I tend to agree. Feels like the author is just writing to meet his quota. Whether KDE or GNOME comes out ahead in the coming years, I doubt it would have anything to do with what is said in this article.
Like: - naming all your variables and functions really short - persistent use of classes and css to avoid common attributes - grouping/normalizing css properties - using js to generate repetitive code - not using any carriage returns - removing every js function and css declaration you don't use - removing all comments - properly compressing images - proper caching declarations - doing all browser optimizations on the server
And you know, URLs usually contain important information. I've never seen someone put garbage in a URL. And if it's information that needs to be passed, it doesn't matter where it is placed. It will take up the same bandwidth.
... Then you need some consistency checks... Then you need some triggers...
You are making the presumption that the project is evolving towards requiring these features. Not every project evolves. Many are bloated. They can be small and contained.
Clearly the developers of these databases did so to satisfy a need. And those with similar needs have contributed to their adoption. To think they were just too lazy to learn a real database and went ahead and built a database platform instead is just too interesting to be true. So I don't think the parent's question is something that can be refuted:
maybe these slacker DBs are perfect for what they're doing?
With that said, sure, there are a ton of people who need a real database who start off with a fake one... That can probably be said about a lot of other things we do.
Well, actually, people think twice now even about calling 911 where they get billed for it later. Not the rich, of course, just the poor. And those who cannot afford health care don't buy it. That is why we have so many uninsured Americans.
It is the same with the legal system and even education. The rich always have lawyers and the money to pay for college.
My best guess is, you already live where those two classes exist.
> system is being rigged by a culture of "Get Rich" thinking.
Rigged? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
You cannot motivate people to work through financial incentives, yet bash those who act upon such motivations.
The solution will never be in changing how people think. Instead, walls need to be raised, certain doors need to be locked, and opportunity should only shine from the right direction. Financial motivation will always be a part of any capitalist situation.
>... In other words, this charge really isn't noteworthy.
Exactly.
> Critics say the carriers will simply pass these fees through to consumers.
This is not how business is done, or how prices are determined. Competition is the only factor. A business will justify their prices with however many excuses they can, but ultimately the price is determined by whether or not they can compete, and whether the customer can pay. If the prices are too high, regardless of any Obama tax, they would be forced to lower their prices.
If they were planning on raising their prices, then this is another excuse they could use to do it.
So there are a few crucial Japanese features that the iPhone totally lacks:
1) Real time email: SMS is over in Japan. All phones send and receive EMAIL in REAL TIME for FREE. 2) Phone wallet: Riding a train? Just cast your phone over the sensor. You can even buy drinks, or use it at some combini's. Your phone is an ATM. the iphone does not have this feature. 3) Camera: The iPhone has a web cam that can only take stills in comparison. 4) Bars: It is true, the AT&T equivalent of Japan has the sole distribution license. The reception... sucks. If Docomo sold the iphone, more would have bought it.
The iphone has everything else, and then some. The iphone isn't really a phone. Everyone I know who owns one, keeps their regular phone. So they have two phones. So it's for those who can afford it as a second phone. And that makes not so many.
In reality, the iPhone is thought of as a great new gadget/toy, but many simply question Apple and Softbank (the provider) their seriousness when it comes to competing with other mobile companies. Maybe Softbank though the iPhone had enough to make others give up features they depended on, but alas that was not the case. So many look at the situation as a huge screw up by Softbank for paying Apple so much for so many, when the product was insufficient to even replace existing phones.
You can't really blame Apple for accepting a lucrative deal with little downside.
The major discounts are due to the overstock that can't be returned or sold anywhere else for being SIM locked. At this point Softbank is just cutting their losses.
There is no motivation without the fear of losing. Who cares about some God particle... I just want to see Jeff cry!
Going to the moon was an afterthought. Beating Russia was the main purpose. There is no one to beat, so we aren't going there anymore.
Colliding egos have contributed to more innovation in the History of Mankind than anything else. Team work, cooperation, common goals... are all overrated and there is plenty of evidence of that.
I thought that "Darwinism" was a term thought up by the religious anti-evolution side.
Words emerge from beliefs and from what people wish to communicate. "-isms" are quite religion centric and so Darwinism is more often used by the non-scientists. To scientists, it isn't very relevant, and arguably wrong, hence not used much.
However, you cannot just delete words. Words emerge from beliefs so without deleting those beliefs, the same word or something similar will emerge in its place.
Well, robots are instant. I hate to break it to you, but you do type slower than a robot. To be more accurate, robots don't type. They just fill and go.
I use roboform, so I also fill and go, so maybe I deserve a backup captcha in my confirmation screen, but at least the webmaster can add some exceptions to the captcha requirement.
As for delaying submit, that is of course possible, but at least forcing them to do so will slow them down. 10,000 submits/hour verus say 100 is a huge difference.
Captchas aside, aren't there other ways of preventing bots from registering multiple accounts? Instead of focusing on humans, how about focusing on the behavior of the bots. Do they change their IP address every time? Do they fill forms faster than humanly possible? Does any human register more than one account on your site? Do they enter random text or put in URLs where they shouldn't?
I still do not see any attempts to weed out the bots.
If you model interfaces from how individuals act, there will be as many interfaces as there are faces. Approximation will result in interface "races."
We need to decide what is best for us, and what we want. If an OS that has more than 1 person using it forces people to do anything any one way, you will have those who will rebel. And their reasons may not even be logical or anything solvable. Seriously, it could even just be due to a bad cup of coffee they were drinking at that moment.
If you can find an interface that makes you happy, then someone has done their job, and you should be glad you found what you were looking for.
In terms of what can be measured, there are a few such as task switching speed, CPU overhead, and statistical learning curves. For example, some interfaces will create more customer support calls than others. That is one parameter a company running a customer support center may focus on. But do not lose focus on the goals, and their nature. Set up impossible goals such as "perfection" and, well, we will all just end up using what randomly results from the pursuit, without ever really getting there. Which just so happens to be what goes on most of the time with these projects, and what we are generally used to.
Most of us have PCs already, and with reliability getting tolerable, thank goodness, most PC sales are upgrades, no? It is a luxury purchase; a good investment of some extra money. No extra money or a frugal conscience will lead to postponement of such purchases - especially for corporations.
I still disagree with the interpretation that sales are falling. Sales are not growing isn't sales decline... Maybe less than expected, but still, it is not a decline. 1.8% growth is not a decline. My height not growing doesn't mean I am shrinking.
Great post, but I have to challenge this statement:
are paying LESS than they would have to pay if it was sold for a fixed price, because of the increased demand lowers the per capitia fixed costs.
No. Companies maximize profit by charging the maximum price a consumer tier will permit. It has nothing to do with saving anyone any money. The increased demand lowering fixed costs is a separate matter that also holds true, but companies simply bank on the lowered fixed costs, and do not pass it on to consumers. They may say so, but the only time companies are supposed to lower prices is when they need to be more competitive. Of course, when they raise prices they love to put it on increased costs, but we all know from the oil companies that in their case the increase in oil prices was directly proportional to their obscene level of profits.
No one should second guess the intents of any large corporation. They are required to squeeze every dime out of the consumer. The economy is built around this behavior. If a private company is charging less than it can, they are a great M&A opportunity. If it is a public company, the shareholders would not allow it. It is only a matter of time until prices are adjusted to their maximums.
There is nothing that will stop more and more information from becoming available, and for bots to start correlating and finding their context. Google is doing just what is expected of them within the natural evolutionary path of data organization. Sure, one can regulate google, but nothing will stop others from creating tools that do the same thing. And this is only the beginning.
There is only one solution. And that is to be able to actively monitor, control and protect information availability. And this must include the ability to delete information from places where the information is not desired. I have to be able to tell facebook to delete all of my information, and facebook needs to be legally liable if found they fail to accomplish this task. Archival without permission will also have to be illegal.
It is all or nothing. Either everyone will have information about everyone, or no one will have anyone's information unless permission granted.
Of course, these measures are only necessary for humans. Places, things, facts, public figures, etc... Everything else will clearly benefit from correlations being automatically compiled and made freely available.
If software already sold itself, then sure, what a great tool, but software is hard to sell enough as it is. Heck, most software is free. Only a very few companies get our money.
Unless you have a platform like the iPhone, the internet is so abundant of generous programmers' contributions, that everything useful has already been done, done well, and made available for free. Even the big and difficult stuff like... operating systems.
So I'd say add tools for iPhone and Android sellers and build around those markets. The internet is not really a good market for software.
True CS is not language programming but how to develop algorithms.
Well, true or not true, there are different branches of Computer Science. Sure, algorithms is one route, but html, javascript, python, scheme, C... just reading and writing code is a great place to start. Many algorithms can just be looked up, and if we are programming in any high level language, most of the important ones are already abstracted into APIs or libraries.
Much like in elementary school, we can start by adding and subtracting numbers, not number theory.
If something happens "automatically," that means that someone else has already written the program to do it.
This is absolutely crucial. The computer is a machine. Nothing is accidental. And if you are a programmer, there is absolutely no such thing as "it isn't doing what I'm telling it to." No no...
It is only doing exactly what you are telling it to!!
Once a programmer, we forget how normal people think... Computers only do *exactly* what they are told. Not many things do that! My mother might click the same icon 3 times if there is no feedback... "Well, if it isn't working, I must have done something wrong." "It might work this time." Then when Word opens 3 times, she thinks she isn't "communicating well" with the computer. Sure, if a splash screen were to show up immediately, she might recognize here request has been processed, but she still doesn't grasp the concept that though there may be delays, the computer is never wrong, and always does exactly what is asked of it. If there is an error, it is human, and most times it is in the software, and you cannot do anything about it.
1. Emphasize that there are multiple paradigms, not a single paradigm.
2. Demonstrate each paradigm with different programming cases and languages. For example, do something OOP in scheme. Something functional in Java. Or preferably do them all in multiple languages. Show how some languages have features that gear the language towards specific paradigms and coding practices.
3. Help them recognize the difference between learning how to build something, and the internals of programming. Building involves knowing your platform, getting the tools, knowing where to find help, and getting over bugs and quirks to accomplish the end result. An example would be making something for the iPhone, or for Windows. The internals of programming involves learning all the concepts, and how things *actually* work.
4. Teach what makes a good programmer independent of language. Code reading comprehension. Code debugging. Consistent syntax. Variable naming. Scope and namespaces. Commenting and organizing code in a way that lets other people easily work with it. Team concepts. Abstraction. Abstraction layers. Using and building APIs and libraries. Google searching skills.
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to agree. Feels like the author is just writing to meet his quota. Whether KDE or GNOME comes out ahead in the coming years, I doubt it would have anything to do with what is said in this article.
Ya, and this is a design decision I think. Each link contains a hash to a cached node of some sort, for direct access to each resource.
FYI: Director of Engineering discusses Facebook's architecture (1hr)
Ya, whatever. That will only save black ink for your monitor.
Like:
- naming all your variables and functions really short
- persistent use of classes and css to avoid common attributes
- grouping/normalizing css properties
- using js to generate repetitive code
- not using any carriage returns
- removing every js function and css declaration you don't use
- removing all comments
- properly compressing images
- proper caching declarations
- doing all browser optimizations on the server
And you know, URLs usually contain important information. I've never seen someone put garbage in a URL. And if it's information that needs to be passed, it doesn't matter where it is placed. It will take up the same bandwidth.
... Then you need some consistency checks... Then you need some triggers...
You are making the presumption that the project is evolving towards requiring these features. Not every project evolves. Many are bloated. They can be small and contained.
Clearly the developers of these databases did so to satisfy a need. And those with similar needs have contributed to their adoption. To think they were just too lazy to learn a real database and went ahead and built a database platform instead is just too interesting to be true. So I don't think the parent's question is something that can be refuted:
maybe these slacker DBs are perfect for what they're doing?
With that said, sure, there are a ton of people who need a real database who start off with a fake one... That can probably be said about a lot of other things we do.
Self defense? Security? What if they get acquired? What if they need to milk their patents to survive?
Patents don't kill. People do.
But knowing that, why give people patents?
Well, actually, people think twice now even about calling 911 where they get billed for it later. Not the rich, of course, just the poor. And those who cannot afford health care don't buy it. That is why we have so many uninsured Americans.
It is the same with the legal system and even education. The rich always have lawyers and the money to pay for college.
My best guess is, you already live where those two classes exist.
On a slight tangent...
> system is being rigged by a culture of "Get Rich" thinking.
Rigged? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
You cannot motivate people to work through financial incentives, yet bash those who act upon such motivations.
The solution will never be in changing how people think. Instead, walls need to be raised, certain doors need to be locked, and opportunity should only shine from the right direction. Financial motivation will always be a part of any capitalist situation.
> ... In other words, this charge really isn't noteworthy.
Exactly.
> Critics say the carriers will simply pass these fees through to consumers.
This is not how business is done, or how prices are determined. Competition is the only factor. A business will justify their prices with however many excuses they can, but ultimately the price is determined by whether or not they can compete, and whether the customer can pay. If the prices are too high, regardless of any Obama tax, they would be forced to lower their prices.
If they were planning on raising their prices, then this is another excuse they could use to do it.
So there are a few crucial Japanese features that the iPhone totally lacks:
1) Real time email: SMS is over in Japan. All phones send and receive EMAIL in REAL TIME for FREE.
2) Phone wallet: Riding a train? Just cast your phone over the sensor. You can even buy drinks, or use it at some combini's. Your phone is an ATM. the iphone does not have this feature.
3) Camera: The iPhone has a web cam that can only take stills in comparison.
4) Bars: It is true, the AT&T equivalent of Japan has the sole distribution license. The reception... sucks. If Docomo sold the iphone, more would have bought it.
The iphone has everything else, and then some. The iphone isn't really a phone. Everyone I know who owns one, keeps their regular phone. So they have two phones. So it's for those who can afford it as a second phone. And that makes not so many.
In reality, the iPhone is thought of as a great new gadget/toy, but many simply question Apple and Softbank (the provider) their seriousness when it comes to competing with other mobile companies. Maybe Softbank though the iPhone had enough to make others give up features they depended on, but alas that was not the case. So many look at the situation as a huge screw up by Softbank for paying Apple so much for so many, when the product was insufficient to even replace existing phones.
You can't really blame Apple for accepting a lucrative deal with little downside.
The major discounts are due to the overstock that can't be returned or sold anywhere else for being SIM locked. At this point Softbank is just cutting their losses.
There is no motivation without the fear of losing. Who cares about some God particle... I just want to see Jeff cry!
Going to the moon was an afterthought. Beating Russia was the main purpose. There is no one to beat, so we aren't going there anymore.
Colliding egos have contributed to more innovation in the History of Mankind than anything else. Team work, cooperation, common goals... are all overrated and there is plenty of evidence of that.
Like what hattig (47930) said above:
I thought that "Darwinism" was a term thought up by the religious anti-evolution side.
Words emerge from beliefs and from what people wish to communicate. "-isms" are quite religion centric and so Darwinism is more often used by the non-scientists. To scientists, it isn't very relevant, and arguably wrong, hence not used much.
However, you cannot just delete words. Words emerge from beliefs so without deleting those beliefs, the same word or something similar will emerge in its place.
when will there be modding for articles? what a waste of time. parent is absolutely right.
If I can download a French Linux version of Firefox from my Japanese Vista then how does that make Firefox flawed?
More like:
(as I continue beating a dead horse)
The Broken Design of Slashdot's "Sumbit Story" Tool
Well, robots are instant. I hate to break it to you, but you do type slower than a robot. To be more accurate, robots don't type. They just fill and go.
I use roboform, so I also fill and go, so maybe I deserve a backup captcha in my confirmation screen, but at least the webmaster can add some exceptions to the captcha requirement.
As for delaying submit, that is of course possible, but at least forcing them to do so will slow them down. 10,000 submits/hour verus say 100 is a huge difference.
Captchas aside, aren't there other ways of preventing bots from registering multiple accounts? Instead of focusing on humans, how about focusing on the behavior of the bots. Do they change their IP address every time? Do they fill forms faster than humanly possible? Does any human register more than one account on your site? Do they enter random text or put in URLs where they shouldn't?
I still do not see any attempts to weed out the bots.
If you model interfaces from how individuals act, there will be as many interfaces as there are faces. Approximation will result in interface "races."
We need to decide what is best for us, and what we want. If an OS that has more than 1 person using it forces people to do anything any one way, you will have those who will rebel. And their reasons may not even be logical or anything solvable. Seriously, it could even just be due to a bad cup of coffee they were drinking at that moment.
If you can find an interface that makes you happy, then someone has done their job, and you should be glad you found what you were looking for.
In terms of what can be measured, there are a few such as task switching speed, CPU overhead, and statistical learning curves. For example, some interfaces will create more customer support calls than others. That is one parameter a company running a customer support center may focus on. But do not lose focus on the goals, and their nature. Set up impossible goals such as "perfection" and, well, we will all just end up using what randomly results from the pursuit, without ever really getting there. Which just so happens to be what goes on most of the time with these projects, and what we are generally used to.
Most of us have PCs already, and with reliability getting tolerable, thank goodness, most PC sales are upgrades, no? It is a luxury purchase; a good investment of some extra money. No extra money or a frugal conscience will lead to postponement of such purchases - especially for corporations.
I still disagree with the interpretation that sales are falling. Sales are not growing isn't sales decline... Maybe less than expected, but still, it is not a decline. 1.8% growth is not a decline. My height not growing doesn't mean I am shrinking.
Great post, but I have to challenge this statement:
are paying LESS than they would have to pay if it was sold for a fixed price, because of the increased demand lowers the per capitia fixed costs.
No. Companies maximize profit by charging the maximum price a consumer tier will permit. It has nothing to do with saving anyone any money. The increased demand lowering fixed costs is a separate matter that also holds true, but companies simply bank on the lowered fixed costs, and do not pass it on to consumers. They may say so, but the only time companies are supposed to lower prices is when they need to be more competitive. Of course, when they raise prices they love to put it on increased costs, but we all know from the oil companies that in their case the increase in oil prices was directly proportional to their obscene level of profits.
No one should second guess the intents of any large corporation. They are required to squeeze every dime out of the consumer. The economy is built around this behavior. If a private company is charging less than it can, they are a great M&A opportunity. If it is a public company, the shareholders would not allow it. It is only a matter of time until prices are adjusted to their maximums.
There is nothing that will stop more and more information from becoming available, and for bots to start correlating and finding their context. Google is doing just what is expected of them within the natural evolutionary path of data organization. Sure, one can regulate google, but nothing will stop others from creating tools that do the same thing. And this is only the beginning.
There is only one solution. And that is to be able to actively monitor, control and protect information availability. And this must include the ability to delete information from places where the information is not desired. I have to be able to tell facebook to delete all of my information, and facebook needs to be legally liable if found they fail to accomplish this task. Archival without permission will also have to be illegal.
It is all or nothing. Either everyone will have information about everyone, or no one will have anyone's information unless permission granted.
Of course, these measures are only necessary for humans. Places, things, facts, public figures, etc... Everything else will clearly benefit from correlations being automatically compiled and made freely available.
The internet is the worst market, yet the best resource. That says something.
If software already sold itself, then sure, what a great tool, but software is hard to sell enough as it is. Heck, most software is free. Only a very few companies get our money.
Unless you have a platform like the iPhone, the internet is so abundant of generous programmers' contributions, that everything useful has already been done, done well, and made available for free. Even the big and difficult stuff like... operating systems.
So I'd say add tools for iPhone and Android sellers and build around those markets. The internet is not really a good market for software.
Just some thoughts...
True CS is not language programming but how to develop algorithms.
Well, true or not true, there are different branches of Computer Science. Sure, algorithms is one route, but html, javascript, python, scheme, C... just reading and writing code is a great place to start. Many algorithms can just be looked up, and if we are programming in any high level language, most of the important ones are already abstracted into APIs or libraries.
Much like in elementary school, we can start by adding and subtracting numbers, not number theory.
Sure, these problems could all be worked out.
Right. So you admit you can do it. The previous is only arguing to that extent, as you seem to deny it is possible in your first post.
But I can guarantee that water prices would go up as a result.
Right. Except competition will also bring the price down.
If something happens "automatically," that means that someone else has already written the program to do it.
This is absolutely crucial. The computer is a machine. Nothing is accidental. And if you are a programmer, there is absolutely no such thing as "it isn't doing what I'm telling it to." No no...
It is only doing exactly what you are telling it to!!
Once a programmer, we forget how normal people think... Computers only do *exactly* what they are told. Not many things do that! My mother might click the same icon 3 times if there is no feedback... "Well, if it isn't working, I must have done something wrong." "It might work this time." Then when Word opens 3 times, she thinks she isn't "communicating well" with the computer. Sure, if a splash screen were to show up immediately, she might recognize here request has been processed, but she still doesn't grasp the concept that though there may be delays, the computer is never wrong, and always does exactly what is asked of it. If there is an error, it is human, and most times it is in the software, and you cannot do anything about it.
Man, I am SO late but... just to add to the pile.
1. Emphasize that there are multiple paradigms, not a single paradigm.
2. Demonstrate each paradigm with different programming cases and languages. For example, do something OOP in scheme. Something functional in Java. Or preferably do them all in multiple languages. Show how some languages have features that gear the language towards specific paradigms and coding practices.
3. Help them recognize the difference between learning how to build something, and the internals of programming. Building involves knowing your platform, getting the tools, knowing where to find help, and getting over bugs and quirks to accomplish the end result. An example would be making something for the iPhone, or for Windows. The internals of programming involves learning all the concepts, and how things *actually* work.
4. Teach what makes a good programmer independent of language. Code reading comprehension. Code debugging. Consistent syntax. Variable naming. Scope and namespaces. Commenting and organizing code in a way that lets other people easily work with it. Team concepts. Abstraction. Abstraction layers. Using and building APIs and libraries. Google searching skills.
5. If the science is important, why not show them this:
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, Video Lectures by Hal Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman from 1981