You say "these technologies have enabled the individual to do things that previously only specialists could do, and have allowed everyone to complete their work faster than before."
That is not an example of being more productive,. Before these technologies existed, most people didn't *need* to do the things they now must do to complete their work.
Today I have a computer with a 3 GHz processor and 2 GB of RAM to help me do my job. When I first started my career, I used to time-share some processor time on a microVAX. Am I more productive today than I was when I graduated from University? I don't think so. In the end, my output is a computer program that does some sort of data processing. My program today might look fancier and be able to process more data in less time, but in the end it took me just as long to produce the program as it did years ago.
I know lots of very productive people who exist without ever directly using a computer.
You're joking right? A fax machine's UI sucks. In my experience very few people, when faced with sending a fax for the first time, have managed to do so successfully. They always need help.
When you approach a fax machine, there is no obvious starting action to take. Do you dial first, or scan the pages first? Do you scan the pages one at a time, or can you put them down all at once? When you dial the number, there is no feedback that anything is happening. No sound of dialing, no sound of handshake. Just some cryptic messages like TX that mean absolutely nothing to a novice. Eventually the machine will spit out a page that, you hope, says somewhere on it STATUS: SUCCESS. If you do run into difficulty, you have to find the dead-tree manual to help you, because the messages on the little LCD display don't help much.
A fax machine's UI is about as user friendly as a linux shell without man pages.
I've had situations with customers who require a fix as soon as possible, because if the system is down they are losing money. When this situation occurs, we have two goals in mind:
(1) Get the customer up and running again as fast as possible. This is as often as not some sort of workaround that is not pretty, nor is it permanent, but it works. The workaround does get thorough testing (impossible within the time frame) but the customer is aware of this and willing to accept the risks.
(2) Get the customer a proper, version controlled, patch that they can install to fix the problem permanently. This can take weeks, most of that time being testing. If the customer is insistent we will ship them the proper patch before it is fully tested (again, making them aware of the risks) and continue testing so that we can send the customer some warm and fuzzy news later on (or, if we find a problem, another patch).
Neat idea. But then if the cable did stop, or try to stop, due to mechanical failure the results would be catastrophic. Having the cars motor themselves way up the cable keeps failures localized.
A moving cable driving by motors would not scale very well. Imagine the momentum of a cable moving in a 22,000 mile long loop. The energy required to get it moving would be tremendous, and the problem of stopping it again would be immense.
Biggest technical obstable?
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1
What was the biggest technical challenge that ever threatened the existence of/.? In other words, have you ever hit a problem/bug that left you sitting there thinking "Holy crap! WTF do I do know?"
When you register they go through the motions of applying a secure sign-up process by not activating you until you've clicked the activation link in the email they send you. But with the activation link being deezer.com/confirm.php?email=, why bother?
Oh, and after you've clicked the link they email you your password in the clear.
They must be more polite where you live. I've been to only one movie in the last year, and during the movie not only did the cell phone of the woman sitting 2 seats to my right ring, she also answered it without leaving her seat.
Why would Microsoft do *anything* with works? This can't be a big money-maker for them, unless they are charging OEMs behind the scenes to have it installed (in which case the OEMs are stupid for installing it).
I think Microsoft is just practicing the ad-supported software model with an application they don't really care about, just to see how well it works. They can iron out the wrinkles (or maybe drop the idea all together) without damaging the reputation of one of their core products.
Does anybody else find it odd that they can't tell whether or not this is water? I mean, were they so positive that they wouldn't find water on Mars that they didn't include any way of testing for it?
If the thing is so sophisticated that can navigate rough terrain in a hostile arena and carry someone back, why not give it a gun and let it do the fighting? Then there would be no wounded to carry back.
"Seems like a good idea. He has a lot in common with Young Frankenstein's monster."
Ladies and gentlemen, watch and wonder as the monster demonstrates his coordination with the "Putting on the Developers Developers Developers Developers" monkey dance!
Fishy? No, I don't think it is fishy. It might be stretching the truth, but it *is* plausible.
In my experience, if there is one part of a development cycle where extra bodies have a positive impact, it's in the QA/bug fixing stage. It is while features are still under development where adding more people doesn't help all that much.
And Voila, you have all the *parts* that make an engine, but they still will need to be assembled into an engine, which is not an insignificant process.
It's not the program, it's the medium. In this case the medium is the screen.
I once had a Calculus prof whose lectures were awful. This was pre-powerpoint: he used transparencies and an overhead projector. All he would do is plop something on the overhead, read it to us, and then plop down the next slide, and repeat.
One day the overhead was broken. Without a blink of an eye he picked up a piece of chalk and began lecturing the old fashioned way, writing down stuff on the blackboard. The prof was transformed from a deadly boring lecturer to an absolutely fascinating speaker. There was much more class interaction and I learned way more in that class than in any previous class.
Slashdot Mirror
You say "these technologies have enabled the individual to do things that previously only specialists could do, and have allowed everyone to complete their work faster than before."
That is not an example of being more productive,. Before these technologies existed, most people didn't *need* to do the things they now must do to complete their work.
Today I have a computer with a 3 GHz processor and 2 GB of RAM to help me do my job. When I first started my career, I used to time-share some processor time on a microVAX. Am I more productive today than I was when I graduated from University? I don't think so. In the end, my output is a computer program that does some sort of data processing. My program today might look fancier and be able to process more data in less time, but in the end it took me just as long to produce the program as it did years ago.
I know lots of very productive people who exist without ever directly using a computer.
You're joking right? A fax machine's UI sucks. In my experience very few people, when faced with sending a fax for the first time, have managed to do so successfully. They always need help.
When you approach a fax machine, there is no obvious starting action to take. Do you dial first, or scan the pages first? Do you scan the pages one at a time, or can you put them down all at once? When you dial the number, there is no feedback that anything is happening. No sound of dialing, no sound of handshake. Just some cryptic messages like TX that mean absolutely nothing to a novice. Eventually the machine will spit out a page that, you hope, says somewhere on it STATUS: SUCCESS. If you do run into difficulty, you have to find the dead-tree manual to help you, because the messages on the little LCD display don't help much.
A fax machine's UI is about as user friendly as a linux shell without man pages.
"Productivity has been improved greatly over the years"
It has? Where is this increased productivity of which you speak?
I see people doing things differently than they did years ago, but I would hesitate to call it increased productivity.
I've had situations with customers who require a fix as soon as possible, because if the system is down they are losing money. When this situation occurs, we have two goals in mind:
(1) Get the customer up and running again as fast as possible. This is as often as not some sort of workaround that is not pretty, nor is it permanent, but it works. The workaround does get thorough testing (impossible within the time frame) but the customer is aware of this and willing to accept the risks.
(2) Get the customer a proper, version controlled, patch that they can install to fix the problem permanently. This can take weeks, most of that time being testing. If the customer is insistent we will ship them the proper patch before it is fully tested (again, making them aware of the risks) and continue testing so that we can send the customer some warm and fuzzy news later on (or, if we find a problem, another patch).
Neat idea. But then if the cable did stop, or try to stop, due to mechanical failure the results would be catastrophic. Having the cars motor themselves way up the cable keeps failures localized.
A moving cable driving by motors would not scale very well. Imagine the momentum of a cable moving in a 22,000 mile long loop. The energy required to get it moving would be tremendous, and the problem of stopping it again would be immense.
What was the biggest technical challenge that ever threatened the existence of /.? In other words, have you ever hit a problem/bug that left you sitting there thinking "Holy crap! WTF do I do know?"
You have it backwards. The customers of NBC are not its viewers. NBC's customers are its advertisers, and viewers are the product that NBC is selling.
I think a lot of people are already calling Vista a POS.
That might draw a crowd.
When you register they go through the motions of applying a secure sign-up process by not activating you until you've clicked the activation link in the email they send you. But with the activation link being deezer.com/confirm.php?email=, why bother?
Oh, and after you've clicked the link they email you your password in the clear.
They must be more polite where you live. I've been to only one movie in the last year, and during the movie not only did the cell phone of the woman sitting 2 seats to my right ring, she also answered it without leaving her seat.
Why would Microsoft do *anything* with works? This can't be a big money-maker for them, unless they are charging OEMs behind the scenes to have it installed (in which case the OEMs are stupid for installing it).
I think Microsoft is just practicing the ad-supported software model with an application they don't really care about, just to see how well it works. They can iron out the wrinkles (or maybe drop the idea all together) without damaging the reputation of one of their core products.
That should be:
Below 15
15
16
17
18
19+
I'm saving myself for CowboyNeal (you insensitive clod!)
Or maybe a game of Global Thermonuclear War?
Of course it blends (everything blends in these vidoes), but I was impressed by how long the iPhone display remained active in the slow-motion review.
That theme is from "Fountains of Paradise", as part of the conversations with Starglider.
Then you have no class.
;-)
Sorry
Does anybody else find it odd that they can't tell whether or not this is water? I mean, were they so positive that they wouldn't find water on Mars that they didn't include any way of testing for it?
If the thing is so sophisticated that can navigate rough terrain in a hostile arena and carry someone back, why not give it a gun and let it do the fighting? Then there would be no wounded to carry back.
"Seems like a good idea. He has a lot in common with Young Frankenstein's monster."
Ladies and gentlemen, watch and wonder as the monster demonstrates his coordination with the "Putting on the Developers Developers Developers Developers" monkey dance!
Those Boing Boing links are hilarious.
I've recently noticed that the Toastmasters (safe link) logo has more than a passing resemblance.
Fishy? No, I don't think it is fishy. It might be stretching the truth, but it *is* plausible.
In my experience, if there is one part of a development cycle where extra bodies have a positive impact, it's in the QA/bug fixing stage. It is while features are still under development where adding more people doesn't help all that much.
And Voila, you have all the *parts* that make an engine, but they still will need to be assembled into an engine, which is not an insignificant process.
It's not the program, it's the medium. In this case the medium is the screen.
I once had a Calculus prof whose lectures were awful. This was pre-powerpoint: he used transparencies and an overhead projector. All he would do is plop something on the overhead, read it to us, and then plop down the next slide, and repeat.
One day the overhead was broken. Without a blink of an eye he picked up a piece of chalk and began lecturing the old fashioned way, writing down stuff on the blackboard. The prof was transformed from a deadly boring lecturer to an absolutely fascinating speaker. There was much more class interaction and I learned way more in that class than in any previous class.
Next class the overhead was working again. Sigh.