Actually, it's just the walls of the Universe. The simulation uses a 32 bit number to handle the coordinate system, so it needed to fit within 2^32 light years. I told God he should have used a 64-bit processor, but he complained that they were too expensive back in 1970. I bet he's kicking himself now, eh?
it would mean that Microsoft is pretty much scrapping it's entire codebase for Windows and replacing it with a Unix or Unix-like architecture.
Says who? The NT kernel was designed to be able to project different "personalities", much in the same way that Mac OS X does. The POSIX system necessary has been available in Windows for just shy of forever in an effort to win government contracts and companies that require POSIX as a checkbox on their requisition forms.
Of course, their support hasn't been very good, but that has more to do with an unwillingness on Microsoft's part rather than any real technical reason. Typically Microsoft implements sub-standard support, then claims that their support is top notch. A few examples of this are the David Korn debacle:
Just as bad was the Kerberos debacle where Microsoft extended Kerberos for Windows such that Unix machines could subscribe to a Windows domain, but a Windows machine could not subscribe to a Unix domain. I called a rep on it in one of their presentations on Win2K, and he assured me that I was mistaken.
This is like Satan trying to appeal to Christians.
Is that really that great of a description? I mean, Satan is depicted as putting money, power, wealth, women, and other temptations in front of Christians to tempt them from their path. He's also depicted as regularly succeeding.
I think the analogy you're looking for is something more along the lines of selling sno-cones to Eskimos.
I dunno, seems plausible enough to me. I was always of fan of the idea of extracting the NT kernel and doing a GNU distribution on top of it. (Something which is theoretically possible even without Microsoft's help, though rather difficult.) Microsoft would never have been happy about it because it would further erode their lock-in.
Of course, these days Microsoft's lock-in is slipping away fast. More and more programs are showing up on the Mac, the web is going standards-compliant, and Java has ensured that Windows no longer locks customers in on the server side.
The way I see it, Microsoft is fighting. Which is step 3 of 4 in Ghandi's formula for success: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
I don't see why we couldn't lock Mars/Earth into non-interfering orbits via the LaGrange Points. The natural "lock" of gravity between the Sun, Earth, and Mars would ensure that Earth and Mars would remain relative to each other for a very long time. And since the gravity is stable, it shouldn't have too many negative effects on the Earth's biosphere.
Granted, calculating THAT trajectory would be a bit more difficult than simply moving the Earth willy-nilly.:-)
Actually, jd is quite correct. Scientists have already been working out methods of moving the Earth should a climatic event threaten the livelihood of the human race. The Earth may be big, but there are no forces that prevent it from moving. Intentionally toss a few rocks past it, and the gravitational pull will slowly accelerate the Earth out of its current orbit.
Despite the fact that we only have 7.6 billion years to get the computations correct, I have a feeling that we'll be able to get it done right by then. (Either that or evacuate our Dyson Sphere. Whichever comes first.)
I remember that if you burned your pirated games incorrectly, you'd end up with a poor-performing game...
I think you're confused. The Dreamcast pirated games were standard CD-ROMs that used a special multimedia extension (i.e. a backdoor) to boot. That's why some of the pirated games didn't fit without having their sounds or graphics downsampled.
While the system did use CAV for GDROM discs, the real secret to GDROM was that it was just a CDROM with no error protection. By reclaiming the extra bits normally used to recover from scratches and smudges, GDROM discs were able to hold a lot more data than regular CDROMs. Of course, they were also one of least resilient media EVER created. There are games that practically have to be pirated because it's too hard to find an original disc.
GDROM was quite possibly one of the worst formats ever. And I say that as a Dreamcast fan.:-)
How this breaks out in the real world is that Open Source offers commoditization of technologies that do not really provide a competitive advantage any longer. In fact, those technologies are often costly to maintain compared to what the return is on them.
To give an example, community maintenance of GCC has greatly helped development on embedded platforms. Even the most esoteric piece of kit can have a compiler ported to it, thus saving a great deal of time and energy when developing a new embedded platform. After all, the value is in the hardware, right? Why reinvent the software wheel?
Because of OSS's value in this area, there is little incentive to invest in cutting edge technology that is open sourced. Which is why OSS tends to continue in catch-up mode. The incentive of the market is to hold on to competitive advantages until they are no longer an advantage.
While I can't read the article (it's in Spanish?) my guess is that Alexey is upset that he had so much difficulty profiting from the game he created. The Soviet Union seized his work early on, and by the time he finally had rights, every Tom, Dick, and Harry had written his own version of Tetris. So the original version of the game held little value to the market.
The problem is, you cannot expect that technology and arts will stand still. It sucks what the USSR did to Alexey, but he needs to realize that the market is a moving target. Time to create bigger and better things rather than focusing too hard on the past*.:-)
* Yes, I know that he has worked on new variations of Tetris as well as a cool puzzle game involving clock hands. Unfortunately, none of those titles achieved the same popularity as the original Tetris.
But don't WiiCade developers have to pay Adobe $700 plus tax to get started?
If you want Adobe Flash Studio, yes. But there's more than one way to skin a cat: http://osflash.org/
The downside is that there's a higher learning curve with OSS flash tools.:(
Or can one develop a competent Wii game using only DHTML?
YES! You can! Look for Pentriix and Snakers for examples of DHTML games on the main site. There's also this (never completed) Tetris game I did a while back:
My thirteen year old said it was OK. He wasn't impressed by the games.
FWIW, they're not going to compare to the latest blockbusters. While WiiCade is trying to improve the quality of the games (thus paying for high quality ones), many of them are most fun when played with friends. For example, Newgrounds Rumble is fun as a single player game, but it's TONS more fun when played against friends. Up to four players! Wiimote Wars, Wiimote Wars 2, and Slipstream are all the same way.
Some of the fun one player games are Key to Adventure, Dice Wars, Paintball, and Double Wires.
the videos seem a little slow (compared to youtube under Verizon Fios)
The Wii Browser is pretty slow at rendering, I'm afraid. WiiCade has spent a lot of time working to improve the performance of games, thus why they tend to play reasonably well. It's actually possible to make the videos play faster as well, but they haven't received nearly as much attention as the games have. I imagine that will change sometime in the not-too-distant future.
I'm still waiting for Java support in Wii Opera.
Unfortunately, that is one thing that is unlikely to happen. Java hasn't been optimized for smaller machines since the 1.1 days. These days it's built to do complex desktop and server applications. A proper J2SE VM is simply too heavyweight for the Wii's 80MB RAM + 512MB of flash disk.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you! I will continue to do what I can to help improve things.:)
I guess this is what's called Constant Angular Velocity,
Correct. I used to give the names and Wikipedia links, but I got tired of dragging them out every time I explained the difference between CAV and CLV (Constant Linear Velocity).:-)
It's not the laser that would die, it's the motor. Normal DVD reading requires that the motor step up and down its speed depending on the track being read. The Wii works differently. Instead of stepping up and down the disc velocity, it keeps the disc speed constant and steps up/down the decoding rates on the disc. As a result, GameCube and Wii games get a higher transfer rate near the edge of the disc.
(My understanding is that one of the classic optimizations for the GameCube was to organize the data on the disc to provide the highest transfer rates during game loading.)
This design is why GameCubes had very few drive failures in comparison to the PS2. Nintendo builds systems like tanks.;-)
...they're getting there. Meanwhile, game programmers have been working with the (admittedly limited) Opera Browser to produce games designed for the Wii. WiiCade is even paying for games now, something which you won't find out of other homebrew ventures.
It's not a perfect solution, but it does work, and it works well enough to play some pretty cool stuff. And you can even get paid to perform your hobby! How cool is that?:)
Disclaimer: I am associated with WiiCade. So take this with a grain of salt.
Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once...
on
Pakistan Blocks YouTube
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm pretty sure that was Turkey, not Morocco. I remember because quite a few blog posts in Turkey syndicated my anti-blocking instructions. I'm probably a fugitive there for having a minor amount of technical knowledge.:-P
Netscape was lucky anybody bought them. IE already had a serious foothold at that point. There was no way they were viable as an independant[sic] entity.
You assume that Netscape's primary business was the web browser. It was for a while, but eventually Netscape started giving their browser away and shifted over to their Enterprise Server business. Netscape Web Server was extremely popular, and Netscape worked hard to sell add-on products like LiveWire. Eventually they worked out a deal with Sun, thus producing products like iPlanet Application Server and iPlanet LDAP Server.
A made-up character in Monty Python, obviously. The name is composed of what's called Dog Latin; an attempt to mix english words with Latin or Latin-sounding words to come up with an authentic-sounding - yet amusing - Latin name or phrase. In this case they are trying for, "The most naughty".
To add to my last post, a quicky translation of "Optimus Maximus Keyboard" by someone untrained in Latin (namly, myself) is: The Most Optimal Keyboard. I may be wrong, of course, as nuances are hard to get right when translating. I'd love to hear someone who actually speaks Latin weigh in.:-)
The movie was a fabrication (perhaps loosely based on the Slave's Revolt), but the movie still has no claim on the word. Maximus was a fairly common word that means "great" in Latin. For example, the "Circus Maximus" was a large racing arena, the "Pontifex Maximus" was the high priest, and the "Cloaca Maxima" was a large sewer that drained away Rome's waste.
what are you downloading that is a gig or two PER NIGHT?
Try renting a movie from iTunes. That's a gig right there. Granted, not everyone watches a rented movie each night, but the equivalent of two hours of television works out to a similar data transfer rate.
I know a gigabyte of transfer sounds like a lot, but we're living in different times. Delivering media over the Internet means that the infrastructure has to be able to sustain rather large amounts of data delivered to each user on a regular basis. If that means the infrastructure needs to be upgraded, then so be it. Progress cannot stop because ISPs have gotten cold feet about upgrades.
People, you need to realize that a gigabyte of transfer per day is no longer the exception, it's the rule. The sooner we accept that and move to supporting it, the sooner all our lives will improve.
It's implied right in the summary. Microsoft didn't want investors to lose confidence in Vista, so they shipped it early to coincide with Valentine's departure. That way it looks like Valentine left because the product was ready rather than leaving because the project was going down the drain.
Think of it this way: What does it say when a coach of a sports team decides to jump ship to another team mid-season?
As another poster already pointed out, your example is a bit of a strawman. It is indeed redundant, because it replicates information that the class is already contextually aware of. Seeing that code would probably irk me as well, but a linked list like this wouldn't:
Row currentRow = Rows.getHead();
...
currentRow = currentRow.next();
You need to find a balance between too terse and too verbose. Done correctly it is too terse ("rwCur" anyone?) and if not done correctly, is redundant (see examples above) and hence too verbose.
The original Hungarian was just the right amount of terseness for its time. I wouldn't be caught dead using a variable like rwCur in Java, but it was quite a bit better than many of the variable schemes of the day. The core concept lives on in the more verbose code that modern coders write, though in a rather modified form. One of the biggest changes was to put the noun and adjective back into proper order. (As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the name "Hungarian Notation" was a bit of a play on "Reverse Polish Notation".)
do you use HTML mail?/me lols
/me says, "Welcome to the 21st century." My emails all contain rich text and auto-wrapping. Modern email systems make this simple and straightforward. (e.g. GMail) I try not to embed code in my emails, but HTML email makes it a lot simpler when I do. I can make the code stand out from the text, containing the right font and formatting. I know that it won't get snipped off or weirdly wrapped when someone forwards it or replies, unlike traditional 80-column text email.
FWIW, I agree with your sentiment that code should be kept horizontally constrained. However, it is a loose constraint with some variance. Hard constraints are artificial and can damage code legibility as much or more than they help.
It means you can fix stuff reasonably well on a serial console.
I don't understand. Is your terminal program not VT100 compatible? You can't scroll left and right in your instance of VI? Or resize your terminal window to provide more than 80 lines of height? A serial console is just a hardwired terminal connection. You don't have to put up with artificial constraints like 80 columns here in the amazing 21st century.
If you're a Java developer, you may be interested to know that Sun's Java code conventions specify 80 cols max
If you're a Java developer, you know that there are issues with Sun's Java coding standards. e.g. The original set of standards in Java 1.0 called for package names like "COM.Sun.stuff.ClassName". The current code conventions also suggest the K&R style of braces, which I absolutely despise. (The Allman style is (IMHO) far superior.)
The standards are also rife with examples of Hungarian Notation (even though they never call it out) and suggest using a space between a cast and the variable name (which divorces the variable from its cast).
You java streams are a good example of poorly encapsulated code. Separate your concerns and the 80 col "problem" goes away.
This statement makes absolutely no sense. Wrapping a primitive stream with a logical stream has nothing to do with SOC. Worse yet, you make no real statement about how it should be written. Should I declare separate variables for each level of stream? Why?
why wouldn't you just do "new BufferedReader(new FileReader(file));"?
There's no reason not to. I used FileInputStream as a placeholder for a primitive stream. I often run into situations like this:
Obviously all sorts of hilarious cludges can be used in languages where you're dealing with insufficiently-typed data.
Types, types, types, you keep talking about TYPES! That's where you're running into trouble. App Hungarian is about semantics, not typing. An object system can avoid App Hungarian style through contextual usage in many circumstances, but it doesn't always make sense to create a complete object hierarchy for every problem.
Granted, row systems can be contextualized like this:
public class Rows {
private Row current;
... }
Having a collection of rows with an index into a "current" item allows me to avoid having a variable like "currentRow" or "rwCur". (The latter being closer to original App Hungarian.) But there are situations where the information is transient enough to be in a procedural loop. This is where notation similar to App Hungarian-style is still warranted:
int pos = 0; int startPos = myString.indexOf(delimLeft)+1; int endPos = myString.indexOf(delimRight, startPos);
for(int i=startPos; i<endPos; i++) { //do logic }
Granted, startPos and endPos would have been something like psStart and psEnd to keep with the App Hungarian notation, but the concept itself was not flawed. What was flawed was the translation to System Hungarian which was based on type rather than semantic meaning. In fact, System Hungarian becomes redundant as you'd end up with variable like "iStartPos" and "iEndPos". Which is stupid, because the context of the variables already communicates the typing information.
Your posts suggest otherwise. In fact, I think you read the first part of Joel's article and never got to the portion where he turned it all around. Joel himself argues against common Hungarian notation. (i.e. Systems Hungarian) That doesn't seem to be percolating through your noggin'.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's just the walls of the Universe. The simulation uses a 32 bit number to handle the coordinate system, so it needed to fit within 2^32 light years. I told God he should have used a 64-bit processor, but he complained that they were too expensive back in 1970. I bet he's kicking himself now, eh?
Of course, their support hasn't been very good, but that has more to do with an unwillingness on Microsoft's part rather than any real technical reason. Typically Microsoft implements sub-standard support, then claims that their support is top notch. A few examples of this are the David Korn debacle:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/06/2030205
Just as bad was the Kerberos debacle where Microsoft extended Kerberos for Windows such that Unix machines could subscribe to a Windows domain, but a Windows machine could not subscribe to a Unix domain. I called a rep on it in one of their presentations on Win2K, and he assured me that I was mistaken.
Long story short: "Embrace, extend, extinguish"
I think the analogy you're looking for is something more along the lines of selling sno-cones to Eskimos.
I dunno, seems plausible enough to me. I was always of fan of the idea of extracting the NT kernel and doing a GNU distribution on top of it. (Something which is theoretically possible even without Microsoft's help, though rather difficult.) Microsoft would never have been happy about it because it would further erode their lock-in.
Of course, these days Microsoft's lock-in is slipping away fast. More and more programs are showing up on the Mac, the web is going standards-compliant, and Java has ensured that Windows no longer locks customers in on the server side.
The way I see it, Microsoft is fighting. Which is step 3 of 4 in Ghandi's formula for success: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
I don't see why we couldn't lock Mars/Earth into non-interfering orbits via the LaGrange Points. The natural "lock" of gravity between the Sun, Earth, and Mars would ensure that Earth and Mars would remain relative to each other for a very long time. And since the gravity is stable, it shouldn't have too many negative effects on the Earth's biosphere.
:-)
Granted, calculating THAT trajectory would be a bit more difficult than simply moving the Earth willy-nilly.
Archimedes.
Actually, jd is quite correct. Scientists have already been working out methods of moving the Earth should a climatic event threaten the livelihood of the human race. The Earth may be big, but there are no forces that prevent it from moving. Intentionally toss a few rocks past it, and the gravitational pull will slowly accelerate the Earth out of its current orbit.
Despite the fact that we only have 7.6 billion years to get the computations correct, I have a feeling that we'll be able to get it done right by then. (Either that or evacuate our Dyson Sphere. Whichever comes first.)
While the system did use CAV for GDROM discs, the real secret to GDROM was that it was just a CDROM with no error protection. By reclaiming the extra bits normally used to recover from scratches and smudges, GDROM discs were able to hold a lot more data than regular CDROMs. Of course, they were also one of least resilient media EVER created. There are games that practically have to be pirated because it's too hard to find an original disc.
GDROM was quite possibly one of the worst formats ever. And I say that as a Dreamcast fan.
Nope. Actually, I'm thinking of Clockwerx. Which may or may not be related to Rubik's Clock. (Probably not.) :-)
How this breaks out in the real world is that Open Source offers commoditization of technologies that do not really provide a competitive advantage any longer. In fact, those technologies are often costly to maintain compared to what the return is on them.
:-)
To give an example, community maintenance of GCC has greatly helped development on embedded platforms. Even the most esoteric piece of kit can have a compiler ported to it, thus saving a great deal of time and energy when developing a new embedded platform. After all, the value is in the hardware, right? Why reinvent the software wheel?
Because of OSS's value in this area, there is little incentive to invest in cutting edge technology that is open sourced. Which is why OSS tends to continue in catch-up mode. The incentive of the market is to hold on to competitive advantages until they are no longer an advantage.
While I can't read the article (it's in Spanish?) my guess is that Alexey is upset that he had so much difficulty profiting from the game he created. The Soviet Union seized his work early on, and by the time he finally had rights, every Tom, Dick, and Harry had written his own version of Tetris. So the original version of the game held little value to the market.
The problem is, you cannot expect that technology and arts will stand still. It sucks what the USSR did to Alexey, but he needs to realize that the market is a moving target. Time to create bigger and better things rather than focusing too hard on the past*.
* Yes, I know that he has worked on new variations of Tetris as well as a cool puzzle game involving clock hands. Unfortunately, none of those titles achieved the same popularity as the original Tetris.
The downside is that there's a higher learning curve with OSS flash tools.
http://java.dnsalias.com/tetris/ie/
One of these days, I should really finish this DHTML game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikwh8bQaW7E
Some of the fun one player games are Key to Adventure, Dice Wars, Paintball, and Double Wires.The Wii Browser is pretty slow at rendering, I'm afraid. WiiCade has spent a lot of time working to improve the performance of games, thus why they tend to play reasonably well. It's actually possible to make the videos play faster as well, but they haven't received nearly as much attention as the games have. I imagine that will change sometime in the not-too-distant future.Unfortunately, that is one thing that is unlikely to happen. Java hasn't been optimized for smaller machines since the 1.1 days. These days it's built to do complex desktop and server applications. A proper J2SE VM is simply too heavyweight for the Wii's 80MB RAM + 512MB of flash disk.Thank you! I will continue to do what I can to help improve things.
It's not the laser that would die, it's the motor. Normal DVD reading requires that the motor step up and down its speed depending on the track being read. The Wii works differently. Instead of stepping up and down the disc velocity, it keeps the disc speed constant and steps up/down the decoding rates on the disc. As a result, GameCube and Wii games get a higher transfer rate near the edge of the disc.
;-)
(My understanding is that one of the classic optimizations for the GameCube was to organize the data on the disc to provide the highest transfer rates during game loading.)
This design is why GameCubes had very few drive failures in comparison to the PS2. Nintendo builds systems like tanks.
...they're getting there. Meanwhile, game programmers have been working with the (admittedly limited) Opera Browser to produce games designed for the Wii. WiiCade is even paying for games now, something which you won't find out of other homebrew ventures.
:)
It's not a perfect solution, but it does work, and it works well enough to play some pretty cool stuff. And you can even get paid to perform your hobby! How cool is that?
Disclaimer: I am associated with WiiCade. So take this with a grain of salt.
I'm pretty sure that was Turkey, not Morocco. I remember because quite a few blog posts in Turkey syndicated my anti-blocking instructions. I'm probably a fugitive there for having a minor amount of technical knowledge. :-P
A made-up character in Monty Python, obviously. The name is composed of what's called Dog Latin; an attempt to mix english words with Latin or Latin-sounding words to come up with an authentic-sounding - yet amusing - Latin name or phrase. In this case they are trying for, "The most naughty".
To add to my last post, a quicky translation of "Optimus Maximus Keyboard" by someone untrained in Latin (namly, myself) is: The Most Optimal Keyboard. I may be wrong, of course, as nuances are hard to get right when translating. I'd love to hear someone who actually speaks Latin weigh in.
The movie was a fabrication (perhaps loosely based on the Slave's Revolt), but the movie still has no claim on the word. Maximus was a fairly common word that means "great" in Latin. For example, the "Circus Maximus" was a large racing arena, the "Pontifex Maximus" was the high priest, and the "Cloaca Maxima" was a large sewer that drained away Rome's waste.
I know a gigabyte of transfer sounds like a lot, but we're living in different times. Delivering media over the Internet means that the infrastructure has to be able to sustain rather large amounts of data delivered to each user on a regular basis. If that means the infrastructure needs to be upgraded, then so be it. Progress cannot stop because ISPs have gotten cold feet about upgrades.
People, you need to realize that a gigabyte of transfer per day is no longer the exception, it's the rule. The sooner we accept that and move to supporting it, the sooner all our lives will improve.
It's implied right in the summary. Microsoft didn't want investors to lose confidence in Vista, so they shipped it early to coincide with Valentine's departure. That way it looks like Valentine left because the product was ready rather than leaving because the project was going down the drain.
Think of it this way: What does it say when a coach of a sports team decides to jump ship to another team mid-season?
As another poster already pointed out, your example is a bit of a strawman. It is indeed redundant, because it replicates information that the class is already contextually aware of. Seeing that code would probably irk me as well, but a linked list like this wouldn't:
The original Hungarian was just the right amount of terseness for its time. I wouldn't be caught dead using a variable like rwCur in Java, but it was quite a bit better than many of the variable schemes of the day. The core concept lives on in the more verbose code that modern coders write, though in a rather modified form. One of the biggest changes was to put the noun and adjective back into proper order. (As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the name "Hungarian Notation" was a bit of a play on "Reverse Polish Notation".)
FWIW, I agree with your sentiment that code should be kept horizontally constrained. However, it is a loose constraint with some variance. Hard constraints are artificial and can damage code legibility as much or more than they help.
I don't understand. Is your terminal program not VT100 compatible? You can't scroll left and right in your instance of VI? Or resize your terminal window to provide more than 80 lines of height? A serial console is just a hardwired terminal connection. You don't have to put up with artificial constraints like 80 columns here in the amazing 21st century.
If you're a Java developer, you know that there are issues with Sun's Java coding standards. e.g. The original set of standards in Java 1.0 called for package names like "COM.Sun.stuff.ClassName". The current code conventions also suggest the K&R style of braces, which I absolutely despise. (The Allman style is (IMHO) far superior.)
The standards are also rife with examples of Hungarian Notation (even though they never call it out) and suggest using a space between a cast and the variable name (which divorces the variable from its cast).
This statement makes absolutely no sense. Wrapping a primitive stream with a logical stream has nothing to do with SOC. Worse yet, you make no real statement about how it should be written. Should I declare separate variables for each level of stream? Why?
There's no reason not to. I used FileInputStream as a placeholder for a primitive stream. I often run into situations like this:
Types, types, types, you keep talking about TYPES! That's where you're running into trouble. App Hungarian is about semantics, not typing. An object system can avoid App Hungarian style through contextual usage in many circumstances, but it doesn't always make sense to create a complete object hierarchy for every problem.
Granted, row systems can be contextualized like this: Having a collection of rows with an index into a "current" item allows me to avoid having a variable like "currentRow" or "rwCur". (The latter being closer to original App Hungarian.) But there are situations where the information is transient enough to be in a procedural loop. This is where notation similar to App Hungarian-style is still warranted: Granted, startPos and endPos would have been something like psStart and psEnd to keep with the App Hungarian notation, but the concept itself was not flawed. What was flawed was the translation to System Hungarian which was based on type rather than semantic meaning. In fact, System Hungarian becomes redundant as you'd end up with variable like "iStartPos" and "iEndPos". Which is stupid, because the context of the variables already communicates the typing information.
Your posts suggest otherwise. In fact, I think you read the first part of Joel's article and never got to the portion where he turned it all around. Joel himself argues against common Hungarian notation. (i.e. Systems Hungarian) That doesn't seem to be percolating through your noggin'.