>Granted, they may be doing the same thing for all I know, but at least there are other options.
They've got a section on their site that talks about the great conditions in their factory in China, but of course they're going to say that.
I just received a pair of shoes that I ordered from Customatix a couple weeks ago, and I am very happy with them. The materials and construction are really good. Also, they ship with two sets of insoles (to fit various sized feet) and "complimentary contraband" -- little promotional extras.
And although I can't find the text on their Web site, they also send you a "bill of rights (and lefts)" that proves they're on the cluetrain.
Both ACM (www.acm.org) and IEEE (www.ieee.org) have funds to support various initiatives, including scholarships and other education programs. They make it very easy to donate, just by adding a few bucks to your annual dues.
And you can always donate money to your college or high school through the alumni fund. Often you can specify what purpose your donation should go to, so you might write in "computer equipment" or "computer science scholarships". You might also be able to donate your *time* to a school, for computer training, installation, or to talk at a "career day".
Disclaimer: I have not read the book, so I'm commenting based solely on the review and the comments.
Trees can be implemented in databases, although, as Lozzer points out, it might not necessary be pretty. However, the review says there are no trees in *SQL*, which is the language used to get data out of databases.
Even if you implement a tree in your database, the usual way to access the data is by reading the "root" record, then using some programming language to follow the pointers to other records. You almost never try to follow the pointers using SQL, because that quickly becomes difficult.
SQL is designed to grab sets of records out of tables. It's good at doing set operations such as union, intersection, and so forth. A tree structure isn't really a set operation. It is specialized for operations like that. It is not the right tool for implementing trees.
That's disappointing, because you very often want to use trees and similar data structures. It means you need more than just SQL to implement a useful database system, but as long as you have those other tools at your disposal, things usually work out OK.
At US$499, the Bose Wave Radio/CD falls nicely into the middle category. I got mine before the built-in CD was an option (and before they were available in grey), and the sound is great. The clock/radio functions aren't bad, either.
The last question in the interview dealt with hobbies, and BK said that he goes through 3-5 year cycles where he gets deeply involved in a subject, but he sort of lets it slide. I kind of do the same thing. I tell people my hobby is picking up new hobbies. Does anybody else out there do this?
If I didn't want the Dialectizer to translate my Web pages, couldn't I just configure my firewall (or my Web server) to deny access to the Dialectizer's IP numbers? I mean really, isn't it just as simple as that? Or am I missing something?
For less money than they paid their law firm to fire off a "cease and desist" letter, they probably could have hired a network engineer to make the changes.
NetFuture has written about this topic extensively
on
Laptops In Education
·
· Score: 1
Check out NetFuture. Many of 1999's newsletters dealt with issues of technology in education. The essays are intelligently written and well-crafted. I can't do them justice by summarizing them here, but let me just point out two of NF's recurring themes.
Do we have any evidence that pushing kids to learn big concepts (reading, calculus, computer programming) helps them learn?
Computers, plus the support and training they require, are pretty expensive. Are we getting a big benefit from this big investment?
Ted Nelson's Xanadu Project includes the concepts of transclusion (including content from another source by reference) and micropayments (tiny royalties given directly to the transcluded content's owner by the end-user of the content). With computers and computer networks in place, it's possible to debit an MP3 listener's account a cent or two and deposit it in the artist's account.
I'm not saying this is the best solution in the MP3/Napster case, but it's an idea that has been around for a while.
Clearly, there's a lot of overhead in the music industry, and I think it's clear that consumers are interested in avoiding the costs associated with that overhead. Micropayments are one way for artists to get their music directly to listeners without the music industry middlemen.
>There of tons of big name sites that use WebObjects.
True, but there are many more that use ASP. At the bookstore, there are dozens of ASP books, and exactly zero WebObjects books. These are the perceptions that my PHB is using to resist WO and bring in ASP.
If anyone has suggestions as to how I can change his mind, I'd love to hear them.
I'm in the process of comparing Apple's WebObjects to Microsoft's ASP for a somewhat similar project. I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has info on the WO/ASP comparison, but here's what I have found so far.
ASP has the better market share, so you'll be able to find more resources (consultants, books, courses). WO has the better tools. It's a Betamax-VHS problem.
ASP is kind of a markup language that you mix with HTML, then pump through a special Web server (typically MS's IIS, but you can buy add-ons to make other Web servers work with it). The special Web server pre-processes the ASP directives, fetching data from databases if necessary and calling external components to do your work. Then the result gets rendered in plain HTML and sent out to the client (Web browser). You need additional products to handle load balancing and failover.
WO is an application server, meaning you write and compile an application, which the users interact with via their Web browsers. It automatically handles load balancing, fail over, and all kinds of good stuff. The developer tools are very complete, and they include a simple Web page editor, a data modeling package, and lots of nice features. WO is pretty expensive, and they charge per CPU that your application is deployed on. You can use Mac OS X Server (BSD Unix based) or Windows NT for deployment.
Both products connect to a range of data sources via ODBC. ASP requires you to embed the SQL in your.asp pages. WO has an object modeler. You set up objects that know about your database's structure, and the SQL is generated automatically when you access those objects.
Your choice (ASP, WO, or other) depends on your exact application. I'm not recommending either product, just sharing what (I think) I know.
If your goal is to write a simple, compiled program without the overhead of a GUI interface, it can be very hard to do on a Mac. There are good fourth generation languages that make it easy to build a UI, but their code isn't that efficient (compared to compiled C). And there are good compilers such as Code Warrior, but usually you have to build at least a simple UI to do your I/O, and that can be a hassle. The great thing about Unix is that you can simply edit a text file, compile it, and run the executable.
Apple has a product called OS X Server (that X is pronounced "ten"). It is a result of their acquisition of NeXT. It's not Linux, but it is a Unix system, based on BSD. It has a pretty good GUI, and it comes with a GNU C/C++ compiler. There are some restrictions as to what hardware you can run it on. It might require a G3-class machine.
OS X Server also has a MacOS 8 emulator that runs as a process you can switch to. The only problem with the emulator is that the graphics are slow, so that makes the whole system appear slow since the interface is graphics-based.
Anyway, you get the best of both worlds. Write your programs in C for Unix and run them, then transfer the output files to the MacOS partition and use them as Mac files.
The SciFi Channel is running a special called The Curse of the Blair Witch. I waited until after seeing the movie to watch it, because I feared spoilers. However, I wish I had watched it first, because it filled in the backstory quite a bit and made things somewhat clearer.
The special is in the style of a one-hour documentary almost like that old Leonard Nimoy series, "In Search Of...". The story of the original Blair Witch and the other spooky happenings in the area is told by splicing together a bunch of (fictional) interviews. They talked to Burkittsville townspeople, Mike's brother, the sheriff, the town historian, and experts on witchcraft. By far, the most colorful character was a 1970s hippie-type witch that came from (fictional) footage from 1971. There are also (fictional) local news reports and clips from the movie. (Some of this is available on the BWP Web site.
The style of the special makes it seem just like a real news program, so unfortunately it won't do much to disabuse people of the misconception that the events of the BWP are real.
According to the _Curse of the Blair Witch_ special, the original Blair Witch was the influence behind all the freaky things that happened in the woods: the men killed in the search party, the 1940s child killer, and even more stuff. The final scenes of the movie appear to draw from several different legends, but the special makes it clear that they're all deeply intertwingled.
I'm a programmer at a headhunting company, and I can give you an idea of what it's like on the receiving end of the deal. Disclaimer: I realize the situation described in the original article is not the same as what I'm talking about here.
We get literally hundreds of resumes each week, by snail-mail, fax, and email. We probably ask for about 10-20 of those from potential candidates. The rest are unsolicited. Most are not for a specific position, just for "anything that fits my background". Most of the resumes are from unqualified people -- certainly over 80% of them are garbage.
Our Web site tells people exactly how to send resumes (plain text in the body of the email), yet we still get dozens of attachments in all formats -- Word, Word Perfect, PDF, HTML, even TIFFs of scanned resumes.
Given the following facts: (1) these resumes are unsolicted, (2) there's an 80% chance that they're trash, (3) the submitter can't follow directions, and (4) we have a couple hundred other resumes to process this week, we generally delete such resumes without even replying. We feel the chances are low that we're losing any good candidates this way.
On the other hand, the thread that says headhunters are morons has some truth, too. Their job is to do a buzzword-level screening of a large pool of candidates and bring a few to the client for in-depth interviews. They need to bring good candidates, but not necessarily the best ones. So if they can do that without the clerical overhead of doing a lot of document conversion, you can bet that's the route they'll take.
If you're applying for a job that's being filled through a search firm, here's what you need to do:
Put together a brief resume with lots of buzzwords on it. These folks have a lot of resumes to dig through, and yours is only going to get a few seconds of attention.
Follow their directions for resume submission. If they have to convert your resume to.doc format, your few seconds are up.
Make sure your contact information is correct and easy to find. Most of the time, if your resume looks good they'll want to call you to chat in person.
Remember the headhunter is trying to fill a particular position as fast as possible -- not help you find a job. You're raw material. Don't expect that they'll be willing to go out of their way to help you find exactly the right job. They're going to see if you fit any of the positions they're currently trying to fill.
If you get an interview with the client company, make sure to ask lots of questions about the company and the position, because the headhunter may have oversold the position to you. Also make sure that the company gets a fair picture of your skills, because the headhunter may have oversold you to them.
PSX2 will have a number of great features that may make it worth the price.
100% backward compatible with existing Playstation games
DVD and CD capable. It may not play DVD movies in its default configuration, but perhaps add-ons will be available.
Networking capabilities will enable 'Net gaming and may provide a platform for WebTV-type functionality
$500-$700 is expensive for a new game machine that has no software. But for a versatile, powerful platform that can be extended to play DVDs and surf the 'Net and already has thousands of game titles it can run, it's a bargain.
>some folks here compared programmers to some other branches (building trade,...)
As long as we're making the analogy of bridge builders to programmers, let's take it all the way!
Just as computer systems written in the 1980s and before may fail in the year 2000, so will bridges that were built 20 years ago. Bridges need repaved and repaired every few years to stay in working condition. So does software.
I guess the difference is that Y2K failures will happen suddenly whereas pavement degrades more gracefully. But the point is that bridges built by civil engineers fall apart and need to be fixed, even though the designers are certified and licensed.
Somehow, software is expected to be correct the first time and forever whereas roads, buildings, etc. are expected to require near-constant maintenance to remain in service.
Customers who really, really want code that never crashes usually get pretty close to perfect quality. For example, NASA and a few other organizations require this level of robustness. Also, a lot of embedded systems achieve a high degree of stability.
But most people who buy software -- end users in the case of commercial software or project managers in the case of custom applications -- will settle for code that runs correctly most of the time. Once that level of quality is satisfied, it doesn't matter if there are a few bugs remaining; they can live with those. They'd rather have software that is fast, first to market, standard in their industry, or buzzword-compliant ("internet enabled" seems to be in vogue these days).
I think it's pretty easy for errors to slip through into final versions of software because the priority is on getting the project complete rather than tracking down the last few bugs.
LOC/year is a stupid measure of productivity. If I write 5000 lines of code a year, and all of them are correct when I deliver them, does that make me half as productive as someone who delivers the same program in 8000 lines and then must rewrite 2000 lines to fix bugs (total of 10KLOC/year)?
It's typical of Suits to force a quantitative measure on something that's fundamentally unquantifiable so that they can measure and judge and compare without actually *understanding* what they're talking about. And it's sad when these bogus measures are used by management to promote people or by journalists to prove a point that's not there.
Slashdot Mirror
>Granted, they may be doing the same thing for all I know, but at least there are other options.
They've got a section on their site that talks about the great conditions in their factory in China, but of course they're going to say that.
I just received a pair of shoes that I ordered from Customatix a couple weeks ago, and I am very happy with them. The materials and construction are really good. Also, they ship with two sets of insoles (to fit various sized feet) and "complimentary contraband" -- little promotional extras.
And although I can't find the text on their Web site, they also send you a "bill of rights (and lefts)" that proves they're on the cluetrain.
FWIW, I recommend them.
Both ACM (www.acm.org) and IEEE (www.ieee.org) have funds to support various initiatives, including scholarships and other education programs. They make it very easy to donate, just by adding a few bucks to your annual dues.
And you can always donate money to your college or high school through the alumni fund. Often you can specify what purpose your donation should go to, so you might write in "computer equipment" or "computer science scholarships". You might also be able to donate your *time* to a school, for computer training, installation, or to talk at a "career day".
Disclaimer: I have not read the book, so I'm commenting based solely on the review and the comments.
Trees can be implemented in databases, although, as Lozzer points out, it might not necessary be pretty. However, the review says there are no trees in *SQL*, which is the language used to get data out of databases.
Even if you implement a tree in your database, the usual way to access the data is by reading the "root" record, then using some programming language to follow the pointers to other records. You almost never try to follow the pointers using SQL, because that quickly becomes difficult.
SQL is designed to grab sets of records out of tables. It's good at doing set operations such as union, intersection, and so forth. A tree structure isn't really a set operation. It is specialized for operations like that. It is not the right tool for implementing trees.
That's disappointing, because you very often want to use trees and similar data structures. It means you need more than just SQL to implement a useful database system, but as long as you have those other tools at your disposal, things usually work out OK.
At US$499, the Bose Wave Radio/CD falls nicely into the middle category. I got mine before the built-in CD was an option (and before they were available in grey), and the sound is great. The clock/radio functions aren't bad, either.
i o_cd/
http://www.bose.com/home_audio/wave_systems/rad
The last question in the interview dealt with hobbies, and BK said that he goes through 3-5 year cycles where he gets deeply involved in a subject, but he sort of lets it slide. I kind of do the same thing. I tell people my hobby is picking up new hobbies. Does anybody else out there do this?
For less money than they paid their law firm to fire off a "cease and desist" letter, they probably could have hired a network engineer to make the changes.
Do we have any evidence that pushing kids to learn big concepts (reading, calculus, computer programming) helps them learn?
Computers, plus the support and training they require, are pretty expensive. Are we getting a big benefit from this big investment?
Science News had a really good article about the pursuit of new insulators for use in semiconductors last week.
I'm not saying this is the best solution in the MP3/Napster case, but it's an idea that has been around for a while.
Clearly, there's a lot of overhead in the music industry, and I think it's clear that consumers are interested in avoiding the costs associated with that overhead. Micropayments are one way for artists to get their music directly to listeners without the music industry middlemen.
>How much research did you do exactly? :)
:)
Plenty.
>There of tons of big name sites that use WebObjects.
True, but there are many more that use ASP. At the bookstore, there are dozens of ASP books, and exactly zero WebObjects books. These are the perceptions that my PHB is using to resist WO and bring in ASP.
If anyone has suggestions as to how I can change his mind, I'd love to hear them.
I'm in the process of comparing Apple's WebObjects to Microsoft's ASP for a somewhat similar project. I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has info on the WO/ASP comparison, but here's what I have found so far.
.asp pages. WO has an object modeler. You set up objects that know about your database's structure, and the SQL is generated automatically when you access those objects.
ASP has the better market share, so you'll be able to find more resources (consultants, books, courses). WO has the better tools. It's a Betamax-VHS problem.
ASP is kind of a markup language that you mix with HTML, then pump through a special Web server (typically MS's IIS, but you can buy add-ons to make other Web servers work with it). The special Web server pre-processes the ASP directives, fetching data from databases if necessary and calling external components to do your work. Then the result gets rendered in plain HTML and sent out to the client (Web browser). You need additional products to handle load balancing and failover.
WO is an application server, meaning you write and compile an application, which the users interact with via their Web browsers. It automatically handles load balancing, fail over, and all kinds of good stuff. The developer tools are very complete, and they include a simple Web page editor, a data modeling package, and lots of nice features. WO is pretty expensive, and they charge per CPU that your application is deployed on. You can use Mac OS X Server (BSD Unix based) or Windows NT for deployment.
Both products connect to a range of data sources via ODBC. ASP requires you to embed the SQL in your
Your choice (ASP, WO, or other) depends on your exact application. I'm not recommending either product, just sharing what (I think) I know.
Apple has a product called OS X Server (that X is pronounced "ten"). It is a result of their acquisition of NeXT. It's not Linux, but it is a Unix system, based on BSD. It has a pretty good GUI, and it comes with a GNU C/C++ compiler. There are some restrictions as to what hardware you can run it on. It might require a G3-class machine.
OS X Server also has a MacOS 8 emulator that runs as a process you can switch to. The only problem with the emulator is that the graphics are slow, so that makes the whole system appear slow since the interface is graphics-based.
Anyway, you get the best of both worlds. Write your programs in C for Unix and run them, then transfer the output files to the MacOS partition and use them as Mac files.
Apple's OS X site is at http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/.
The SciFi Channel is running a special called The Curse of the Blair Witch. I waited until after seeing the movie to watch it, because I feared spoilers. However, I wish I had watched it first, because it filled in the backstory quite a bit and made things somewhat clearer.
The special is in the style of a one-hour documentary almost like that old Leonard Nimoy series, "In Search Of...". The story of the original Blair Witch and the other spooky happenings in the area is told by splicing together a bunch of (fictional) interviews. They talked to Burkittsville townspeople, Mike's brother, the sheriff, the town historian, and experts on witchcraft. By far, the most colorful character was a 1970s hippie-type witch that came from (fictional) footage from 1971. There are also (fictional) local news reports and clips from the movie. (Some of this is available on the BWP Web site.
The style of the special makes it seem just like a real news program, so unfortunately it won't do much to disabuse people of the misconception that the events of the BWP are real.
According to the _Curse of the Blair Witch_ special, the original Blair Witch was the influence behind all the freaky things that happened in the woods: the men killed in the search party, the 1940s child killer, and even more stuff. The final scenes of the movie appear to draw from several different legends, but the special makes it clear that they're all deeply intertwingled.
We get literally hundreds of resumes each week, by snail-mail, fax, and email. We probably ask for about 10-20 of those from potential candidates. The rest are unsolicited. Most are not for a specific position, just for "anything that fits my background". Most of the resumes are from unqualified people -- certainly over 80% of them are garbage.
Our Web site tells people exactly how to send resumes (plain text in the body of the email), yet we still get dozens of attachments in all formats -- Word, Word Perfect, PDF, HTML, even TIFFs of scanned resumes.
Given the following facts: (1) these resumes are unsolicted, (2) there's an 80% chance that they're trash, (3) the submitter can't follow directions, and (4) we have a couple hundred other resumes to process this week, we generally delete such resumes without even replying. We feel the chances are low that we're losing any good candidates this way.
On the other hand, the thread that says headhunters are morons has some truth, too. Their job is to do a buzzword-level screening of a large pool of candidates and bring a few to the client for in-depth interviews. They need to bring good candidates, but not necessarily the best ones. So if they can do that without the clerical overhead of doing a lot of document conversion, you can bet that's the route they'll take.
If you're applying for a job that's being filled through a search firm, here's what you need to do:
$500-$700 is expensive for a new game machine that has no software. But for a versatile, powerful platform that can be extended to play DVDs and surf the 'Net and already has thousands of game titles it can run, it's a bargain.
IGN and PSX2 have more info.
>some folks here compared programmers to some other branches (building trade, ...)
As long as we're making the analogy of bridge builders to programmers, let's take it all the way!
Just as computer systems written in the 1980s and before may fail in the year 2000, so will bridges that were built 20 years ago. Bridges need repaved and repaired every few years to stay in working condition. So does software.
I guess the difference is that Y2K failures will happen suddenly whereas pavement degrades more gracefully. But the point is that bridges built by civil engineers fall apart and need to be fixed, even though the designers are certified and licensed.
Somehow, software is expected to be correct the first time and forever whereas roads, buildings, etc. are expected to require near-constant maintenance to remain in service.
Customers who really, really want code that never crashes usually get pretty close to perfect quality. For example, NASA and a few other organizations require this level of robustness. Also, a lot of embedded systems achieve a high degree of stability.
But most people who buy software -- end users in the case of commercial software or project managers in the case of custom applications -- will settle for code that runs correctly most of the time. Once that level of quality is satisfied, it doesn't matter if there are a few bugs remaining; they can live with those. They'd rather have software that is fast, first to market, standard in their industry, or buzzword-compliant ("internet enabled" seems to be in vogue these days).
I think it's pretty easy for errors to slip through into final versions of software because the priority is on getting the project complete rather than tracking down the last few bugs.
LOC/year is a stupid measure of productivity. If I write 5000 lines of code a year, and all of them are correct when I deliver them, does that make me half as productive as someone who delivers the same program in 8000 lines and then must rewrite 2000 lines to fix bugs (total of 10KLOC/year)?
It's typical of Suits to force a quantitative measure on something that's fundamentally unquantifiable so that they can measure and judge and compare without actually *understanding* what they're talking about. And it's sad when these bogus measures are used by management to promote people or by journalists to prove a point that's not there.