I know I get a diffuse optical tomography check-up every year from my doctor. Seriously, does this really have anything to do with the lie detector patent?
According to the story:
"The receiver is connected to an information processing device capable of determining various physiological characteristics exhibited by the human subject"
If those "physiological characteristics" included blood pressure, for example, it would be a major breakthrough since it could lead the way to frequent non-invasive PB measurements. I suspect, however, that the characteristics referred to can not acurately measure any medically useful parameters, thus my original point.
No. The problem is that the operator doesn't solely rely on what "shows up" on the machine. If they did, they could have a technician hook you up, turn the machine on, ask the questions and then submit the recorded info to an "expert" reader with just question numbers and time stamps. That won't work, however, because the reader won't be able to tell which questions you are supposed to be lying on and he won't be able to bluff you into revealing something. The machine is just a prop.
the medical applications would be far more important and profitable then the "lie detecting" application. The fact that it wasn't a patent for a medical device suggests that it doesn't really measure anything meaningful.
Since there is no scientific standard for lie detectors (and the current ones are obviously a scam), you can use any kind of dubious technology you like. A medical device, however, has to demonstrate efficacy which is a much higher standard.
It sounds like you using an obsolete version of Windows. Although it is true that you often have to reboot after installation, it's quite rare that you have to reboot for any other reason.
I recall a few years ago I was running NT while most of the rest of the company was still using Windows 95. When Lotus CCMail crashed (which it did very often) the others would have to reboot their machines because it crashed Windows 95 too. I just continued to work.
You'd have a good point if MS claimed that Windows works well in a totally Linux environment. Perhaps the answer is to have Linux distributors be a bit more modest in their Windows interoperability claims.
"Only the very young and inexperient amateurs mock the importance of being able to choose any system running on any hardware for you applications."
So you think it's less naive to believe that you can "choose any system running on any hardware for you applications" then to question whether this is in fact possible? You must have a different definition of "naive" then I do.
If you thought slashdot karma was something to worry about, wait until you experience the real thing. I think I hear some thunder rumbling. I'm going to back away from you now.
So what's the standard electrical engineer's process? I suspect it varies a lot more then you might think.
It's interesting that despite the fact that software engineering is always compared unfavorably with Electrical and Civil engineering, there has been far more work done on formal processes in software engineering than in the other branches combined.
I suspect the reason is that SW engineering is a much broader discipline in a practical sense than the others. In a sense, the other disciplines are subsets of SW Engineering since the laws of those disciplines are often incorporated into code. SWE has displaced EE as the primary generic problem solving space (forgive the lingo).
I would say that the process used is predicatable but the outcome for each project can still be better, worse, or the same as a previous project.
Why? Because using the same process to develop different projects is like using the same algorithm for every mathematical problem, in general it's going to be inappropriate most of the time.
Each project typically has its own goals, deadlines, customers, implementors, managers and economics. To be successful, the process has to reflect those realities.
Trying to come up with a single process that handles all situations optimally requires that you deeply understand all the projects you will ever create in the future.
The practical reality is if you feed the ISO beast enough money and make the right kind of politically correct noises you get entry into the club and get to use your certification as a marketing tool.
Sometimes government agencies require ISO or CSI certification which is a great way for old, large and slow companies to hold off their more nimple competitors by requiring complicated processes that are too expensive for smaller companies to afford and are likely to slow them down.
I suggest if someone wants to take the time to create a better program, go ahead. I don't see why they should do so now just because RMS has called for it. Let him spend his own time doing the work, if he's so hot for it.
Java has what I would call hidebound compatibility with C. That is it uses much of C's syntax in order to overcome C programmers fear of learning something new (this attitude is not limited to C programmers, of course). Any language that uses operators like "++" or "+=" is similiar to C.
It's only speculation on my part, but I think Sun would have sued Netscape over JavaScript if it didn't like it. I suspect they thought it was another way to keep the Java hype going.
Yoffie, D.B. and M.A. Cusumano. "What Netscape Learned From Cross-Platform Software Development." Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42, No. 10 (October 1999): 72-78.
I think calling their scripting language JavaScript was the first of Netscape's mistakes in accomodating Sun. The biggest mistake, of course, was wasting time rewriting Navigator in Java instead of concentrating on competing with IE.
It reminds me of the old Borland that got the C++ religion and thought they had to write all their Windows apps in C++. They did some nice work, but it delayed their entry into Windows and was a significant step toward the dominance of MS Office.
Obviously to be backward-compatible with legacy apps that go back a lot further than 1993. Even in 1993 most PC's were not connected to the Internet, so the risk was pretty remote at that time. It's still fairly remote even now.
The issue was compatability with the C++ standard, not compatability with COM. If you want to target platform-specific technologies in your C++ compiler, be prepared to compromise.
"Unfortunately most of them are not available for the Windows platform, but that is more a fault with the platform's manufacturer, rather than the compiler writers themselves."
Well, I don't think it's the "fault" of compiler writers if they decide they don't want to support a platform, but it can hardly be the fault of the company that owns the OS (unless its closed, like the XBOX).
Is it Sun's fault that MS doesn't have a VB compiler for Solaris?
Word XP documents can be read in Word 97. I don't know anything about the Mac versions.
On my very first attempt to open a Word document in OpenOffice, it crashed. It reminds me a lot of WordPerfect for Windows 1.0. I crashed it in the first 5 minutes of use too.
"One of Java's strengths is that it doesn't allow multi-lang other than JNI. Sure, there's a learning curve, but language standardisation is good."
Isn't that a bit like saying that one of the strengths of VB is that it doesn't allow you to run your applications on different platforms so you can standardize on one?
There is always a trade-off between standards and flexibility. This issue isn't exclusive to Sun or MS.
Being a domain-oriented organization is a double-edged sword. While it's true that it is useful for everyone to be knowledgeable of your business area, it's also true that there is a tendency to think "inside the box" because there is a lack of diversity of experience.
In addition, there is value in having a few people around with many years of programming experience regardless of the domain. They can help avoid some of the software pitfalls that are domain-independent.
Having said that, your point was about being hired and you are probably right.
Slashdot Mirror
I know I get a diffuse optical tomography check-up every year from my doctor. Seriously, does this really have anything to do with the lie detector patent?
According to the story:
"The receiver is connected to an information processing device capable of determining various physiological characteristics exhibited by the human subject"
If those "physiological characteristics" included blood pressure, for example, it would be a major breakthrough since it could lead the way to frequent non-invasive PB measurements. I suspect, however, that the characteristics referred to can not acurately measure any medically useful parameters, thus my original point.
No. The problem is that the operator doesn't solely rely on what "shows up" on the machine. If they did, they could have a technician hook you up, turn the machine on, ask the questions and then submit the recorded info to an "expert" reader with just question numbers and time stamps. That won't work, however, because the reader won't be able to tell which questions you are supposed to be lying on and he won't be able to bluff you into revealing something. The machine is just a prop.
the medical applications would be far more important and profitable then the "lie detecting" application. The fact that it wasn't a patent for a medical device suggests that it doesn't really measure anything meaningful.
Since there is no scientific standard for lie detectors (and the current ones are obviously a scam), you can use any kind of dubious technology you like. A medical device, however, has to demonstrate efficacy which is a much higher standard.
From the article:
"The bill would require companies to post an agreement in a conspicuous location telling computer users that spyware is being installed."
I doubt that the burying it in the EULA would qualify as "conspicuous", but the devil is in the details of the bill.
It sounds like you using an obsolete version of Windows. Although it is true that you often have to reboot after installation, it's quite rare that you have to reboot for any other reason.
I recall a few years ago I was running NT while most of the rest of the company was still using Windows 95. When Lotus CCMail crashed (which it did very often) the others would have to reboot their machines because it crashed Windows 95 too. I just continued to work.
You'd have a good point if MS claimed that Windows works well in a totally Linux environment. Perhaps the answer is to have Linux distributors be a bit more modest in their Windows interoperability claims.
How did I get from "young and inexperient" to "naive"? My head hurts, I'm going to leave now.
"Only the very young and inexperient amateurs mock the importance of being able to choose any system running on any hardware for you applications."
So you think it's less naive to believe that you can "choose any system running on any hardware for you applications" then to question whether this is in fact possible? You must have a different definition of "naive" then I do.
If you thought slashdot karma was something to worry about, wait until you experience the real thing. I think I hear some thunder rumbling. I'm going to back away from you now.
So what's the standard electrical engineer's process? I suspect it varies a lot more then you might think.
It's interesting that despite the fact that software engineering is always compared unfavorably with Electrical and Civil engineering, there has been far more work done on formal processes in software engineering than in the other branches combined.
I suspect the reason is that SW engineering is a much broader discipline in a practical sense than the others. In a sense, the other disciplines are subsets of SW Engineering since the laws of those disciplines are often incorporated into code. SWE has displaced EE as the primary generic problem solving space (forgive the lingo).
I would say that the process used is predicatable but the outcome for each project can still be better, worse, or the same as a previous project.
Why? Because using the same process to develop different projects is like using the same algorithm for every mathematical problem, in general it's going to be inappropriate most of the time.
Each project typically has its own goals, deadlines, customers, implementors, managers and economics. To be successful, the process has to reflect those realities.
Trying to come up with a single process that handles all situations optimally requires that you deeply understand all the projects you will ever create in the future.
The practical reality is if you feed the ISO beast enough money and make the right kind of politically correct noises you get entry into the club and get to use your certification as a marketing tool.
Sometimes government agencies require ISO or CSI certification which is a great way for old, large and slow companies to hold off their more nimple competitors by requiring complicated processes that are too expensive for smaller companies to afford and are likely to slow them down.
I suggest if someone wants to take the time to create a better program, go ahead. I don't see why they should do so now just because RMS has called for it. Let him spend his own time doing the work, if he's so hot for it.
Don't leave the bathroom just yet.
Java has what I would call hidebound compatibility with C. That is it uses much of C's syntax in order to overcome C programmers fear of learning something new (this attitude is not limited to C programmers, of course). Any language that uses operators like "++" or "+=" is similiar to C.
"Did Sun get much of a say in this?"
It's only speculation on my part, but I think Sun would have sued Netscape over JavaScript if it didn't like it. I suspect they thought it was another way to keep the Java hype going.
See the following reference:
Yoffie, D.B. and M.A. Cusumano. "What Netscape Learned From Cross-Platform Software Development." Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42, No. 10 (October 1999): 72-78.
I think calling their scripting language JavaScript was the first of Netscape's mistakes in accomodating Sun. The biggest mistake, of course, was wasting time rewriting Navigator in Java instead of concentrating on competing with IE.
It reminds me of the old Borland that got the C++ religion and thought they had to write all their Windows apps in C++. They did some nice work, but it delayed their entry into Windows and was a significant step toward the dominance of MS Office.
I tried OpenOffice for the first time a few weeks ago and the first thing I tried to do was open a Word document and it crashed.
It might be a decent program for creating new documents, but I wouldn't suggest using it to edit legacy MS Office documents.
Obviously to be backward-compatible with legacy apps that go back a lot further than 1993. Even in 1993 most PC's were not connected to the Internet, so the risk was pretty remote at that time. It's still fairly remote even now.
The issue was compatability with the C++ standard, not compatability with COM. If you want to target platform-specific technologies in your C++ compiler, be prepared to compromise.
"Unfortunately most of them are not available for the Windows platform, but that is more a fault with the platform's manufacturer, rather than the compiler writers themselves."
Well, I don't think it's the "fault" of compiler writers if they decide they don't want to support a platform, but it can hardly be the fault of the company that owns the OS (unless its closed, like the XBOX).
Is it Sun's fault that MS doesn't have a VB compiler for Solaris?
I'll take your word for it that the first version of WordPerfect for Windows was 5.2. Nevertheless, it did crash as I described.
Word XP documents can be read in Word 97. I don't know anything about the Mac versions.
On my very first attempt to open a Word document in OpenOffice, it crashed. It reminds me a lot of WordPerfect for Windows 1.0. I crashed it in the first 5 minutes of use too.
"Has not Microsoft been convicted of criminal behaviour ?"
No, Microsoft hasn't been "convicted" of anything. The antitrust case was a civil one.
"One of Java's strengths is that it doesn't allow multi-lang other than JNI. Sure, there's a learning curve, but language standardisation is good."
Isn't that a bit like saying that one of the strengths of VB is that it doesn't allow you to run your applications on different platforms so you can standardize on one?
There is always a trade-off between standards and flexibility. This issue isn't exclusive to Sun or MS.
Being a domain-oriented organization is a double-edged sword. While it's true that it is useful for everyone to be knowledgeable of your business area, it's also true that there is a tendency to think "inside the box" because there is a lack of diversity of experience.
In addition, there is value in having a few people around with many years of programming experience regardless of the domain. They can help avoid some of the software pitfalls that are domain-independent.
Having said that, your point was about being hired and you are probably right.