that, plus a fair bit more. Civ and MOO both allows you to select what you're gonna build, and in what order (also the option to do it auto (bad choice)). I can't wait to see how many hours I can waste on the latest version!
Heck, I only gave up on DOS a while back ... you oughta see how fast some programs run on the latest chips, when you don't have bloatware sucking back all the improvements.
There are also real reasons for having different versions of software ... WordX does not, in fact, actually save stuff properly in the WordX-1 format when you select it. There are a few glitches here and there, so running two copies makes sense. Even OS have the same problem.
My original comment was more pointed at WinMe. Why anyone would play Russian Roulette with their machine is beyond me. M$ won't give out the figures, but somewhere between 15-30% of all users have their machines totally fried by this 'upgrade' ... and the 'restore' feature (to be used when this happens) is even worse (seems to be working less than 50%).
Of course, then you have to stick that pesky thing called M$ Office 2000, and you're back to having every virus run gleefully through your system, just much faster than before ;)
Which is a pretty good starting place. The next question should be, "Does something else work better?"
BTW, I'm a little confused - WTF would you put WinME on a machine with Win2K, heck, why would you put WinME on ANY machine?
Then again, I'm now up to Win95, Win2K, Linux (Suse), and BeOS, so I shouldn't really talk ;) Some things just work better under different OS.
Nothing wrong?!?! Excuse me, but they've patented something they had no right to. They've threatened people with lawsuits for 'infringement', when they themselves have either no right to make the claim, or are guilty of the same offense. There's nothing wrong with making an honest living ... threatening other people with cease-and-desist orders, and extorting money, when they have no legal right to do so, does not qualify as 'honest'
Runs real good on those Transmeta chips, too.
More seriously, the chips are good these days, but bloatware sucks back the advances. If you want fast, try running some of the older stuff ... such as WP 5.1 on DOS, on a PIII. Your problems stem from one source - M$. Win2K? Bloat. Lousy memory management, but worse, 50 gazillion background processes sucking back cycles (OK, the number is closer to 50, but the point still stands) MS Office? Bloat. Doesn't even matter which version. M$ Outlook? Bloat^nth, on both PC (and Server, if your using one), and the biggest security hole to come out of Redmond. RTF? WTF! Use text or HTML, but avoid M$ formats. It also kinda sucks that certain M$ progs check files for M$ tags before loading ... and they load significantly faster if the tags are present.
A lot of management types haven't got a clue when it comes to computers and programming. I've had one virtually freaking out at me because I refused to give an estimate on how long to solve a problem. Ya know, the kind where the 'Where's it going wrong' part could take between minutes and days to find.
Management likes nice, clear deadlines; they also like squeezing as much work out of programmers as possible - and unrealistic deadlines are one such way they do that.
There is another reason - system performance. I'm not talking about stability - that should be part of any working program. I'm talking about things like actual run-time, memory usage, storage usage, and the like. I once worked at a company that had a very narrow batch window (8:00 p.m. California to 5:00 a.m. London), and was starting to get seriously concerned about programs which, due to the huge increases in number of records processed, was starting to exceed that window. Re-writes were ordered, and hours shaved off a number of the largest programs. Another I worked at had a program that built a DB (RedBrick) from nine different user-supplied files. All initially on tape. With 5 or six of them less than a thousand records (the rest were around the 100 million count). The original program could be using up to nine different tape drives, and ran for eight hours. Loading the 5 or so files into memory dropped run time to under an hour.
You _can_ generally sell management on a rewrite if you can cost justify it to them. Most places are scarce on personnel resources, which kinda conflicts, but telling the management that a week of your time will save x odd hundred thou a year tends to make them perk up and listen.
Worked with a really bright guy once, had an amusing story about his brother, another really bright guy, just a few circuits missing. Managed to convince management - through a very good looking cost benefit ananlysis study - that removing all documentation from the programs would save on storage and thus money. They bought it; he wrote the code that wiped out all comments; and they have had virtually zero new employees last a year before quitting in disgust (this for the last decade). The programs there are old, huge, and insanely modified/complex.
Yep, it's a gov't installation. Remember - most gov't employees are not paid for how well they do their job, they're paid for how many people they have (i.e. NEED!) working under them. This sorta qualifies as a negative incentive towards efficiency.
Actually, there are many reasons why a reasonable filtering program cannot be created. First and foremost, I think everyone has heard of the laughable excesses of key-word filters. That path is out. No amount of technical expertice can overcome a problem that cannot be resolved in plain English. Second, there's serious problems - as in, it can't be done - distinguishing between the Miss December centerfold and much of the stuff hanging in the Louvre. Calling the first 'porn' and the latter 'art' just doesn't translate into rules one can put into a program.
Sorry for not being more explicit, but many of the really bad sites (use your imagination) use numeric addresses and redirects. If you haven't seen them, then you're obviously not looking hard enough ;)
It costs them no more for me to browse Penthouse.com online than it does for me to browse Bookfinder.com. Yes, it could cost them. Taxpayers will not want to fund libraries if people are using library computers for browsing penthouse.com and the like.
That is, quite frankly, a BS argument. There are a huge number of libraries that already have unrestricted web access. Viewing pr0n at them hasn't been a problem. As more of society gets wired, I expect it to become even less of a problem than it's current non-problem state.
Finally, we get to the central argument. I am queasy about this kind of censorship, too, but I don't want my taxes funding porn-viewing.
I think it's a misuse of library resources, too. But the answer does not lie down the path that paves over the Constitution. A more realistic approach would be to limit web access to half hour slots if anyone is waiting.
To take an extreme example, what if I wanted to do a research project on how changing media images have contributed to the growth in anorexia/bulimia rates in the US. Part of that research involves taking pictures of female models from various mainsteam magazines and calculating their weights. That's legitimate. A half hour limit is fine. But blocking my access to something is censorship. That said, Tom the Trucker two terminals down could be looking at the same images, kleenex in hand, so to speak. Can you make a suggestion as to how a program can distinguish between the two of us? Until you can, I'd much rather stay in the spirit of 'Freedom', the Constitution, and strangely enough, the Law, and not implement something that reeks of Big Brother, tramples the Constitution, and is against the law.
EXCUSE ME?!?! There's a slight difference between a spell-checker not having a specific word in it, and a 'filtering' program that blocks thousands of legitimate sites.
Personally, I have no problem with filtering software provided it is implemented properly and openly, so that you could see what agenda was being pushed. In particular, I would like to see that the librarians have the capability of adding or removing any sites.
There are some filtering programs that work on blocking specific sites. Pretty bloody useless, too, as the main class they're trying to block is pr0n, which change their names on a daily basis. So, unless you've got some company scanning the web 24/365, and sending updates as they come in to every library/school/whatever running their software, it isn't 100%, in fact, it's closer to 10%. The second class, which is being pushed far more, blocks based on 'key' words (or if other words contain these words). So forget going to a site on breast cancer, any site on sexual diseases, ... the list is huge.
Perhaps banning porn is a good goal, but the primary software being pushed tramples all over the constitution, if implemented in public places.
I use libraries for both research and recreation: I use the web the same way. If what I do is legal, then why the f$ck is it being prohibited in a library? My local library doesn't carry Penthouse, nor does it carry pr0n videos (although it does have some 'soft' literature in the fction section). This presents no problem - the library has limited resources, and chose not to get them. However, they also have net access. It costs them no more for me to browse Penthouse.com online than it does for me to browse Bookfinder.com. If they block access to a legal product (Penthouse), then that is active censorship, unconstitutional, and illegal. I did run into a situation that was laugable ... research into Goodyear kept getting me the big red X at the library ... probably because of the use of the word 'rubber'. Had to continue that work at home. Tell me again how that's implemented 'properly and openly'.
There are laws in the US about what constitutes illegal pr0n. This mandatory filtering (on publicly funded institutions) goes way beyond that, attempting to legislate software into existence that just doesn't exist. And, while the site specific software doesn't raise my hackles on the 1st amendment issue as badly as key-word specific software, if it's legal in the real world, then it should be legal online. The sole problem here is that pr0n is legal if you're over 18, illegal if under. Libraries don't normally have the personnel to monitor who's browsing what. This could be resolved with 'Over 18 only' machines. Personally, I reached the point long ago of getting thouroughly P.O.d over having legitimate research blocked, and the first thing I do with any library computer is disable the filter (along with the monitoring and anti-virus, but hey! ;)
BTW, gotta love the new image filtering stuff. The best tests I've seen show that a program randomly blocking 20% of all requests would do better.
Good thing I'm a history buff, otherwise this blanket bullsh$t statement might convince me. I dunno, but it seems that carriage/cart makers could be considered 'open source', in that their product will work with any 'operating' system out there: horses, donkeys, mules, oxen, people. Worse, in times past, trade secrets just didn't exist ... yes, everybody knew how to make everyone elses products! Heck, even today, an industry as huge as life insurance is based on a few simple tables that everyone has access to.
I happen to like WordPerfect, especially in preference to Word. Reality is, the reason M$ is so successful has nothing to do with the quality of their product (hugely inferior for most of it's life), but the fact it's been sold as part of a 'package' ... a package which, strangely enough, includes it's own OS. M$ virtually gave it's various OS away, for the sole purpose of making the playing field more biased (on many levels) to their other products, such as Word.
Looking at just the OS is shortsighted: look at the whole package ... and then figure how much money they made on the combination.
Face it. Linux is communism, plain and simple
Of course, one could point out that it's more correctly socialistic,or even anarchistic, than communist, but your drivel seems to indicate you believe anything that isn't CAPITALISM (U.S. Version, T.M.) is communism. . Most of the world lives under a system that combines capitalism and socialism. Pure Capitalism is about as viable as Pure Communism, that is, not at all. Based on architecture alone, I suspect *nix will kick WinWhatever: the minor detail that tens of thousands of socially minded geeks are making a better product than the capitalistic monkeys at M$ can kinda proves that IT DOES WORK.
Completely neglecting the minor inconvenient detail that it's impossible to define 'porn', let alone 'Child Porn'. Anyone under 18? Sorry, perfectly legit to marry under that age in many places (in the US, too). And those terrible art museums, hundreds, even thousands of paintings of nekkid people!!!
I don't agree with porn period.
Geez, it's only got a history going back several thousand years. I guess you've managed to find a way to clearly define what qualifies as 'porn', and have great ideas about what punishment to inflict on those who dare to contravene your idea of correctness. No? Then shut the f$ck up until you realize the total hypocracy, not to mention stupidity of your position! Taking your point about 'wheting the appetite' apart has been done so very well by others here, but I think your statement shows another facet of the same mindset: stupid, really stupid, ignores facts, and f$cking stupid.
P.S. This comment contains more than the usual amount of profanities, in celebration of the 1st amendment.
P.P.S. BTW, did anyone catch the bit at the end ... that no-talent Bolton _still_ has to pay $5.4 million for plagarism!
This would be the same court that recently pulled a couple of fast ones to get 'their' boy into power - a move that still has most constitutional lawyers shaking their heads in disgust?
The Constitution and a Supreme Court willing to enforce it are all the 'net really needs.
Ya know, we had a Constitution party candidate here. One of his lines kinda engraved itself on my brain ... 'If you want to know how I'll vote on an issue, look at the Constitution! The answer is there!' Of course, at this point certain smart-asses might note that there are certain things technology has brought us, that the framers of the U.S. constitution never considered. Abortion, yeah, you can make an argument about that. What about private crypto? It isn't covered, so can we assume that the Constitution protects it? How about human cloning? What, that's not in there either? Then why do ignorant right wing nutcases, as epitomized by the Shrub in the White House, who claim the Constitution as their inspiration, outlaw it?
Belief in the 'Constitution' is either naive or stupid. It has some good points. The best of which might be that it's somewhat flexible. But it says nothing about many important issues facing us today. That requires new laws, or, for those who need something on faith, a new 'interpretation' of the Constitution.
BTW, I'm particularly amused by your line '...freedom of speech means freedom of speech.' This from the same guy who uttered the famous line "There ought to be limits to, uh, to freedom"
Why the f$ck would anyone think computers are going this way? Smaller is a trend. Wearable is a trend. Remote processing is a trend. All of which can be pushed to utterly ridiculous limits within the next decade! This Rolltronics seems more like a scam, especially with lines like "This is a multi-billion dollar opportunity."
My wristwatch has more processing power than the first computers. /. Ran an article on a wristwatch that runs Linux. The ultimate CyberGeek I know had LCD glasses (prototype), Nintendo gloves, and a book sized unit that made Xbernaut look archaic. Not to mention full time wireless hookup to the net. While Cringely discounts 'incremental' changes, in ten years that's going to be reduced down to contacts, a wrist wrap (nerve sensors), and something the size of a pager. Hopefully running on an ethanol fuel cell.
For my $.03 CDN, the reversible switch is probably a better bet, as it allows 3D 'chips', without the heat problems. Quantum is still a ways off. And Rolltronics is going nowhere.