"Linux Torvalds says something AGAIN that would get him fired from VIRTUALLY ANY COMPANY ON EARTH, and Slashdot fanbois rush to SUCK HIS DICK so hard it breaks".
Look... Linus is a super-genius that has accomplished more in half a lifetime than most of us will accomplish in our ENTIRE lifetime (and this is coming from someone who has 7 published tech books and an 8th on the way- an accomplishment that itself dwarves most other peoples', yet is almost nothing next to what Linus has done)... he is virtually always right when he says something technical and he deserves to be listened to on any technical topic he chooses to speak. His name will echo through the halls of technology history for decades to come, and rightly so. He deserves every accolade he gets.
Yet, with all of that being true, he's a socially-inept bully, plain and simple. If only he could solve that problem with clever algorithms and architectural knowledge, he'd probably be up for sainthood already. Instead, he embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth in this way, and so do you if you defend him. Belittling people, even when they are completely, amazingly, HOPELESSLY wrong about something, is simply not acceptable.
Exactly, and I'm surprised people are arguing anything but this. Even for a report that you completely believe to be bogus, what time does it take to reply "hey, can I get more info?" Best case, it WAS bogus, and you never hear from the person again. You "wasted" all of 30 seconds. For a company like Facebook, that should be a trivial investment when the downside of an ACTUAL security problem is so bad. Assuming the report that they didn't reply in any way is accurate, then THIS is where Facebook fell down worst, and it's what is inexcusable.
You may have a point... as I said in the original post, I don't doubt that the ease of which guns can be used to kill, and the relative ease of availability of them, probably does have some impact on some murders being committed or not... get rid of guns entirely and I'd agree that at least SOME lives will be outright saved... not all gun deaths would suddenly become knife deaths, that seems obvious... So I think there's logic in your statement.
However, I have to disagree with the last sentence... we live in a violent society... whatever the underlying reasons, it's a true statement... yes, most of us frankly never encounter violence, thankfully, but it's there and all around us... given no other societal changes, would removing guns make confrontations less likely? I don't see how, in fact, it seems to me they'd be MORE likely... if I'm sure that guy I beat to the parking space at the grocery store doesn't have a gun then it seems I'd be MORE likely to do it and risk pissing him off because the worst that happens is a fist fight.
More importantly though, even if your assessment is correct, I'd suggest that you'd be putting lives at risk... it's undeniable that guns are pretty frequently used to save lives (it's a shame the biased media won't report on those incidents)... I'm not going to sit here and say that happens MORE than murder with a gun does, but it does happen, and even if it's only some fraction of murders with a gun, are those lives somehow less important? If I save my own life via self-defense with a gun, does that life saved somehow matter less than the guy around the block that had a fist fight and didn't die because the other guy didn't have a gun to shoot him with?
On balance, given an inherently violent society, and given the inherent right (responsibility, really) of every living being who wishes to remain living to defend themselves, I think having guns is better than not, although I'm totally willing to acknowledge that having guns sometimes is a contributing factor to bad things happening. They're a necessary evil, if you will.
You're right that suicides are usually lumped in with "gun crimes" because it makes the problem look much worse for those who have that agenda... but in this case, you're mistaken: table 20 is dealing with murders only... at least, that's what I take the column header that specifically says "murders" to mean. I 100% agree with your point, but in this case it's not a factor.
I'll save you time: while you would be correct to say that firearms are responsible for more murders than any other cause, the number of non-firearms murders is very nearly half that of firearms... roughly 8k to roughly 4k.
The point being: yes, granted, guns are used more often in murders... but it seems like those without guns are managing just fine without them too. Besides, I'm pretty sure those getting killed with fists and feet don't feel any better about it than those shot with a gun.
Now, a little thought experiment: if there were no guns, what do you think would happen? Would the TOTAL number of murders go down by roughly 8k? Or, would the number of murders not using guns GO UP? I hope you wouldn't try and say the former because if so, sir, you're retarded. Would non-firearms murders go up 8k? No, I very much doubt it... but the number WOULD go up.
And why is that? Simple: violent people are violent people. Yes, guns might make it easier for them to kill... but a good percentage of them are going to murder WITHOUT a gun just the same... and hey, to use the anti-gun argument against them: isn't ONE murder with a boxcutter too much? Better ban them! If we can save just ONE LIFE by banning baseball bats, shouldn't we?
I'm not saying that if we removed guns from the equation that we wouldn't save a few lives. I think we would. There's no doubt some murders that wouldn't occur at all if there were no guns. The problem is that guns UNDENIABLY save lives, nearly every day. Are those lives saved somehow less important than those saved if there were no guns? I'm not even claiming the number of lives saved by guns is greater than those taken by murder with guns (although I believe that's the case, but I don't have a reference so I won't claim it)... I'm just saying if it's all about saving lives (hint: IT'S NOT) then a life saved with a gun is just as valuable as one taken with a gun.
People who want to kill will, by and large, find a way. That's the bottom line and that's the fundamental problem in our society, the fact that people WANT to kill (putting self-defense aside of course). The fact that guns might make it easier is tangential to the root cause and while banning guns might save a few lives, the impact won't be nearly as large as you want to think it might be and we'll be talking about banning the NEXT inanimate object quickly. Stop trying to attack something that's a proximal cause AT BEST and get to the root of the problem. That's the way we might actually make a difference in this country. We don't have a "gun violence" problem, we have a VIOLENCE problem. Any time you see "gun violence", that just shows there's an agenda at play and that person actually cares very little for saving lives and is more interesting in exerting and extending control (Oh, did our president say that? Hmm, point proven!)
I too am a game developer... no, not professional as you are, but I've written almost a dozen games on a number of platforms over nearly 20 years, sold most of them and even had two nominated for some awards years ago. I won't put myself on the same level as you, but I do have some relevant experience.
I would agree if you said the "never" statement is hyperbole... but you wouldn't argue the underlying gist of it, would you? Certainly it's true that a game programmer will seek to MINIMIZE object allocations and deallocations as much as possible within the performance-critical sections of code, right? I think that was what he was getting at, even if he didn't say it very well. Yes, I'd agree, what he LITERALLY wrote is false... but I suspect it was just a case of being overzealous with word choice... get him in a quiet room and I bet he says "yeah, I didn't actually meant NEVER there".
Bottom line: just because you're using a GC'd language and you CAN ignore memory management, doesn't mean you SHOULD. That goes for JS, Java or any other GC'd language in existence.
I hate to go off on a tangent... but that won't stop me from doing so, because I think it's actually the core of the issue and is entirely non-technical:
This all goes back to the abysmal state of many (most?) "modern" developers.
If you grew you with computers at the time I did, the late 70's/early 80's, and you learned to program those early 8-bit home computers, you kinda take this stuff for granted (memory management I mean). You just inherently think differently than "modern" developers do. You see things at a much lower level... even when you're working at a high level of abstraction, your mind automatically goes lower... instantiating an object in Java? You're mind at some level is thinking about how memory is being allocated, how the object reference is being stored, etc. Hell, you even start to think about the messages the OS is passing around, how those messages must map to C functions, and how those functions ultimately resolve down to assembly.
I'm NOT saying you KNOW all those details... not really... you just know the concepts... and I'm certainly not saying such details are relevant most of the time because they're not... I'm just saying that's the way our brains work... we can "see" all the levels below the one we're actually working on in our minds' eye, if only in a conceptual sense, and it happens without trying.
I's because we generally started learning at those low levels and everything over the years has built up logically from there. Most of us started with BASIC but quickly jump to Assembly because that was the only way to achieve what we really wanted to (games, mostly). Once you're at that level, it's an entirely different mindset. Those of us that also had an electronics background go a step further because we even go below the Assembly level sometimes (and that wasn't all that uncommon back then... of course, the electronics were considerably simpler and easier to understand than they are now).
That's a VERY different evolution than the kid that STARTS with Java or JavaScript or whatever now, then goes to school and learns more high-level stuff. And it shows in daily work life all the time! I see people constantly in my career who aren't really bad developers, but they are, somehow, lacking... it usually shows when things aren't working as expected. They have a difficult time breaking things down and figuring out what's going on. Oh, they can Google an answer as well as anyone, and hey, probably 9 times out of 10 that's sufficient. But they're just stumped beyond belief that one time... they just can't get into the details and work the problem at a fundamental level. They don't REALLY understand how these machines, these operating systems, work. And that's a really bad state of affairs.
(to be fair, some of us that learned in the "ground-up" way sometimes have difficulty STAYING at a high level... we sometimes trip over discussions that are too abstract because our brains are searching for the details that aren't there, and really aren't even relevant... that's a whole other discussion, but it's a true phenomenon).
All of this... to try and pull it back to topic relevance... means that relatively simple things like designing your code to minimize object allocation and deallocation seems mysterious to a lot of modern developers... they don't always get why it's important, and it seems like some black art or something even when they do... to us old-schoolers, I guess that's what we are now, it's actually quite natural to think that way. Even in JavaScript, where I've done considerable work, and highly complex work, GC has never presented a big issue for me, primarily because I've ALWAYS thought about it and know how to avoid it at the right times. The language itself isn't flawed, modern developers' ability to use it effectively is.
I'm 5'9" and I wear almost nothing but jeans and jean shorts most days. I don't wear skin-tight jeans, but neither am I wearing "fat guy" jeans... they fit "right" in my eyes: no struggle to button, but they're far from cargo pants territory.
My Nexus 7 TABLET fits in the BACK POCKET of my pants without struggling to get it in and out. It's actually comfortable there (aside from the weight, which is a bit much and tries to pull my pants down). Now, yes, that's only true if I'm standing up... sitting ain't happening... this "phone" (phablet I guess is the term they invented?) should fit just as well as it's smaller.
Now, me personally, I don't want a phone this big. I have an S4 and I think it's just about perfect... I considered the Note II and I could see possibly going to that size, but that's the upper limit for me I think. To me, this phone is just too big to be carrying around all the time. But to say it doesn't fit in "regular" pants I just don't think is accurate. You most definitely do not need a fanny pack or anything like that.
None of that is "flaky"... these are all features of the languages that if you bothered to learn you'd see that it makes JS one of the most flexible languages out there.
Some devs can't deal with the freedom to think for themselves and need rigid rules to function. Not the languages's problem.
It's kind of interesting to me how what we've seen with the rise of the app store model has largely mirrored what we've seen in the "real world" post-9/11. It hasn't quite been simultaneous, but pretty close.
What I mean is that a lot of people love the app store model and always say how it's "safer". Especially when talking about Apple, you have a gatekeeper checking on the safety of apps, to at least some degree. They ensure what gets through won't hurt you (in theory... but, to be fair, they do pretty well in practice too).
However, there's a cost: at least some decrease in "freedom". Not just anyone can throw an app out to the world of iOS users. If Apple doesn't like your app for any reason, you don't get to distribute to (most) iOS users. Sure, there's jailbreaking and Cydia and all of that, but let's be honest: that's a pretty small percentage of more technically-oriented users. For *most* iOS users, your app doesn't exist if Apple doesn't want it to.
The Android model is the opposite or course: there is virtually no barrier to entry. It's very easy to get into the Play store whether your app is "safe" or not. Oh, they're doing some checks now, but at the end of the day I think even us Android fans acknowledge that it's still more or less a wild west environment. And that says nothing of side-loading either: if you don't get in the store, or don't want to, no big deal, you can still distribute directly to users. Flipping a setting in options isn't the same as jailbreaking so you aren't limited to just "technical" users.
Post-9/11, people seem to be willing to give up some degree of freedom for safety (whether that safety is just perceived or not is a whole other discussion). No, not everyone of course, and yes, there's limits to what people will accept. But, aren't we seeing those bounds pushed more and more every day? Hasn't Snowden showed us that a large chunk of the American population is more than happy to give up privacy to at least *feel* safer?
It's no different in the app world. Lots of people swear by the closed, "walled garden" approach of Apple. They claim it's safer and the quality is better. Well, the former is fairly easy to show, the later is highly subjective, but what's obvious in either case is that there's a decrease in freedom. You may see the tradeoff as worth it. That's your call. People love Apple whether I do or not and I'm not going to try and convince them they're wrong. There's pluses and minuses to both approaches. But at the end of the day, Apple is, at least in part, deciding what you can and can't install on you device.
It's just interesting to me how people in both situations seem so willing to say "eh, make me safer, or at least make me THINK I'm safer, and you can have some measure of control over what I do". How that's acceptable to ANY American in either case is beyond me frankly and I think it shows that our societal values have eroded tremendously. Sure, yes, Apple controlling what apps I can install on my phone is VASTLY different from the TSA patting me down to ensure I don't bring a bomb on a plane. I dare say nobody's life is at stake because Apple decides I used the word cock one too many times in my app. But the fundamental concept is the same: safety in exchange for freedom.
But, underneath both is the same warped thinking: someone else is better suited to keeping you safe than YOU are. It's someone else' responsibility to keep you safe. Someone else can make decisions for you because you are unable or unwilling to do so. Yes, I'm saying you're opinion on the walled garden app store model vs. the Android "wild west" approach informs your take on society at large and what you are willing to let any government do to you. If you're in the Apple camp then you're probably perfectly willing to let the government trample your liberties in exchange for possibly less chance of being killed. The mentality of both is the same. If, on the other hand, you're willing to be responsible for yourself and control your own destiny, the Android approach is probably better-suited to you.
(of course, we'll have a similar discussion about how Google is a data whore above all others and what THAT means, but that's for another day)
While I agree with everyone that says build small to start and scale up later as needed, the one caveat I'd give is whatever technology you use, design with the THOUGHT of clustering from the start. I've seen many designs fall down when scaled because, for example, the app used session too liberally and now session replication across clustered nodes is a serious problem.
There's nothing that says you must use clustering later, there's other approaches, but if your app inherently can't be clustered because your design doesn't allow for it the it can turn into a real headache quickly.
If you design as statelessly as possible then you're likely to be fine when you go to scale, whether vertically or horizontally. That's a simplistic answer, but it will be correct, to a reasonable approximation of "correct":)
A true man doesn't need a gun and is a coward if they do? Really? So every single man out there knows how to defend against a knife, baseball bat or, fuck, nunchaku attack? Every man is bigger, faster and stronger then every opponent he might ever be attacked by? No man ever gets old? No man is ever in bad shape due to disease? No man can ever be caught by surprise even if otherwise a "tough" guy? No man can ever simply be bested in a fair fight by an evenly-matched opponent?
And most importantly: EVERY PERSON THAT MIGHT ATTACK A MAN IS ALSO A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN WHO VOLUNTARILY GIVES UP *THEIR* GUNS?
You're right, there's a coward in this equation, but it's not the ones with the guns. Only a coward is so afraid of the world as it actual is that they need to invent a false one where they a Superman and can deal with every potential violent situation with their bare hands.
This isn't high school anymore, like it was when I was there, where you could have a little fist fight, get a bloody nose, give a bloody nose, and both walk away a few minutes later. Yes, I'll acknowledge that most violent confrontations probably don't require the use of a gun if you're at least somewhat competent as a fighter, but guess what? Only those that fight regularly tend to be competent fighters! If your goal is to avoid violence you tend to also not be good at it, not through any fault of your own but through simple logic.
But you're willing to risk your life that you can rise to the occasion when you actually need to? Good luck with that, but don't go up against me because you won't like the result myself and my little concealed friend bring to you.
Not that simple... how many of those 28 were suicide? How many were accidents? I don't honestly know, but I know the answer isn't going to be zero because it's NEVER zero.
In my mind, someone that wants to kill themselves shouldn't count against guns any more than it should count against tailpipes if they decide to sit in a car in a garage.
And accidents happen regardless of what we're talking about. Accidents shouldn't be held against any more than it should be against a car.
So, let's just pull a number out of our ass and say that 20 of them were not suicides or accidents. Seems a reasonable guess.
Of those 20, how many do you suspect were committed by a legal gun owner who just lost their shit for one reason or another and wasn't otherwise committing a crime (i.e., wasn't robbing a bank or shooting it out with a rival gang or some such)? Certainly some of them were, but how many? Again, I don't know... a reasonable guess though? 50% maybe?
So now we're down to 10 deaths you MIGHT be able to stop by better regulating guns... the other 18 were going to happen anyway (whether with a gun or not).
My point? The situation IS NOT as dire as you make it out to be when you factor in causes and reasons.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm a gun owner, I even have an assault weapon, and I'm worried we're going to go WAY too far here with laws... but I *do* think there's some reasonable steps we can take that might help save a few lives... much better background checks certainly including on private sales... laws requiring reporting of lost or stolen guns (how is that NOT a law now?!?)... much harsher penalties for any crime committed involving a gun... maybe even waiting period on all gun purchases. And there's a few more that don't go too far.
I DON'T want bans though, on any particular class of guns (because they do nothing, as the statistics associated with the 1994 ban prove) nor do I think there's a need to magazine size restrictions (although, I DO expect that'll pass as a feel-good measure and although I'll hate it, it's not the end of the world, so long as there's no outright AWB).
Biden and others like to say we should do anything we can to save even one life. I hate to sound callous, but that's bullshit. One life is NOT worth the potential freedom of a nation. Several HUNDRED aren't even. The second amendment helps ensure our freedom from the worst possibilities (possibilities which I acknowledge are improbable given out system of government... but NOT IMPOSSIBLE). It's a freedom no one should want to voluntarily give up and should fight giving up involuntarily to their last breath if necessary (certainly I hope it's never necessary, believe me, I'm in no rush whatsoever to be in any sort of fight, let alone one against my own government). History proves time and again that giving up that freedom leads to nothing good. It *IS* worth the price we pay, terrible as that reality is. But it *IS* the reality.
I've frankly never been particularly good solving these "simple" algorithmic problems on the spot either, even with my 20+ years of experience in the field, even with being a published tech author, even with being very highly regarded by all I've ever worked with. So, although I haven't had the need to interview for a job in quite a few years, I'm sure I wouldn't do any better than average if these sorts of things were thrown at me.
But, compare the code I write for a living with the code most others do and there's no question which one of us you'd want to hire.
I think this is true of a lot of good developers... there's MUCH more to this job than being able to solve a specific single programming task because all of us that are worth hiring can do that, given enough research and time... sure, I agree, it's nice if you can throw algorithm X, Y or Z up on a whiteboard from memory, that'll make you marginally faster than me... but speed, while not irrelevant, is FAR from the most important characteristic of a good developer. Code that is clean, elegant, logical, as simple as possible and maintainable five years down the road are FAR, FAR, FAR more important, and you're NOT going to gauge those things with a fizzbuzz-type test (I do A LOT of interviews now, believe me, I know this from experience).
False. While I wouldn't doubt you could find SOME Android device that locked out third-party installs, they would be exceedingly rare, and certainly it's something that is allowed by default in Android. The only time you would HAVE to root your phone, the rare exceptional device aside, is if the app you want explicitly requires root to work, and that's probably 1% of all Android apps I'd guess.
Unless you take into account the business you work for and the environment you work in then you've asked an incomplete question.
In a small-ish company you can push out updates quicker because in many ways there's less risk: if there's a problem it either (a) doesn't impact as many people or (b) is easy to roll back. That's a generalization for sure and everyone can pull out exceptions I'd bet, but I think it's a fair generalization.
In a large corporation though, especially one where there may be government regulations that have to be met and SLA's that have to be maintained or there can be real financial repercussions in short order (fines, give-backs to clients, etc.) the story tends to be different and considerably more conservative. It's not a question of nimbleness or doing things the "new" way or anything like that, it's simple risk assessment.
Naturally, the other big factor, and actually I should have said this first because in many ways it's the bigger point, is what the application actually is. I mean, if you're talking about a timesheet application for your workers than you probably can get away with a lot of mistakes. Try it with your key line-of-business POS application though... you know, the one that if it's down for more than two hours your business goes under?... in those cases, you likely don't want to be risking it any more frequently than you really have to.
Me, I work for a very large corporation, and I'm lead on a couple of very large, complex and extremely important applications. We have no set deployment schedule generally, but on average we do a release once every two months or so as driven by business requirements. That FEELS about right to me, given the environment, the applications and my 20+ years of professional experience in IT.
YMMV of course, and in fact it probably SHOULD since I'd contend there's no single right answer... but what I've mentioned here are probably the key considerations in any case.
But we DON'T cover up the brand logos. This, right here, points to the REAL problem:
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO, OR INCAPABLE OF, BASIC THOUGHT.
If you walk into a Best Buy, and you intend to buy an iPad but you walk out with a Galaxy Tab because you couldn't tell them apart, then you, sir, are a FUCKING IDIOT. If you can't turn them on and tell the difference, you deserve what you get. I mean, what happens? Do you hold them up side-by-side, can't tell them apart, so, what, just fucking randomly pick one?!? Do you not read the damned info cards below them and compare and contrast them? Do you not ask a sales person some questions? I mean, come on already, this is nuts!
This ISN'T about two admittedly very similarly-designed products (and ok, maybe one is a flat-out copy of the other, I might be willing to stipulate to that) that people can't physically tell apart (And you know what? They're different enough physically anyway that *I* as a not-stupid person, wouldn't be fooled anyway, but I digress). This is about a world full of stupid people that can't be bothered to, you know, GET INFORMATION and make an INFORMED DECISION with it. It's either stupidity or laziness, you're choice (and probably a bit of both). Either you are incapable of basic thought or you just don't like to do it and so when you get "fooled" you get mad because, damn it, SOMEONE should have been PROTECTING YOU from your own fucked-upedness!!
See, instead of tackling the real problem head-on we want someone to protect us from ourselves. We want the legal system to say "oh no, you can't BOTH have rounded corners because all these GRADE-A FUCKING MORONS out there won't be able to tell them apart and will wind up buying something they didn't want. No, we have to do the thinking FOR them and make sure they don't have to be bothered actually making an informed decision."
It's utterly ridiculous. If people weren't so God-damned braindead and/or lazy as shit this wouldn't be an issue- even if you legitimately can't physically tell them apart, actually doing some research and actually using them would differentiate them for you quickly if you had half a brain in your head. I am *SO* sick of living in a society of stupid people because this is the kind of bullshit legal wrangling that results. It's inevitable and almost HAS to occur because we're not equipped as a species anymore to have it otherwise.
It's fucking sad is what it is. Think about the basic situation we find ourselves in here: we have one company that probably did flat-out copy another getting sued by another company who is insecure and afraid to compete on the merits of their products because God forbid the exorbitant profits drop even A LITTLE...
AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM SAYS THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES!
And it's all because people are too stupid and/or lazy to give us a choice of being otherwise.
Our best bet at this point is that the Mayans are right and Nibiru or some shit really does collide with the Earth in December... maybe in a few million years we'll crawl out of the primordial ooze again and maybe the next time we'll get it right because we sure as shit aren't getting it right this go-round.
...the damned things aren't PHONES anymore! I checked my history on Sprint the other day, and, this is really pretty funny... I've got four lines on my account, me wife and two kids... over the last YEAR, our average talk time was... wait for it... 9 minutes a month! I think the peak was like 22 minutes one month.
Texts, the AVERAGE per month was 963.
Total data, monthly average, was 8Gb.
So, two things... first, you can see why I like sticking with Sprint and their unlimited data plans even though they have far from the best overall service... second, these things aren't really phones for us anymore, they're TRULY personal computers... we've effectively redefined what the term PC means. I think at this point, speaking for me, I probably check mail and social sites on my phone 95% of the time. I also browse the web a lot from my phone (the usage pattern I've noticed is that when I'm looking for something specifically I tend to grab my phone, but when I'm just aimlessly browsing I still use my desktop more).
So yeah, the bigger screen sizes for me are necessary. My wife and I recently got the Galaxy S3 and we freakin' totally love them, and the big screen size is one of the main reasons. I've had smartphones with screen sizes from 2.8 inches (HTC Mogul) to the Epic 4G (4 inches) and now the SGS3 (4.8 inches I believe) and I can say without the slightest question that bigger is better here, and the SGS3 I carry in my rear jean pocket without any problem whatsoever.
Now, how much is TOO big? That's really the question. I'm not sure I'd want to go TOO much bigger than the SGS3... I could see 5 inches without a problem, maybe up to 5.5 at the most, but I think anything more than that is probably getting too big.
We're at a point where the hardware isn't the issue, which is where this guy seems to be focused. We HAVE wireless keyboards and mice now. Even wireless monitors exists. The smartphones we carry are quite powerful hardware-wise. We're THERE as far as hardware goes. It'll continue to evolve of course, but it's not what's lacking.
What's lacking now is software. NOBODY has quite managed to get it right yet.
What I mean is this... in my ideal world, and I suspect what would wind up being ideal for everyone else too, is a docking station that I can plop my phone into, connect it to my 1-n monitors, keyboard and mouse, and work on it as I do my desktop today. Now, a few companies have some of this available today of course. The Atrix goes to laptop, as does the Transformer.
But what none of them yet do is present me with a PROPER desktop operating system. What exists today simply brings up Android again, more or less the same as on the phone alone, just enlarged to fill the screen. That's not good enough. I need an operating system tailored to the desktop environment, just like I need one tailored to the smartphone form factor. They need to adjust much better than they do today (laptops sit in the middle I think, where you could go either way).
When on my desktop I NEED multiple monitors and I DON'T need a touch-based interface. When I'm on my laptop I need something that's probably a bit of a mixture. And on my phone I need that truly mobile-oriented design.
Microsoft is MAYBE thinking along these lines a little with Windows 8 and Surface, but for me Windows 8 is an abortion that needs to be killed, killed with fire, as quickly as humanly possible. But, they may at least have this concept in their minds. I think Asus and their Transformer line is probably closest to making it happen (they are coming out with a monitor docking station for example) but until they (a) can tailor Android to be more appropriate for a desktop and (b) allow for multiple monitors, it's probably not going to be ideal either.
It really doesn't even SEEM all that hard really... how about something the size of a Mac Mini with a slot for your phone? The chassis is really nothing but a USB hub, maybe some PCIe slots for graphics cards and whatnot, and some video outs. When you plug the phone in that's your CPU and memory (maybe the chassis augments it?) and all your apps are there, on multiple monitors if you wish, but the OS now tailors itself (and the apps it runs) to that environment rather than the phone. I don't mean to imply this is a piece of cake to pull off, but come on, it's also not THAT big a deal, is it?
That's what I want, and that's what I think someone is going to pull off in the not-too-distant future, and that's what will be the big hit and the real paradigm-shifting creation. Even "data in the cloud" would seem less important at that point really.
Good point about laptops and updates outside the network. I didn't mean to suggest DNS blocking was the only way or the best way, just that its one easy way to deal with what some think is a big issue (aside from your valid outside-the-network-update point).
I hear it a lot: "auto-update in browsers is bad for enterprises because it'll just randomly break apps". I consider this argument bunk. Simply block the update sites in your corporate DNS and you're done. ESPECIALLY when you're talking about a silent background update, I'm pretty sure you won't even see a warning or anything in that case.
I suppose if you work somewhere that uses someone else' DNS servers this isn't an option, but even then you probably are going through a proxy, so block it there!
This isn't theory: my company was doing this for a while (until the development staff complained enough and they changed the policy around alternate browsers)... it works just fine, isn't expensive to implement and, of course, if you get to a point where a particular new version is certified you just un-block for a few weeks and let the updates take place.
A lot of the comments here seem to be variations on the theme "this isn't about patents" and/or "they shouldn't be able to patent rounded corners".
But I think both those things aren't the big problem here.
The big problem is that consumers have less choice today than they did yesterday because of the injunction. We can debate the patent system and we can debate design patents versus other types of patents or whatever but it seems to me it's unarguable that consumers having less choice is a Very Bad Thing(tm).
It's kind of humorous to me to realize this of myself but...
I've always said I'd sign up for a one-way mission like this. This is coming from someone with a wife, kids and basically a good life. I'm not in any rush to leave my life in any way, shape or form, but I see a mission like this as being more important than that life, so much bigger and meaningful. I believe my wife and kids would understand that too and would accept my sacrifice just as I would.
Here's the thing though... as willing as I'd be to give up my life for this, to do it as part of a reality show?
No.
Yeah, I had to stop and laugh at myself for a minute- willingly give up my life, willingly give up seeing my kids grow, willingly give up hopefully many years more with a wife I love, all of that is fine... but let people watch be poo on a spaceship?
Nope, that's where I draw the line apparently!
If that doesn't say all that needs to be said about how I feel about reality TV then there exists no words in the tongues of Man that could do so!
I've been in IT for about 20 years now, professionally... to this day I do not have a degree (of any sort actually), yet I'm highly-regarded and paid rather handsomely for my skills.
They key to getting hired initially was to have a portfolio of work. I had done some independent consulting projects before that I could show, but mostly I was showing things I had done on my own. And, a lot of it, most of it even, wasn't remotely work-related: I showed a lot of intros I had written for BBS's years earlier, a couple of games I wrote, little utilities, things like that. That impressed the person interviewing me a lot.
I also made a point to study up on things I suspected I'd be questioned on, things like the basics of OOP, which to that point I hadn't done any of.
I also had an interviewer that was fair, which is a bit of a lucky draw I have to admit, but one thing he did was asked me to write a program in FoxPro over the weekend and bring it back to him Monday. I'd never even HEARD of FoxPro at that point, and this was before the Internet was what it is today, so it wasn't like you could just go download examples and whatnot... I went to the book store, picked up a book, read it all throughout Saturday, then spent all day Sunday hacking the thing together. It wasn't brilliant code to be sure, but it demonstrated a general attitude and ability to learn on-the-fly.
The interviewer later told me that I basically blew away every CS degree holder that came through the door, some of whom couldn't even answer the basic OOP questions ("What is polymorphism?" for example). Very sad.
Now, all these years later, I sit on the other side of the table and I see the overall lack of basic skills that most candidates seem to come to job interviews with, and it's sad. None of them ever bring a portfolio of work either, which is a big deal. Just throwing a resume on a table isn't enough anymore, especially when I've seen first-hand now many times they're nothing but bullshit. SHOW ME what you've done, whether on the job or not... in fact, in some ways I'm MORE interested in what you've done in your spare time. It often-times shows a lot more of your drive and self-help aptitude, something that is sorely lacking in today's IT world it seems.
Mostly though, don't be dissuaded from trying! For a couple of years I didn't even try to get a job in IT because I figured I didn't have a degree so there would be no chance. I was very wrong. Sure, some places won't even consider you without a degree, but frankly, let me tell you that those, generally, aren't places you'd really want to work at anyway (yes, there are exceptions, but I'm talking generally). It even helps to a certain extent because frankly, use hiring people can pay you less! But, we'll also expect a little less, which means that if you perform well, which is a bit easier with those lower expectations, you can usually expect to be taken care of... for example, my salary tripled inside 5 years, even though I started out a bit lower than I would have liked, and has been going up steadily ever since, all because I came in, a little bit of a gamble perhaps, but I exceeded expectations by doing nothing but working hard, putting in effort to learn new stuff outside work (I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS!!!!) and generally doing what was asked of me.
The problem is that MacOS has *always*, as a generality, looked as it does today. Oh, clearly it's evolved of course, and I doubt anyone would say what it is today doesn't look MUCH better than what it used to look like... but the overall aesthetic in terms of a somewhat subdued color palette has been that way for a while now.
With Windows though, that's only STARTING to be the case now. So we notice.
Think of it this way: if all you ever had was the cheapest, toughest steak out there, and you gradually got better cuts, you'd be happy. If you started with the best cut available and went the other way, you'd complain to no end. I don't mean to say Windows (or VS in this particular case) has been top-cut steak all along, just that the changes MS is pushing now are giving us sirloin, or worse, and so we notice much more than we notice that MacOS has always been giving us sirloin, more or less:)
Slashdot Mirror
"Linux Torvalds says something AGAIN that would get him fired from VIRTUALLY ANY COMPANY ON EARTH, and Slashdot fanbois rush to SUCK HIS DICK so hard it breaks".
Look... Linus is a super-genius that has accomplished more in half a lifetime than most of us will accomplish in our ENTIRE lifetime (and this is coming from someone who has 7 published tech books and an 8th on the way- an accomplishment that itself dwarves most other peoples', yet is almost nothing next to what Linus has done)... he is virtually always right when he says something technical and he deserves to be listened to on any technical topic he chooses to speak. His name will echo through the halls of technology history for decades to come, and rightly so. He deserves every accolade he gets.
Yet, with all of that being true, he's a socially-inept bully, plain and simple. If only he could solve that problem with clever algorithms and architectural knowledge, he'd probably be up for sainthood already. Instead, he embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth in this way, and so do you if you defend him. Belittling people, even when they are completely, amazingly, HOPELESSLY wrong about something, is simply not acceptable.
Exactly, and I'm surprised people are arguing anything but this. Even for a report that you completely believe to be bogus, what time does it take to reply "hey, can I get more info?" Best case, it WAS bogus, and you never hear from the person again. You "wasted" all of 30 seconds. For a company like Facebook, that should be a trivial investment when the downside of an ACTUAL security problem is so bad. Assuming the report that they didn't reply in any way is accurate, then THIS is where Facebook fell down worst, and it's what is inexcusable.
You may have a point... as I said in the original post, I don't doubt that the ease of which guns can be used to kill, and the relative ease of availability of them, probably does have some impact on some murders being committed or not... get rid of guns entirely and I'd agree that at least SOME lives will be outright saved... not all gun deaths would suddenly become knife deaths, that seems obvious... So I think there's logic in your statement.
However, I have to disagree with the last sentence... we live in a violent society... whatever the underlying reasons, it's a true statement... yes, most of us frankly never encounter violence, thankfully, but it's there and all around us... given no other societal changes, would removing guns make confrontations less likely? I don't see how, in fact, it seems to me they'd be MORE likely... if I'm sure that guy I beat to the parking space at the grocery store doesn't have a gun then it seems I'd be MORE likely to do it and risk pissing him off because the worst that happens is a fist fight.
More importantly though, even if your assessment is correct, I'd suggest that you'd be putting lives at risk... it's undeniable that guns are pretty frequently used to save lives (it's a shame the biased media won't report on those incidents)... I'm not going to sit here and say that happens MORE than murder with a gun does, but it does happen, and even if it's only some fraction of murders with a gun, are those lives somehow less important? If I save my own life via self-defense with a gun, does that life saved somehow matter less than the guy around the block that had a fist fight and didn't die because the other guy didn't have a gun to shoot him with?
On balance, given an inherently violent society, and given the inherent right (responsibility, really) of every living being who wishes to remain living to defend themselves, I think having guns is better than not, although I'm totally willing to acknowledge that having guns sometimes is a contributing factor to bad things happening. They're a necessary evil, if you will.
You're right that suicides are usually lumped in with "gun crimes" because it makes the problem look much worse for those who have that agenda... but in this case, you're mistaken: table 20 is dealing with murders only... at least, that's what I take the column header that specifically says "murders" to mean. I 100% agree with your point, but in this case it's not a factor.
Would it surprise you to know that, well, you're wrong?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
I'll save you time: while you would be correct to say that firearms are responsible for more murders than any other cause, the number of non-firearms murders is very nearly half that of firearms... roughly 8k to roughly 4k.
The point being: yes, granted, guns are used more often in murders... but it seems like those without guns are managing just fine without them too. Besides, I'm pretty sure those getting killed with fists and feet don't feel any better about it than those shot with a gun.
Now, a little thought experiment: if there were no guns, what do you think would happen? Would the TOTAL number of murders go down by roughly 8k? Or, would the number of murders not using guns GO UP? I hope you wouldn't try and say the former because if so, sir, you're retarded. Would non-firearms murders go up 8k? No, I very much doubt it... but the number WOULD go up.
And why is that? Simple: violent people are violent people. Yes, guns might make it easier for them to kill... but a good percentage of them are going to murder WITHOUT a gun just the same... and hey, to use the anti-gun argument against them: isn't ONE murder with a boxcutter too much? Better ban them! If we can save just ONE LIFE by banning baseball bats, shouldn't we?
I'm not saying that if we removed guns from the equation that we wouldn't save a few lives. I think we would. There's no doubt some murders that wouldn't occur at all if there were no guns. The problem is that guns UNDENIABLY save lives, nearly every day. Are those lives saved somehow less important than those saved if there were no guns? I'm not even claiming the number of lives saved by guns is greater than those taken by murder with guns (although I believe that's the case, but I don't have a reference so I won't claim it)... I'm just saying if it's all about saving lives (hint: IT'S NOT) then a life saved with a gun is just as valuable as one taken with a gun.
People who want to kill will, by and large, find a way. That's the bottom line and that's the fundamental problem in our society, the fact that people WANT to kill (putting self-defense aside of course). The fact that guns might make it easier is tangential to the root cause and while banning guns might save a few lives, the impact won't be nearly as large as you want to think it might be and we'll be talking about banning the NEXT inanimate object quickly. Stop trying to attack something that's a proximal cause AT BEST and get to the root of the problem. That's the way we might actually make a difference in this country. We don't have a "gun violence" problem, we have a VIOLENCE problem. Any time you see "gun violence", that just shows there's an agenda at play and that person actually cares very little for saving lives and is more interesting in exerting and extending control (Oh, did our president say that? Hmm, point proven!)
I too am a game developer... no, not professional as you are, but I've written almost a dozen games on a number of platforms over nearly 20 years, sold most of them and even had two nominated for some awards years ago. I won't put myself on the same level as you, but I do have some relevant experience.
I would agree if you said the "never" statement is hyperbole... but you wouldn't argue the underlying gist of it, would you? Certainly it's true that a game programmer will seek to MINIMIZE object allocations and deallocations as much as possible within the performance-critical sections of code, right? I think that was what he was getting at, even if he didn't say it very well. Yes, I'd agree, what he LITERALLY wrote is false... but I suspect it was just a case of being overzealous with word choice... get him in a quiet room and I bet he says "yeah, I didn't actually meant NEVER there".
Bottom line: just because you're using a GC'd language and you CAN ignore memory management, doesn't mean you SHOULD. That goes for JS, Java or any other GC'd language in existence.
I hate to go off on a tangent... but that won't stop me from doing so, because I think it's actually the core of the issue and is entirely non-technical:
This all goes back to the abysmal state of many (most?) "modern" developers.
If you grew you with computers at the time I did, the late 70's/early 80's, and you learned to program those early 8-bit home computers, you kinda take this stuff for granted (memory management I mean). You just inherently think differently than "modern" developers do. You see things at a much lower level... even when you're working at a high level of abstraction, your mind automatically goes lower... instantiating an object in Java? You're mind at some level is thinking about how memory is being allocated, how the object reference is being stored, etc. Hell, you even start to think about the messages the OS is passing around, how those messages must map to C functions, and how those functions ultimately resolve down to assembly.
I'm NOT saying you KNOW all those details... not really... you just know the concepts... and I'm certainly not saying such details are relevant most of the time because they're not... I'm just saying that's the way our brains work... we can "see" all the levels below the one we're actually working on in our minds' eye, if only in a conceptual sense, and it happens without trying.
I's because we generally started learning at those low levels and everything over the years has built up logically from there. Most of us started with BASIC but quickly jump to Assembly because that was the only way to achieve what we really wanted to (games, mostly). Once you're at that level, it's an entirely different mindset. Those of us that also had an electronics background go a step further because we even go below the Assembly level sometimes (and that wasn't all that uncommon back then... of course, the electronics were considerably simpler and easier to understand than they are now).
That's a VERY different evolution than the kid that STARTS with Java or JavaScript or whatever now, then goes to school and learns more high-level stuff. And it shows in daily work life all the time! I see people constantly in my career who aren't really bad developers, but they are, somehow, lacking... it usually shows when things aren't working as expected. They have a difficult time breaking things down and figuring out what's going on. Oh, they can Google an answer as well as anyone, and hey, probably 9 times out of 10 that's sufficient. But they're just stumped beyond belief that one time... they just can't get into the details and work the problem at a fundamental level. They don't REALLY understand how these machines, these operating systems, work. And that's a really bad state of affairs.
(to be fair, some of us that learned in the "ground-up" way sometimes have difficulty STAYING at a high level... we sometimes trip over discussions that are too abstract because our brains are searching for the details that aren't there, and really aren't even relevant... that's a whole other discussion, but it's a true phenomenon).
All of this... to try and pull it back to topic relevance... means that relatively simple things like designing your code to minimize object allocation and deallocation seems mysterious to a lot of modern developers... they don't always get why it's important, and it seems like some black art or something even when they do... to us old-schoolers, I guess that's what we are now, it's actually quite natural to think that way. Even in JavaScript, where I've done considerable work, and highly complex work, GC has never presented a big issue for me, primarily because I've ALWAYS thought about it and know how to avoid it at the right times. The language itself isn't flawed, modern developers' ability to use it effectively is.
We're proba
I'm 5'9" and I wear almost nothing but jeans and jean shorts most days. I don't wear skin-tight jeans, but neither am I wearing "fat guy" jeans... they fit "right" in my eyes: no struggle to button, but they're far from cargo pants territory.
My Nexus 7 TABLET fits in the BACK POCKET of my pants without struggling to get it in and out. It's actually comfortable there (aside from the weight, which is a bit much and tries to pull my pants down). Now, yes, that's only true if I'm standing up... sitting ain't happening... this "phone" (phablet I guess is the term they invented?) should fit just as well as it's smaller.
Now, me personally, I don't want a phone this big. I have an S4 and I think it's just about perfect... I considered the Note II and I could see possibly going to that size, but that's the upper limit for me I think. To me, this phone is just too big to be carrying around all the time. But to say it doesn't fit in "regular" pants I just don't think is accurate. You most definitely do not need a fanny pack or anything like that.
None of that is "flaky"... these are all features of the languages that if you bothered to learn you'd see that it makes JS one of the most flexible languages out there.
Some devs can't deal with the freedom to think for themselves and need rigid rules to function. Not the languages's problem.
It's kind of interesting to me how what we've seen with the rise of the app store model has largely mirrored what we've seen in the "real world" post-9/11. It hasn't quite been simultaneous, but pretty close.
What I mean is that a lot of people love the app store model and always say how it's "safer". Especially when talking about Apple, you have a gatekeeper checking on the safety of apps, to at least some degree. They ensure what gets through won't hurt you (in theory... but, to be fair, they do pretty well in practice too).
However, there's a cost: at least some decrease in "freedom". Not just anyone can throw an app out to the world of iOS users. If Apple doesn't like your app for any reason, you don't get to distribute to (most) iOS users. Sure, there's jailbreaking and Cydia and all of that, but let's be honest: that's a pretty small percentage of more technically-oriented users. For *most* iOS users, your app doesn't exist if Apple doesn't want it to.
The Android model is the opposite or course: there is virtually no barrier to entry. It's very easy to get into the Play store whether your app is "safe" or not. Oh, they're doing some checks now, but at the end of the day I think even us Android fans acknowledge that it's still more or less a wild west environment. And that says nothing of side-loading either: if you don't get in the store, or don't want to, no big deal, you can still distribute directly to users. Flipping a setting in options isn't the same as jailbreaking so you aren't limited to just "technical" users.
Post-9/11, people seem to be willing to give up some degree of freedom for safety (whether that safety is just perceived or not is a whole other discussion). No, not everyone of course, and yes, there's limits to what people will accept. But, aren't we seeing those bounds pushed more and more every day? Hasn't Snowden showed us that a large chunk of the American population is more than happy to give up privacy to at least *feel* safer?
It's no different in the app world. Lots of people swear by the closed, "walled garden" approach of Apple. They claim it's safer and the quality is better. Well, the former is fairly easy to show, the later is highly subjective, but what's obvious in either case is that there's a decrease in freedom. You may see the tradeoff as worth it. That's your call. People love Apple whether I do or not and I'm not going to try and convince them they're wrong. There's pluses and minuses to both approaches. But at the end of the day, Apple is, at least in part, deciding what you can and can't install on you device.
It's just interesting to me how people in both situations seem so willing to say "eh, make me safer, or at least make me THINK I'm safer, and you can have some measure of control over what I do". How that's acceptable to ANY American in either case is beyond me frankly and I think it shows that our societal values have eroded tremendously. Sure, yes, Apple controlling what apps I can install on my phone is VASTLY different from the TSA patting me down to ensure I don't bring a bomb on a plane. I dare say nobody's life is at stake because Apple decides I used the word cock one too many times in my app. But the fundamental concept is the same: safety in exchange for freedom.
But, underneath both is the same warped thinking: someone else is better suited to keeping you safe than YOU are. It's someone else' responsibility to keep you safe. Someone else can make decisions for you because you are unable or unwilling to do so. Yes, I'm saying you're opinion on the walled garden app store model vs. the Android "wild west" approach informs your take on society at large and what you are willing to let any government do to you. If you're in the Apple camp then you're probably perfectly willing to let the government trample your liberties in exchange for possibly less chance of being killed. The mentality of both is the same. If, on the other hand, you're willing to be responsible for yourself and control your own destiny, the Android approach is probably better-suited to you.
(of course, we'll have a similar discussion about how Google is a data whore above all others and what THAT means, but that's for another day)
While I agree with everyone that says build small to start and scale up later as needed, the one caveat I'd give is whatever technology you use, design with the THOUGHT of clustering from the start. I've seen many designs fall down when scaled because, for example, the app used session too liberally and now session replication across clustered nodes is a serious problem.
There's nothing that says you must use clustering later, there's other approaches, but if your app inherently can't be clustered because your design doesn't allow for it the it can turn into a real headache quickly.
If you design as statelessly as possible then you're likely to be fine when you go to scale, whether vertically or horizontally. That's a simplistic answer, but it will be correct, to a reasonable approximation of "correct" :)
How does this even REMOTELY make sense?!
A true man doesn't need a gun and is a coward if they do? Really? So every single man out there knows how to defend against a knife, baseball bat or, fuck, nunchaku attack? Every man is bigger, faster and stronger then every opponent he might ever be attacked by? No man ever gets old? No man is ever in bad shape due to disease? No man can ever be caught by surprise even if otherwise a "tough" guy? No man can ever simply be bested in a fair fight by an evenly-matched opponent?
And most importantly: EVERY PERSON THAT MIGHT ATTACK A MAN IS ALSO A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN WHO VOLUNTARILY GIVES UP *THEIR* GUNS?
You're right, there's a coward in this equation, but it's not the ones with the guns. Only a coward is so afraid of the world as it actual is that they need to invent a false one where they a Superman and can deal with every potential violent situation with their bare hands.
This isn't high school anymore, like it was when I was there, where you could have a little fist fight, get a bloody nose, give a bloody nose, and both walk away a few minutes later. Yes, I'll acknowledge that most violent confrontations probably don't require the use of a gun if you're at least somewhat competent as a fighter, but guess what? Only those that fight regularly tend to be competent fighters! If your goal is to avoid violence you tend to also not be good at it, not through any fault of your own but through simple logic.
But you're willing to risk your life that you can rise to the occasion when you actually need to? Good luck with that, but don't go up against me because you won't like the result myself and my little concealed friend bring to you.
Not that simple... how many of those 28 were suicide? How many were accidents? I don't honestly know, but I know the answer isn't going to be zero because it's NEVER zero.
In my mind, someone that wants to kill themselves shouldn't count against guns any more than it should count against tailpipes if they decide to sit in a car in a garage.
And accidents happen regardless of what we're talking about. Accidents shouldn't be held against any more than it should be against a car.
So, let's just pull a number out of our ass and say that 20 of them were not suicides or accidents. Seems a reasonable guess.
Of those 20, how many do you suspect were committed by a legal gun owner who just lost their shit for one reason or another and wasn't otherwise committing a crime (i.e., wasn't robbing a bank or shooting it out with a rival gang or some such)? Certainly some of them were, but how many? Again, I don't know... a reasonable guess though? 50% maybe?
So now we're down to 10 deaths you MIGHT be able to stop by better regulating guns... the other 18 were going to happen anyway (whether with a gun or not).
My point? The situation IS NOT as dire as you make it out to be when you factor in causes and reasons.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm a gun owner, I even have an assault weapon, and I'm worried we're going to go WAY too far here with laws... but I *do* think there's some reasonable steps we can take that might help save a few lives... much better background checks certainly including on private sales... laws requiring reporting of lost or stolen guns (how is that NOT a law now?!?)... much harsher penalties for any crime committed involving a gun... maybe even waiting period on all gun purchases. And there's a few more that don't go too far.
I DON'T want bans though, on any particular class of guns (because they do nothing, as the statistics associated with the 1994 ban prove) nor do I think there's a need to magazine size restrictions (although, I DO expect that'll pass as a feel-good measure and although I'll hate it, it's not the end of the world, so long as there's no outright AWB).
Biden and others like to say we should do anything we can to save even one life. I hate to sound callous, but that's bullshit. One life is NOT worth the potential freedom of a nation. Several HUNDRED aren't even. The second amendment helps ensure our freedom from the worst possibilities (possibilities which I acknowledge are improbable given out system of government... but NOT IMPOSSIBLE). It's a freedom no one should want to voluntarily give up and should fight giving up involuntarily to their last breath if necessary (certainly I hope it's never necessary, believe me, I'm in no rush whatsoever to be in any sort of fight, let alone one against my own government). History proves time and again that giving up that freedom leads to nothing good. It *IS* worth the price we pay, terrible as that reality is. But it *IS* the reality.
Wish I had the mod points, but this is spot on.
I've frankly never been particularly good solving these "simple" algorithmic problems on the spot either, even with my 20+ years of experience in the field, even with being a published tech author, even with being very highly regarded by all I've ever worked with. So, although I haven't had the need to interview for a job in quite a few years, I'm sure I wouldn't do any better than average if these sorts of things were thrown at me.
But, compare the code I write for a living with the code most others do and there's no question which one of us you'd want to hire.
I think this is true of a lot of good developers... there's MUCH more to this job than being able to solve a specific single programming task because all of us that are worth hiring can do that, given enough research and time... sure, I agree, it's nice if you can throw algorithm X, Y or Z up on a whiteboard from memory, that'll make you marginally faster than me... but speed, while not irrelevant, is FAR from the most important characteristic of a good developer. Code that is clean, elegant, logical, as simple as possible and maintainable five years down the road are FAR, FAR, FAR more important, and you're NOT going to gauge those things with a fizzbuzz-type test (I do A LOT of interviews now, believe me, I know this from experience).
False. While I wouldn't doubt you could find SOME Android device that locked out third-party installs, they would be exceedingly rare, and certainly it's something that is allowed by default in Android. The only time you would HAVE to root your phone, the rare exceptional device aside, is if the app you want explicitly requires root to work, and that's probably 1% of all Android apps I'd guess.
Unless you take into account the business you work for and the environment you work in then you've asked an incomplete question.
In a small-ish company you can push out updates quicker because in many ways there's less risk: if there's a problem it either (a) doesn't impact as many people or (b) is easy to roll back. That's a generalization for sure and everyone can pull out exceptions I'd bet, but I think it's a fair generalization.
In a large corporation though, especially one where there may be government regulations that have to be met and SLA's that have to be maintained or there can be real financial repercussions in short order (fines, give-backs to clients, etc.) the story tends to be different and considerably more conservative. It's not a question of nimbleness or doing things the "new" way or anything like that, it's simple risk assessment.
Naturally, the other big factor, and actually I should have said this first because in many ways it's the bigger point, is what the application actually is. I mean, if you're talking about a timesheet application for your workers than you probably can get away with a lot of mistakes. Try it with your key line-of-business POS application though... you know, the one that if it's down for more than two hours your business goes under?... in those cases, you likely don't want to be risking it any more frequently than you really have to.
Me, I work for a very large corporation, and I'm lead on a couple of very large, complex and extremely important applications. We have no set deployment schedule generally, but on average we do a release once every two months or so as driven by business requirements. That FEELS about right to me, given the environment, the applications and my 20+ years of professional experience in IT.
YMMV of course, and in fact it probably SHOULD since I'd contend there's no single right answer... but what I've mentioned here are probably the key considerations in any case.
But we DON'T cover up the brand logos. This, right here, points to the REAL problem:
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO, OR INCAPABLE OF, BASIC THOUGHT.
If you walk into a Best Buy, and you intend to buy an iPad but you walk out with a Galaxy Tab because you couldn't tell them apart, then you, sir, are a FUCKING IDIOT. If you can't turn them on and tell the difference, you deserve what you get. I mean, what happens? Do you hold them up side-by-side, can't tell them apart, so, what, just fucking randomly pick one?!? Do you not read the damned info cards below them and compare and contrast them? Do you not ask a sales person some questions? I mean, come on already, this is nuts!
This ISN'T about two admittedly very similarly-designed products (and ok, maybe one is a flat-out copy of the other, I might be willing to stipulate to that) that people can't physically tell apart (And you know what? They're different enough physically anyway that *I* as a not-stupid person, wouldn't be fooled anyway, but I digress). This is about a world full of stupid people that can't be bothered to, you know, GET INFORMATION and make an INFORMED DECISION with it. It's either stupidity or laziness, you're choice (and probably a bit of both). Either you are incapable of basic thought or you just don't like to do it and so when you get "fooled" you get mad because, damn it, SOMEONE should have been PROTECTING YOU from your own fucked-upedness!!
See, instead of tackling the real problem head-on we want someone to protect us from ourselves. We want the legal system to say "oh no, you can't BOTH have rounded corners because all these GRADE-A FUCKING MORONS out there won't be able to tell them apart and will wind up buying something they didn't want. No, we have to do the thinking FOR them and make sure they don't have to be bothered actually making an informed decision."
It's utterly ridiculous. If people weren't so God-damned braindead and/or lazy as shit this wouldn't be an issue- even if you legitimately can't physically tell them apart, actually doing some research and actually using them would differentiate them for you quickly if you had half a brain in your head. I am *SO* sick of living in a society of stupid people because this is the kind of bullshit legal wrangling that results. It's inevitable and almost HAS to occur because we're not equipped as a species anymore to have it otherwise.
It's fucking sad is what it is. Think about the basic situation we find ourselves in here: we have one company that probably did flat-out copy another getting sued by another company who is insecure and afraid to compete on the merits of their products because God forbid the exorbitant profits drop even A LITTLE...
AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM SAYS THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES!
And it's all because people are too stupid and/or lazy to give us a choice of being otherwise.
Our best bet at this point is that the Mayans are right and Nibiru or some shit really does collide with the Earth in December... maybe in a few million years we'll crawl out of the primordial ooze again and maybe the next time we'll get it right because we sure as shit aren't getting it right this go-round.
...the damned things aren't PHONES anymore! I checked my history on Sprint the other day, and, this is really pretty funny... I've got four lines on my account, me wife and two kids... over the last YEAR, our average talk time was... wait for it... 9 minutes a month! I think the peak was like 22 minutes one month.
Texts, the AVERAGE per month was 963.
Total data, monthly average, was 8Gb.
So, two things... first, you can see why I like sticking with Sprint and their unlimited data plans even though they have far from the best overall service... second, these things aren't really phones for us anymore, they're TRULY personal computers... we've effectively redefined what the term PC means. I think at this point, speaking for me, I probably check mail and social sites on my phone 95% of the time. I also browse the web a lot from my phone (the usage pattern I've noticed is that when I'm looking for something specifically I tend to grab my phone, but when I'm just aimlessly browsing I still use my desktop more).
So yeah, the bigger screen sizes for me are necessary. My wife and I recently got the Galaxy S3 and we freakin' totally love them, and the big screen size is one of the main reasons. I've had smartphones with screen sizes from 2.8 inches (HTC Mogul) to the Epic 4G (4 inches) and now the SGS3 (4.8 inches I believe) and I can say without the slightest question that bigger is better here, and the SGS3 I carry in my rear jean pocket without any problem whatsoever.
Now, how much is TOO big? That's really the question. I'm not sure I'd want to go TOO much bigger than the SGS3... I could see 5 inches without a problem, maybe up to 5.5 at the most, but I think anything more than that is probably getting too big.
We're at a point where the hardware isn't the issue, which is where this guy seems to be focused. We HAVE wireless keyboards and mice now. Even wireless monitors exists. The smartphones we carry are quite powerful hardware-wise. We're THERE as far as hardware goes. It'll continue to evolve of course, but it's not what's lacking.
What's lacking now is software. NOBODY has quite managed to get it right yet.
What I mean is this... in my ideal world, and I suspect what would wind up being ideal for everyone else too, is a docking station that I can plop my phone into, connect it to my 1-n monitors, keyboard and mouse, and work on it as I do my desktop today. Now, a few companies have some of this available today of course. The Atrix goes to laptop, as does the Transformer.
But what none of them yet do is present me with a PROPER desktop operating system. What exists today simply brings up Android again, more or less the same as on the phone alone, just enlarged to fill the screen. That's not good enough. I need an operating system tailored to the desktop environment, just like I need one tailored to the smartphone form factor. They need to adjust much better than they do today (laptops sit in the middle I think, where you could go either way).
When on my desktop I NEED multiple monitors and I DON'T need a touch-based interface. When I'm on my laptop I need something that's probably a bit of a mixture. And on my phone I need that truly mobile-oriented design.
Microsoft is MAYBE thinking along these lines a little with Windows 8 and Surface, but for me Windows 8 is an abortion that needs to be killed, killed with fire, as quickly as humanly possible. But, they may at least have this concept in their minds. I think Asus and their Transformer line is probably closest to making it happen (they are coming out with a monitor docking station for example) but until they (a) can tailor Android to be more appropriate for a desktop and (b) allow for multiple monitors, it's probably not going to be ideal either.
It really doesn't even SEEM all that hard really... how about something the size of a Mac Mini with a slot for your phone? The chassis is really nothing but a USB hub, maybe some PCIe slots for graphics cards and whatnot, and some video outs. When you plug the phone in that's your CPU and memory (maybe the chassis augments it?) and all your apps are there, on multiple monitors if you wish, but the OS now tailors itself (and the apps it runs) to that environment rather than the phone. I don't mean to imply this is a piece of cake to pull off, but come on, it's also not THAT big a deal, is it?
That's what I want, and that's what I think someone is going to pull off in the not-too-distant future, and that's what will be the big hit and the real paradigm-shifting creation. Even "data in the cloud" would seem less important at that point really.
Good point about laptops and updates outside the network. I didn't mean to suggest DNS blocking was the only way or the best way, just that its one easy way to deal with what some think is a big issue (aside from your valid outside-the-network-update point).
I hear it a lot: "auto-update in browsers is bad for enterprises because it'll just randomly break apps". I consider this argument bunk. Simply block the update sites in your corporate DNS and you're done. ESPECIALLY when you're talking about a silent background update, I'm pretty sure you won't even see a warning or anything in that case.
I suppose if you work somewhere that uses someone else' DNS servers this isn't an option, but even then you probably are going through a proxy, so block it there!
This isn't theory: my company was doing this for a while (until the development staff complained enough and they changed the policy around alternate browsers)... it works just fine, isn't expensive to implement and, of course, if you get to a point where a particular new version is certified you just un-block for a few weeks and let the updates take place.
A lot of the comments here seem to be variations on the theme "this isn't about patents" and/or "they shouldn't be able to patent rounded corners".
But I think both those things aren't the big problem here.
The big problem is that consumers have less choice today than they did yesterday because of the injunction. We can debate the patent system and we can debate design patents versus other types of patents or whatever but it seems to me it's unarguable that consumers having less choice is a Very Bad Thing(tm).
It's kind of humorous to me to realize this of myself but...
I've always said I'd sign up for a one-way mission like this. This is coming from someone with a wife, kids and basically a good life. I'm not in any rush to leave my life in any way, shape or form, but I see a mission like this as being more important than that life, so much bigger and meaningful. I believe my wife and kids would understand that too and would accept my sacrifice just as I would.
Here's the thing though... as willing as I'd be to give up my life for this, to do it as part of a reality show?
No.
Yeah, I had to stop and laugh at myself for a minute- willingly give up my life, willingly give up seeing my kids grow, willingly give up hopefully many years more with a wife I love, all of that is fine... but let people watch be poo on a spaceship?
Nope, that's where I draw the line apparently!
If that doesn't say all that needs to be said about how I feel about reality TV then there exists no words in the tongues of Man that could do so!
I've been in IT for about 20 years now, professionally... to this day I do not have a degree (of any sort actually), yet I'm highly-regarded and paid rather handsomely for my skills.
They key to getting hired initially was to have a portfolio of work. I had done some independent consulting projects before that I could show, but mostly I was showing things I had done on my own. And, a lot of it, most of it even, wasn't remotely work-related: I showed a lot of intros I had written for BBS's years earlier, a couple of games I wrote, little utilities, things like that. That impressed the person interviewing me a lot.
I also made a point to study up on things I suspected I'd be questioned on, things like the basics of OOP, which to that point I hadn't done any of.
I also had an interviewer that was fair, which is a bit of a lucky draw I have to admit, but one thing he did was asked me to write a program in FoxPro over the weekend and bring it back to him Monday. I'd never even HEARD of FoxPro at that point, and this was before the Internet was what it is today, so it wasn't like you could just go download examples and whatnot... I went to the book store, picked up a book, read it all throughout Saturday, then spent all day Sunday hacking the thing together. It wasn't brilliant code to be sure, but it demonstrated a general attitude and ability to learn on-the-fly.
The interviewer later told me that I basically blew away every CS degree holder that came through the door, some of whom couldn't even answer the basic OOP questions ("What is polymorphism?" for example). Very sad.
Now, all these years later, I sit on the other side of the table and I see the overall lack of basic skills that most candidates seem to come to job interviews with, and it's sad. None of them ever bring a portfolio of work either, which is a big deal. Just throwing a resume on a table isn't enough anymore, especially when I've seen first-hand now many times they're nothing but bullshit. SHOW ME what you've done, whether on the job or not... in fact, in some ways I'm MORE interested in what you've done in your spare time. It often-times shows a lot more of your drive and self-help aptitude, something that is sorely lacking in today's IT world it seems.
Mostly though, don't be dissuaded from trying! For a couple of years I didn't even try to get a job in IT because I figured I didn't have a degree so there would be no chance. I was very wrong. Sure, some places won't even consider you without a degree, but frankly, let me tell you that those, generally, aren't places you'd really want to work at anyway (yes, there are exceptions, but I'm talking generally). It even helps to a certain extent because frankly, use hiring people can pay you less! But, we'll also expect a little less, which means that if you perform well, which is a bit easier with those lower expectations, you can usually expect to be taken care of... for example, my salary tripled inside 5 years, even though I started out a bit lower than I would have liked, and has been going up steadily ever since, all because I came in, a little bit of a gamble perhaps, but I exceeded expectations by doing nothing but working hard, putting in effort to learn new stuff outside work (I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS!!!!) and generally doing what was asked of me.
The problem is that MacOS has *always*, as a generality, looked as it does today. Oh, clearly it's evolved of course, and I doubt anyone would say what it is today doesn't look MUCH better than what it used to look like... but the overall aesthetic in terms of a somewhat subdued color palette has been that way for a while now.
With Windows though, that's only STARTING to be the case now. So we notice.
Think of it this way: if all you ever had was the cheapest, toughest steak out there, and you gradually got better cuts, you'd be happy. If you started with the best cut available and went the other way, you'd complain to no end. I don't mean to say Windows (or VS in this particular case) has been top-cut steak all along, just that the changes MS is pushing now are giving us sirloin, or worse, and so we notice much more than we notice that MacOS has always been giving us sirloin, more or less :)