The vast majority of people fleeing CS at the moment are doing so because they have no interest in the subject matter other than fiscal.
Lets hope so.
A couple friends and I had a term for these people when we were CS undergrads from 1997 through 2000:
CS Mercenaries.
The goal of these folks was to gain a degree so that they could make lots of money. They generally did as little work as possible to get through. They were not interested in writing good code (or any at all for that matter), or gaining knowledge and insight into how a computer works.
This attitude struck us as very similar to that of someone who would kill for the highest bidder. They were simply trying to find the program that paid the highest starting salaries that they thought they could actually graduate in.
Lets hope that those who have a true love for computing are the folks that are still majoring in computer science. I certainly will not shed any tears over the lack of CS Mercenaries enrolling in (leeching) CS programs.
I don't think it is merely a matter of perspective. I don't think there is any doubt that at the large enterprise level, stored procedures are an absolute must.
I deal with applications (both web and client) which must get data from a database that contains billions of rows of confidential information. We go through terabytes of data each day that we recieve from various sources.
At this level, stored procedures are a requirement, plain and simple. We need a secure application. We cannot allow a lightly secured account such as a web sql account to have access to database tables directly. Furthermore, because many of our tables contain multiple millions of rows, we have to get the utmost in performance. The only way to do this is careful indexing and highly optimized precompiled queries (Stored procedures).
At the large enterprise level, changing software sometimes DOES take an act of congress, literally. But even under normal circumstances, changes in business logic where I work requires approval from a lot of sources - changes are not taken lightly when millions of dollars are at stake.
I'm not trying to puff myself up here or brag. All I am trying to point out is that at the large enterprise level, all the little things become more important. Mistakes are magnified when your data is critical, and your datasets are incredibly large. Setting the index wrong on a table can mean a statement will take hours instead of seconds. I've literally seen that scenario take place.
The security and performance of stored procedures are a virtually a requirement for many applications at the large enterprise level, no matter what year it is.
I think, rather than a matter of perspective, the relative value of stored procedures depends much more on the actual situation.
I realize this has been somewhat of a rant. There are many cases where the relative cost of implementing stored procedures is not worth the effort. In fact, I would guess that the majority of projects out there do not require stored procedures. But when the data gets huge and confidential, stored procedures are the only way to go.
Don't get me wrong; I've been doing PHP coding for a while. But the fact of the matter is that the more I code in PHP, the more I dislike it.
I couldn't agree more. A friend of mine and I have been working with PHP off and on for several years now. We've both got more than 10 other languages under our belts, and we've really drawn the same conclusion about PHP: it produces "hacky" code.
Now, I'm not trying to rip PHP here. I think its a great language for small projects, and has some niche features that make it an outstanding choice for developing certain peices of functionality. Uploading images to a MySQL database comes immediately to mind as an example of something that PHP excels at.
The problem with PHP really arises when a project begins to reach a higher level of complexity. Lack of OOP, difficulty of separating out display code, and namespaces are some of the biggest problems. The result is that larger projects end up with rediculously complex code. Couple this with the fact that PHP is not the most reader friendly syntax, at least in my opinion, and you have a receipe for disaster.
Does this mean you can't code large projects in PHP? No, not at all. It just means that large projects are more difficult than they should be, and that programmers must be very disciplined in order to avoid creating code complexity issues.
The introduction of object oriented programming will help. The question is whether that will allow it to overcome its other weaknesses and allow it to become a language appropriate for large projects as well as small.
Good luck to the developers of PHP, I hope they succeed fulfilling their goals. In my opinion, having lots of languages to fill specific niches is a boon to the computer science world.
I used to know a guy in the National Guard, and he said every so often they would run excersises where two "teams" were formed with opposing objectives.
They use real guns modified with a laser in the barrel and use blanks in the exercise to add realism.
I did a little google research, the system is called MILES (Military Laser Tag).
A little bit of info about the marines using it is available here: http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/henderson hall/9_ 11/features/28041-1.html
Also, it looks like the military may replace this system with an RF based system: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ar ticle.cfm ?Id=763
So, maybe there will be some surplus MILES gear on the market at some point - if so I would imagine it would be exactly what you're looking for.
There are, of course, a couple possible problems. Even surplus MILES gear is probably going to be damn expensive. Also, the removal of the laser system could result in an operable weapon. If the last part is correct, then you won't see any MILES gear unless you find it on the black market.
Actually the "prequel" to LOTR is already written, by Tolkien himself. Its called "The Hobbit", and its actually rather good. I've already heard rumblings that it will likely be made into a film.
So, no need to worry yet. When they've completed The Hobbit, and they're looking for more material, thats when things could get ugly...
Needless to say I don't trust the hollywood writers to make a watchable movie out of the Silmarillion.
You know, what I'd really rather have is the ability to drag the taskbar items along the taskbar. Many times when I'm working, I find it really inconvenient that four windows I'm not using happen to be between window X and window Y that I'm flipping back and forth to test code, or copy paste, or what have you.
Sure, I can close the "dormant" windows, but often I really need them for later. I usually have unfinished work in them and, though I could save, don't want to lose my train of thought with where I left them at. Having to start application, open file, etc - I really don't want to do all that every time.
I realize I can use the quickswitch thing, but that still requires me to bring the dialog up, hit the proper arrow keys, etc. Besides, I like to use the mouse primarily, rather than the keyboard. Why do you think I have the mouse sensitivity cranked so high that other people go "WTF!" when they use my machine?
Comon, MS, show us mousers some love.
Oh, and if MS tries to patent taskbar dragging, this post about it in a public location should count for something! Though it probably won't, because some MS guy will claim he invented it sitting on the toilet in 1996.
Zealotry is ugly in any form. Lets change just a few words in the parent post and see what it looks like.
I,
Think you hit the nail on the head with the word "why".
What is the point of [US] providing a [democracy] via their [military] and eventually tied directly into their [government]. So they can make more money. Yeah a secondary concern might be to help [Iraqis] have a better experience, but believe me, it's to make money.
Has [US] been particularly honest about their [attacks] in the past. I've done the [US] [information] on [Al Jezeera] before and quite frankly it was appalling to me that a [country] could be so blatent in their disregard for truthfullness.
Thus, "Why" should I provide any opportunity for [US] to make any additional money. I certainly don't feel the need to line [George Bushs] pockets anymore.
And, I certainly don't feel the need to give sustenance to someone who has made it their life's calling to squash anything that is non-[American].
Call me vindictive and I'll wear it like a crown if you like.
To me, collaborating with [America] in any manner is sorta like having the person who shot and killed your mother over for dinner. Ain't gonna happen under my command.
By [attacking] the [innocent civilians] I effectively, in a small way, reduce [US]' ability to rule the world completely.
And as I noted in my first post, before I [attacked] [innocent civilians] [in the US] I only got a few [care packages] off of [US] [charities] daily anyway.
If somebody wants to find my [terror cell] they can readily find me [in] any of the other [terror countries]. My [terror cell]'s consistently in the top five [homicide bombers] for the [world] on any [list]. [Especially] [US], of course, hee! hee! hee!
Don't stop at the top.
Obviously battling a search engine with code and battling foreign country with RPGs are quite different. But what I wanted to point out is that by changing a few words, and a couple phrases, this thing looks like a terrorist manifesto. Zealotry sucks. It blinds people with hate and fear.
You can be passionate without being a zealot. I don't think there is a need to "deny all things MS", just because they're MS. Lets be passionate, but thoughtful. Lets evaluate different options with an open mind. Because its stuff like this that makes people think that DOS attacks on MS servers (or killing innocent civilians) does anyone, anywhere any good at all.
It also went out on ArsTechnica and Microsoft Watch this morning, just to be sure it'd be inundated by all geeks possible.
Before it went under, I compared a couple search results to google. The results were similar. The main thing I noticed is that google's threaded display really helps identify multiple results from the same site, whereas MSN is still displaying individually.
I also noticed the MSN search was slow, but the volume of traffic coming from slashdot and elsewhere makes it impossible to discern how fast or slow it really is under normal load.
Same goes for in state. Almost every job I applied for said "In state candidates only please". Yet in every interview, they'd tell me they received sometimes hundreds of out-of-state resumes that they had to waste time deleting.
I've heard that clearence requests ("Top Secret Clearence Required") is less important though, and that they'll hire a lot of non clearence folks and then get them cleared.
And, obviously, don't apply for postions you are completely unqualfied for. Like, if it asks for 4 years of AS-400 experience, and you've never even SEEN an AS-400, then you are wasting your time applying.
Basically, the idea is to meet the core requirements that the job posting is after. US citizen? Check. In state? Check. Microsoft OS user? Check. C++ experience? Check.
If you can check off the "major items", even if you don't match the posting exactly, odds are you've got a fighting chance.
I got my first job out of college with a consulting company that I had interned for. After about a year, I could tell it was a sinking ship, and that I had to get out (they closed their doors permenantly two years after I left).
I was in pretty much the exact same boat you are - I didn't meet the requirements on almost any of the jobs I applied for. The ones that I did meet, I didn't actually want - I interviewed for a couple low level sysadmin positions where both the interviewer and myself immediately knew I was WAY overqualified, and they had no chance of paying me a salary I'd accept long term. (Why hire a guy who's still going to be job hunting while working for you?)
I persevered though. I applied for dozens of jobs per week. I went through interview after interview, and kept applying for jobs that I KNEW I could do, even though the HR monkeys always asked for 3+ years of experience, minimum. It took me hundreds of resume sendouts, and about 20 interviews, but I finally got a job with a stable company at a good salary.
Here are some key things:
1. KEEP APPLYING. Check job sites every day. Finding a job IS your job. Be diligent about it. If you receive an email requesting an interview or asking questions, respond immediately.
2. Many "experienced" programmers are worse than you. As was said in the parent, apply for any job you think you could do - even if it says it requires five years experience. Remember, your school experience plays a big part! You may just be starting out, but you've got at least four years experience in programming. You know things like object oriented programming, computer mathematics, application design, and many other things that the average non-degreed Joe has likely never learned. Your experience with multiple languages is a huge advantage (a lot of self taught folks only know one or two).
3. All experience counts. Put your school experience on your resume. Ok, this one is obvious, but make sure you list all the languages you know. Make sure you list how many years you've been working with each one. Make sure you highlight any group projects that you did in school. List which OSes you've used. List how much experience you have with each of them. Throw everything important that you've got in there.
4. Stay in state. Concentrate on jobs in the nearby area. Every interviewer I spoke to said all they did with out-of-state resumes (of which they got hundreds, sometimes thousands) was delete them. So don't waste too much time applying for jobs in far away states.
5. Blow them away! When you get an interview, prepare yourself beforehand. Make sure you know everything thats on your resume. Be prepared to answer questions about all the projects you've listed. Go in relaxed with the knowledge that you know your stuff, and BE YOURSELF. You want them to hire you for who you are, so don't put on a fake bravado.
6. Be realistic. Its likely you're going to have to apply for quite a few jobs before you land one. If you have to take another non-programming job to pay the bills, then do it. I'd recommend you don't list it on your resume, though. When they ask, just tell them you've been looking for work. Employers these days understand, the market is tougher and there is less of a stigma against folks who have been looking for a while. Like I said earlier, I applied for a load of jobs before I landed mine.
Remember, once you get in the interview room, you're going to stand out from most of the crowd. You might lose out to a few more experienced candidates for a while. But eventually, you're going to hit a company that doesn't really want to pay for a guy with 5 years of professional experience, but that still wants someone that isn't a one language pony. And that's the one you'll land.
So don't give up easily. Apply often. Polish your resume. Know your stuff.
I've had some experience now from the other side of the table. From what I've seen, if you do all of those things, you'll be ahead of most of the crowd already.
You can tell a bad benchmark because it seems to show that languages you already know are slow aren't.
Thats just great. "Oh, what they're saying doesn't match my preconcieved notions, so they must be wrong." Is your last name Stalin, perhaps? Because thats classic crazed dictator logic there.
Now for the rest of this crappy troll:
The original report (anonymously) parrots common propaganda in favor of garbage collection.
I've never heard of spreading information about a better method of doing something referred to as "propoganda". Oh yeah, pointer allocation/deallocation and direct memory access are SOOOO much better. Next you're gonna tell me I should be using GOTO statements. Absolutely rediculous.
In fact, people who think Java is slow think so because when they run real Java programs, they find that real Java programs really do run slowly.
So you ran a poorly written Java program once, 5 years ago, and it was slow. Tried it lately? Somehow I strongly doubt it.
Nobody is obliged to notice they are C++ programs, because they are easy to install, and they just work.
Oh really? They "just work", huh? So your C++ program that you created runs equally well on Linux, Windows, and OS X without separate compiles? Because Java can do that. C++ works great when you can compile for a specific platform, but to claim that it "just works" is a rediculous statement. I encourage you to try to run those windows binaries you've compiled on Linux. Have fun.
They don't call much attention to themselves, because they rarely suffer from the security flaws common to C programs.
This is a patently rediculous statement. You can run any C command from within a C++ program. Because C++ is a wrapper around C! C++ is no more secure than C, and to suggest such is misguided to say the least.
In principle a really good garbage collector might not be slow, for certain common kinds of jobs, However, Java runtimes generally can't use those garbage collectors; they have to use the slow ones instead.
...automated, encapsulated resource management uniquely possible in C++...
Dude, what do you think garbage collection is? "Automated, encapsulated resource management" is an excellent description of garbage collection in Java.
GC propaganda is common in academic Computer Science departments, but real programs are built by engineers who are not fooled.
<Sarcasm TYPE="DRIPPING">
Oh yes, those academic bufoons! They don't know anything next to us in the trenches. They sit in their ivory tower and play with slow languages and espouse worthless advice. Why, they wouldn't know the first thing next to a self taught coder! Save your breath you academic morons, memory deallocation and GOTOs are there for a reason, and I'm going to use them!
</Sarcasm>
LISP has failed to take the world by storm, decade after decade, for sound reasons...
Agreed. "Sound reasons" being LISP is not applicable to a lot of common problems that computer programmers need to solve. We need to create GUIs and code that is organized in easily understood objects, not run set based logic to solve complex artificial intellegence conundrums. If we needed to do mostly the latter, LISP would be everywhere. LISP has its niche. It is very good at what it does, which is compute set based problems. It is not good at what it doesn't. The same is true of C++.
GC doesn't just automate memory management; dependence on it automatically confines the language to niche uses.
The LACK of garbage collection is something that most programs will not require. I would
Of course I'm not actually serious. Only a crazy, paranoid lunatic would suggest that a gobal electronic intellence gathering system would pick up on your insinuated plot to kill the president.
Oops, did that just get posted?
Better start digging a hole for my concrete shelt-
"Anyway, my question is: Is this number 'Omega' some kind of goodness measure for random number generators?"
No.
"Omega" represents a number which cannot be generated by a computer algorithm. All a computer is capable of doing is computations. Therefore, any result a computer can generate is denumerable. This includes what you're thinking of as random numbers. The random numbers a computer generates are sufficiently random for most of our computational uses, however, they are not truly random in the mathmatical sense.
To put it simply: All results generated by a computer are denumerable, whereas Omega represents a nondenumerable number.
This is why the reviewer makes the point that nondenumerable numbers cannot be calculated - we have no way of finding a nondenumerable number. It is precisely this search that Chaitin has embarked upon in his book - the search for the nondenumerable random number. (Which, furthermore, he points out, must be a real number because all integers are denumerable).
This is where Chaitin clearly knows more about the subject than I do. I find it extremely hard to imagine a number which the theoretical "infinitely powerful computer", which can contain and process an infinite amount of data, could not calculate. Could an infinte computer contain 0.0 followed by a billion zeros and then a 1? Yes. What about some number of zeros less than infinity? Yes.
So what exactly is a nondenumerable number, and does one even exist? This is where philosophy and mathmetics start to meet, and why Chaitin is making lots of money selling a book about it, and I'm not.:)
Ok, at first I thought this was another in a long line of trolls..
I was going to post "Its supposed to be Stephen King you idiot! Or was it Larry King..."
But this looks legit, a quick google search turned up several articles, including one which actually doesn't require an infuriating online registration:
"Animals have the ability to continously procreate until all resources are consumed, however, most don't."
BullShiznit. Animals do not limit themselves, they are limited their environment. Resources are not the only factor. Predators, disease, birth rate, death rate, territorial insticts, and many other factors play a part. Please see http://dieoff.org/page80.htm for a concrete example of what happens when a species is introduced into an environment where resources are the only limiting factor. This is the classic example that I guaruntee will be brought up, should you take a university level environmental studies class.
Even humans do not consciously maintain a population that will not exceed resources. Other factors limit human populations, such as food, water, disease, all of the limitations on animals - plus economics, birth control, and numerous other societal factors. But now we're getting into Sociology 101 - lets get back to Environmental Studies 101...
"Would machines follow this same type or universal standard of population control or would they just envelope every item they could?"
Would machines follow the same universal standard of population control? Yes. That universal standard is that they will continue to reproduce until some environmental factor limits them. Resources, predators, death rate, birth rate, etc. So if the machines were very robust, lasted a long time, had a high reproduction rate, could eat anything, could migrate long distances, and had no predators - then its grey goo for us.
This seems a rather unlikely scenario to me. Could grey goo be a serious problem when the conditions are right? I would say its likely that someday, somewhere, grey goo will be a problem. And then they'll send out some guy in a truck to spray machine poison, and things will get back to normal.
People will pay. Thats the factor. Candians won't pay very much for broadband internet. So the prices are low.
Floridians are obviously desperate for broadband, and are willing to pay considerably more for it.
Prices in Florida would be lower if nobody would pay for it at the current price. But since all the companies have enough people signed up at the prices they're at to make a profit... Prices aren't going to come down.
Alright, I'll bite... I'm gonna head under the bridge and talk to the troll...
Ok, so I disagree with most of what you said, and I think that if the developers of Linux (or in this case, X) ever want it to become a serious player in the desktop market they need to consider "when Mac/Windows people arrive and want to bring their habits with them". And yes, I used CTRL-C, CTRL-V to paste that.
But the thing that really bugs me is this:
"All that said, the idea of having to use both keyboard and mouse for such a fundamental operation is just so horrifyingly backwards and wrong, and it amazes me that anyone who's experienced X11 could possibly go back to such an arcane and user-hostile configuration.;-)"
Because, in windows, you don't HAVE to use the keyboard and mouse to copy n' paste. You can simply highlight, right click, choose copy, right click in another location, choose paste. The keyboard need never be involved. I usually use CTRL-C and CTRL-V because its faster and it works universally (some lame applications choose not to implement the right click menu standard - I shun those apps whenever possible).
Am I saying X needs to implement CTRL-C and CTRL-V? No. What I am saying is that many people don't understand why highlighting something would copy it. Take a minute to think about that. Shouldn't you have to take some sort of action to copy something? How hard would it be to allow the user to choose a "Middle click required to copy text" checkbox? Problem solved. Yes, it requires one extra click, but some of us would like to be able to choose that as an option. I don't care if the zealots keep their old wrong-headed copy scheme. I don't even care if its the default. But for Linux to really take hold, it needs to adopt functionality that will allow users coming from other UI worlds to function in a reasonably similar environment instead of having to adopt all sorts of strange new conventions.
Azureus. Its an Open Source Java client available on sourceforge.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/azureus/
Its a great client that allows you to control just about everything, plus the detail view of torrents is absolutely outstanding. It displays how much you've got, which pieces you have and which are missing, which pieces you're currently downloading, and a view of the status of other clients leeching the torrent. Be careful, its mesmerizing, you may find yourself watching it as time slips by you:)
When I first grabbed the torrent (English ver), there were a few seeds online and a couple hundred leechers. I got about 50 k/s to start out.
About an hour later, there were over 120 seeds and thousands of leechers. I was getting over 250 k/s.
How many other distribution methods can you say actually get FASTER when the bulk of the slashbots arrive on the scene? Bittorrent, my friends, is a beautiful thing.
Sure, when there aren't many folks on a torrent, its not that fast. And if there aren't any seeders you can't get the whole thing. But when a crowd this size comes into play, Bittorrent just makes sense.
I'm really surprised to see as many complaints as I saw in this thread. Especially given that bt is free, and that the speed has ramped up to rediculous proportions.
I managed to download a 696.2 MB file, which was posted on the front page of Slashdot, in 1h 25m. To me, thats absolutely stunning.
Go Bittorrent! And, if I may say so, thank you slashbots! When else can you say "thank you" for people slashdotting something? (Well, unless its a spammers IP...)
Oy, threads like this are disheartening - so many stupid little things that need to be fixed. Open Source GUIs are still playing catch up, rather than pushing boundaries. I give you:
"Besides, if I have both mplayer and xine installed, how does the One File Browser know which one to launch ? Or Emacs and Vi ? Or whatever ?"
"And yes, I realize you can set this in preferences; but suppose you want to use different tools for different tasks, despite the file format being the same ? Or if I just want to try out a new program ?"
Sorry to bring this up, but windows has a right click menu "Open With" which allows you to select the program to use right from the menu. So it seems to me, the One File Browser could allow you to choose.
"Because that would mean resizing application windows to fit them besides the directory windows, and be a lot more hassle than simply using a selector window ?"
I say allow both options. And I think this is one area where the boundaries could be pushed. Seems to me that an "export file" option - which would simply begin a "drag" event with the current file attached, and minimize the application window - would be pretty darn handy. Obviously there are a lot of hurdles there, you're probably going to need application support for one thing, but it'd be "better than windows", which is what Open Source needs to be looking for.
"Matthew Thomas pointed out better than I could that the separate file-picker is user interface cruft left over from an earlier age.
No, it's a useability feature. Lacking a separate file selector would give users unneccessary grief."
Usability feature? It exists because programs didn't used to be able to rely on the GUI to provide the necessary dialogs to take care of this. The grandparent post already mentioned this, and he's right.
"Let's just have one file browser in the desktop and make it good enough to use for everything.
The more features you bundle into a single program, the less likely it performs any of them well, simply because different features (such as useability and low learning curve) conflict with one another."
I have to disagree with this last statement. The file open and save dialogs are highly correlated with the file browser dialog. Really they're almost identical, except for the action button. (No button, Open, Save).
Anyway, I'm glad to see Open Source going in the right direction, we're just not quite there yet. I look forward to this release and future ones!
Slashdot Mirror
The vast majority of people fleeing CS at the moment are doing so because they have no interest in the subject matter other than fiscal.
Lets hope so.
A couple friends and I had a term for these people when we were CS undergrads from 1997 through 2000:
CS Mercenaries.
The goal of these folks was to gain a degree so that they could make lots of money. They generally did as little work as possible to get through. They were not interested in writing good code (or any at all for that matter), or gaining knowledge and insight into how a computer works.
This attitude struck us as very similar to that of someone who would kill for the highest bidder. They were simply trying to find the program that paid the highest starting salaries that they thought they could actually graduate in.
Lets hope that those who have a true love for computing are the folks that are still majoring in computer science. I certainly will not shed any tears over the lack of CS Mercenaries enrolling in (leeching) CS programs.
I don't think it is merely a matter of perspective. I don't think there is any doubt that at the large enterprise level, stored procedures are an absolute must.
I deal with applications (both web and client) which must get data from a database that contains billions of rows of confidential information. We go through terabytes of data each day that we recieve from various sources.
At this level, stored procedures are a requirement, plain and simple. We need a secure application. We cannot allow a lightly secured account such as a web sql account to have access to database tables directly. Furthermore, because many of our tables contain multiple millions of rows, we have to get the utmost in performance. The only way to do this is careful indexing and highly optimized precompiled queries (Stored procedures).
At the large enterprise level, changing software sometimes DOES take an act of congress, literally. But even under normal circumstances, changes in business logic where I work requires approval from a lot of sources - changes are not taken lightly when millions of dollars are at stake.
I'm not trying to puff myself up here or brag. All I am trying to point out is that at the large enterprise level, all the little things become more important. Mistakes are magnified when your data is critical, and your datasets are incredibly large. Setting the index wrong on a table can mean a statement will take hours instead of seconds. I've literally seen that scenario take place.
The security and performance of stored procedures are a virtually a requirement for many applications at the large enterprise level, no matter what year it is.
I think, rather than a matter of perspective, the relative value of stored procedures depends much more on the actual situation.
I realize this has been somewhat of a rant. There are many cases where the relative cost of implementing stored procedures is not worth the effort. In fact, I would guess that the majority of projects out there do not require stored procedures. But when the data gets huge and confidential, stored procedures are the only way to go.
Don't get me wrong; I've been doing PHP coding for a while. But the fact of the matter is that the more I code in PHP, the more I dislike it.
I couldn't agree more. A friend of mine and I have been working with PHP off and on for several years now. We've both got more than 10 other languages under our belts, and we've really drawn the same conclusion about PHP: it produces "hacky" code.
Now, I'm not trying to rip PHP here. I think its a great language for small projects, and has some niche features that make it an outstanding choice for developing certain peices of functionality. Uploading images to a MySQL database comes immediately to mind as an example of something that PHP excels at.
The problem with PHP really arises when a project begins to reach a higher level of complexity. Lack of OOP, difficulty of separating out display code, and namespaces are some of the biggest problems. The result is that larger projects end up with rediculously complex code. Couple this with the fact that PHP is not the most reader friendly syntax, at least in my opinion, and you have a receipe for disaster.
Does this mean you can't code large projects in PHP? No, not at all. It just means that large projects are more difficult than they should be, and that programmers must be very disciplined in order to avoid creating code complexity issues.
The introduction of object oriented programming will help. The question is whether that will allow it to overcome its other weaknesses and allow it to become a language appropriate for large projects as well as small.
Good luck to the developers of PHP, I hope they succeed fulfilling their goals. In my opinion, having lots of languages to fill specific niches is a boon to the computer science world.
Don't you mean YELLOW MUPPETS? Or specifically, one particular yellow muppet, with a unibrow?
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/bert.htm
Yeah, yeah - off topic, blah blah blah. But funny.
I used to know a guy in the National Guard, and he said every so often they would run excersises where two "teams" were formed with opposing objectives.
n hall/9_ 11/features/28041-1.html
r ticle.cfm ?Id=763
They use real guns modified with a laser in the barrel and use blanks in the exercise to add realism.
I did a little google research, the system is called MILES (Military Laser Tag).
A little bit of info about the marines using it is available here:
http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/henderso
Also, it looks like the military may replace this system with an RF based system:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/a
So, maybe there will be some surplus MILES gear on the market at some point - if so I would imagine it would be exactly what you're looking for.
There are, of course, a couple possible problems. Even surplus MILES gear is probably going to be damn expensive. Also, the removal of the laser system could result in an operable weapon. If the last part is correct, then you won't see any MILES gear unless you find it on the black market.
Actually the "prequel" to LOTR is already written, by Tolkien himself. Its called "The Hobbit", and its actually rather good. I've already heard rumblings that it will likely be made into a film.
So, no need to worry yet. When they've completed The Hobbit, and they're looking for more material, thats when things could get ugly...
Needless to say I don't trust the hollywood writers to make a watchable movie out of the Silmarillion.
Wait, wouldn't you need a locator remote for the locator remote?
We really need to cut back on the remotes.
You know, what I'd really rather have is the ability to drag the taskbar items along the taskbar. Many times when I'm working, I find it really inconvenient that four windows I'm not using happen to be between window X and window Y that I'm flipping back and forth to test code, or copy paste, or what have you.
Sure, I can close the "dormant" windows, but often I really need them for later. I usually have unfinished work in them and, though I could save, don't want to lose my train of thought with where I left them at. Having to start application, open file, etc - I really don't want to do all that every time.
I realize I can use the quickswitch thing, but that still requires me to bring the dialog up, hit the proper arrow keys, etc. Besides, I like to use the mouse primarily, rather than the keyboard. Why do you think I have the mouse sensitivity cranked so high that other people go "WTF!" when they use my machine?
Comon, MS, show us mousers some love.
Oh, and if MS tries to patent taskbar dragging, this post about it in a public location should count for something! Though it probably won't, because some MS guy will claim he invented it sitting on the toilet in 1996.
That is all.
Zealotry is ugly in any form. Lets change just a few words in the parent post and see what it looks like.
I,
Think you hit the nail on the head with the word "why".
What is the point of [US] providing a [democracy] via their [military] and eventually tied directly into their [government]. So they can make more money. Yeah a secondary concern might be to help [Iraqis] have a better experience, but believe me, it's to make money.
Has [US] been particularly honest about their [attacks] in the past. I've done the [US] [information] on [Al Jezeera] before and quite frankly it was appalling to me that a [country] could be so blatent in their disregard for truthfullness.
Thus, "Why" should I provide any opportunity for [US] to make any additional money. I certainly don't feel the need to line [George Bushs] pockets anymore.
And, I certainly don't feel the need to give sustenance to someone who has made it their life's calling to squash anything that is non-[American].
Call me vindictive and I'll wear it like a crown if you like.
To me, collaborating with [America] in any manner is sorta like having the person who shot and killed your mother over for dinner. Ain't gonna happen under my command.
By [attacking] the [innocent civilians] I effectively, in a small way, reduce [US]' ability to rule the world completely.
And as I noted in my first post, before I [attacked] [innocent civilians] [in the US] I only got a few [care packages] off of [US] [charities] daily anyway.
If somebody wants to find my [terror cell] they can readily find me [in] any of the other [terror countries]. My [terror cell]'s consistently in the top five [homicide bombers] for the [world] on any [list]. [Especially] [US], of course, hee! hee! hee!
Don't stop at the top.
Obviously battling a search engine with code and battling foreign country with RPGs are quite different. But what I wanted to point out is that by changing a few words, and a couple phrases, this thing looks like a terrorist manifesto. Zealotry sucks. It blinds people with hate and fear.
You can be passionate without being a zealot. I don't think there is a need to "deny all things MS", just because they're MS. Lets be passionate, but thoughtful. Lets evaluate different options with an open mind. Because its stuff like this that makes people think that DOS attacks on MS servers (or killing innocent civilians) does anyone, anywhere any good at all.
That is all.
Thank you.
You sunk my battleship!
Yep, slashdotted.
It also went out on ArsTechnica and Microsoft Watch this morning, just to be sure it'd be inundated by all geeks possible.
Before it went under, I compared a couple search results to google. The results were similar. The main thing I noticed is that google's threaded display really helps identify multiple results from the same site, whereas MSN is still displaying individually.
I also noticed the MSN search was slow, but the volume of traffic coming from slashdot and elsewhere makes it impossible to discern how fast or slow it really is under normal load.
Same goes for in state. Almost every job I applied for said "In state candidates only please". Yet in every interview, they'd tell me they received sometimes hundreds of out-of-state resumes that they had to waste time deleting.
I've heard that clearence requests ("Top Secret Clearence Required") is less important though, and that they'll hire a lot of non clearence folks and then get them cleared.
And, obviously, don't apply for postions you are completely unqualfied for. Like, if it asks for 4 years of AS-400 experience, and you've never even SEEN an AS-400, then you are wasting your time applying.
Basically, the idea is to meet the core requirements that the job posting is after. US citizen? Check. In state? Check. Microsoft OS user? Check. C++ experience? Check.
If you can check off the "major items", even if you don't match the posting exactly, odds are you've got a fighting chance.
Absolutely true!
I got my first job out of college with a consulting company that I had interned for. After about a year, I could tell it was a sinking ship, and that I had to get out (they closed their doors permenantly two years after I left).
I was in pretty much the exact same boat you are - I didn't meet the requirements on almost any of the jobs I applied for. The ones that I did meet, I didn't actually want - I interviewed for a couple low level sysadmin positions where both the interviewer and myself immediately knew I was WAY overqualified, and they had no chance of paying me a salary I'd accept long term. (Why hire a guy who's still going to be job hunting while working for you?)
I persevered though. I applied for dozens of jobs per week. I went through interview after interview, and kept applying for jobs that I KNEW I could do, even though the HR monkeys always asked for 3+ years of experience, minimum. It took me hundreds of resume sendouts, and about 20 interviews, but I finally got a job with a stable company at a good salary.
Here are some key things:
1. KEEP APPLYING. Check job sites every day. Finding a job IS your job. Be diligent about it. If you receive an email requesting an interview or asking questions, respond immediately.
2. Many "experienced" programmers are worse than you. As was said in the parent, apply for any job you think you could do - even if it says it requires five years experience. Remember, your school experience plays a big part! You may just be starting out, but you've got at least four years experience in programming. You know things like object oriented programming, computer mathematics, application design, and many other things that the average non-degreed Joe has likely never learned. Your experience with multiple languages is a huge advantage (a lot of self taught folks only know one or two).
3. All experience counts. Put your school experience on your resume. Ok, this one is obvious, but make sure you list all the languages you know. Make sure you list how many years you've been working with each one. Make sure you highlight any group projects that you did in school. List which OSes you've used. List how much experience you have with each of them. Throw everything important that you've got in there.
4. Stay in state. Concentrate on jobs in the nearby area. Every interviewer I spoke to said all they did with out-of-state resumes (of which they got hundreds, sometimes thousands) was delete them. So don't waste too much time applying for jobs in far away states.
5. Blow them away! When you get an interview, prepare yourself beforehand. Make sure you know everything thats on your resume. Be prepared to answer questions about all the projects you've listed. Go in relaxed with the knowledge that you know your stuff, and BE YOURSELF. You want them to hire you for who you are, so don't put on a fake bravado.
6. Be realistic. Its likely you're going to have to apply for quite a few jobs before you land one. If you have to take another non-programming job to pay the bills, then do it. I'd recommend you don't list it on your resume, though. When they ask, just tell them you've been looking for work. Employers these days understand, the market is tougher and there is less of a stigma against folks who have been looking for a while. Like I said earlier, I applied for a load of jobs before I landed mine.
Remember, once you get in the interview room, you're going to stand out from most of the crowd. You might lose out to a few more experienced candidates for a while. But eventually, you're going to hit a company that doesn't really want to pay for a guy with 5 years of professional experience, but that still wants someone that isn't a one language pony. And that's the one you'll land.
So don't give up easily. Apply often. Polish your resume. Know your stuff.
I've had some experience now from the other side of the table. From what I've seen, if you do all of those things, you'll be ahead of most of the crowd already.
I think I can speak for most of us here in saying that:
Yes, I'd be more than happy to volunteer to perform that particular authentication.
I'd like to note that the bikini team also gets an important side effect:
free breast cancer exams.
You can tell a bad benchmark because it seems to show that languages you already know are slow aren't.
Thats just great. "Oh, what they're saying doesn't match my preconcieved notions, so they must be wrong." Is your last name Stalin, perhaps? Because thats classic crazed dictator logic there.
Now for the rest of this crappy troll:
The original report (anonymously) parrots common propaganda in favor of garbage collection.
I've never heard of spreading information about a better method of doing something referred to as "propoganda". Oh yeah, pointer allocation/deallocation and direct memory access are SOOOO much better. Next you're gonna tell me I should be using GOTO statements. Absolutely rediculous.
In fact, people who think Java is slow think so because when they run real Java programs, they find that real Java programs really do run slowly.
So you ran a poorly written Java program once, 5 years ago, and it was slow. Tried it lately? Somehow I strongly doubt it.
Nobody is obliged to notice they are C++ programs, because they are easy to install, and they just work.
Oh really? They "just work", huh? So your C++ program that you created runs equally well on Linux, Windows, and OS X without separate compiles? Because Java can do that. C++ works great when you can compile for a specific platform, but to claim that it "just works" is a rediculous statement. I encourage you to try to run those windows binaries you've compiled on Linux. Have fun.
They don't call much attention to themselves, because they rarely suffer from the security flaws common to C programs.
This is a patently rediculous statement. You can run any C command from within a C++ program. Because C++ is a wrapper around C! C++ is no more secure than C, and to suggest such is misguided to say the least.
In principle a really good garbage collector might not be slow, for certain common kinds of jobs, However, Java runtimes generally can't use those garbage collectors; they have to use the slow ones instead.
Bah: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-12-2001/jw-1 207-java101.html
Dude, what do you think garbage collection is? "Automated, encapsulated resource management" is an excellent description of garbage collection in Java.
GC propaganda is common in academic Computer Science departments, but real programs are built by engineers who are not fooled.
Oh yes, those academic bufoons! They don't know anything next to us in the trenches. They sit in their ivory tower and play with slow languages and espouse worthless advice. Why, they wouldn't know the first thing next to a self taught coder! Save your breath you academic morons, memory deallocation and GOTOs are there for a reason, and I'm going to use them!
LISP has failed to take the world by storm, decade after decade, for sound reasons...
Agreed. "Sound reasons" being LISP is not applicable to a lot of common problems that computer programmers need to solve. We need to create GUIs and code that is organized in easily understood objects, not run set based logic to solve complex artificial intellegence conundrums. If we needed to do mostly the latter, LISP would be everywhere. LISP has its niche. It is very good at what it does, which is compute set based problems. It is not good at what it doesn't. The same is true of C++.
GC doesn't just automate memory management; dependence on it automatically confines the language to niche uses.
The LACK of garbage collection is something that most programs will not require. I would
What exactly are you suggesting?
Beware: that old spectre Echelon is watching.
Of course I'm not actually serious. Only a crazy, paranoid lunatic would suggest that a gobal electronic intellence gathering system would pick up on your insinuated plot to kill the president.
Oops, did that just get posted?
Better start digging a hole for my concrete shelt-
"Anyway, my question is: Is this number 'Omega' some kind of goodness measure for random number generators?"
:)
No.
"Omega" represents a number which cannot be generated by a computer algorithm. All a computer is capable of doing is computations. Therefore, any result a computer can generate is denumerable. This includes what you're thinking of as random numbers. The random numbers a computer generates are sufficiently random for most of our computational uses, however, they are not truly random in the mathmatical sense.
To put it simply:
All results generated by a computer are denumerable, whereas Omega represents a nondenumerable number.
This is why the reviewer makes the point that nondenumerable numbers cannot be calculated - we have no way of finding a nondenumerable number. It is precisely this search that Chaitin has embarked upon in his book - the search for the nondenumerable random number. (Which, furthermore, he points out, must be a real number because all integers are denumerable).
This is where Chaitin clearly knows more about the subject than I do. I find it extremely hard to imagine a number which the theoretical "infinitely powerful computer", which can contain and process an infinite amount of data, could not calculate. Could an infinte computer contain 0.0 followed by a billion zeros and then a 1? Yes. What about some number of zeros less than infinity? Yes.
So what exactly is a nondenumerable number, and does one even exist? This is where philosophy and mathmetics start to meet, and why Chaitin is making lots of money selling a book about it, and I'm not.
Ok, at first I thought this was another in a long line of trolls..
m l?tnews
I was going to post "Its supposed to be Stephen King you idiot! Or was it Larry King..."
But this looks legit, a quick google search turned up several articles, including one which actually doesn't require an infuriating online registration:
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14285,00.ht
Yes, E online, that bastion of stone solid, accurate information...
Regardless, it appears the parent post is not a troll.
Don't worry, your article post will still make it!
It'll just be the dupe.
"Animals have the ability to continously procreate until all resources are consumed, however, most don't."
o pulation/population.html. Accuracy varies on how many of the environmental factors that will limit population growth are known, and whether the known factors are the most important.
BullShiznit. Animals do not limit themselves, they are limited their environment. Resources are not the only factor. Predators, disease, birth rate, death rate, territorial insticts, and many other factors play a part. Please see http://dieoff.org/page80.htm for a concrete example of what happens when a species is introduced into an environment where resources are the only limiting factor. This is the classic example that I guaruntee will be brought up, should you take a university level environmental studies class.
The growth of animal populations can be predicted: http://www.sosmath.com/diffeq/first/application/p
Even humans do not consciously maintain a population that will not exceed resources. Other factors limit human populations, such as food, water, disease, all of the limitations on animals - plus economics, birth control, and numerous other societal factors. But now we're getting into Sociology 101 - lets get back to Environmental Studies 101...
"Would machines follow this same type or universal standard of population control or would they just envelope every item they could?"
Would machines follow the same universal standard of population control? Yes. That universal standard is that they will continue to reproduce until some environmental factor limits them. Resources, predators, death rate, birth rate, etc. So if the machines were very robust, lasted a long time, had a high reproduction rate, could eat anything, could migrate long distances, and had no predators - then its grey goo for us.
This seems a rather unlikely scenario to me. Could grey goo be a serious problem when the conditions are right? I would say its likely that someday, somewhere, grey goo will be a problem. And then they'll send out some guy in a truck to spray machine poison, and things will get back to normal.
People will pay. Thats the factor. Candians won't pay very much for broadband internet. So the prices are low.
Floridians are obviously desperate for broadband, and are willing to pay considerably more for it.
Prices in Florida would be lower if nobody would pay for it at the current price. But since all the companies have enough people signed up at the prices they're at to make a profit... Prices aren't going to come down.
Alright, I'll bite... I'm gonna head under the bridge and talk to the troll...
;-)"
Ok, so I disagree with most of what you said, and I think that if the developers of Linux (or in this case, X) ever want it to become a serious player in the desktop market they need to consider "when Mac/Windows people arrive and want to bring their habits with them". And yes, I used CTRL-C, CTRL-V to paste that.
But the thing that really bugs me is this:
"All that said, the idea of having to use both keyboard and mouse for such a fundamental operation is just so horrifyingly backwards and wrong, and it amazes me that anyone who's experienced X11 could possibly go back to such an arcane and user-hostile configuration.
Because, in windows, you don't HAVE to use the keyboard and mouse to copy n' paste. You can simply highlight, right click, choose copy, right click in another location, choose paste. The keyboard need never be involved. I usually use CTRL-C and CTRL-V because its faster and it works universally (some lame applications choose not to implement the right click menu standard - I shun those apps whenever possible).
Am I saying X needs to implement CTRL-C and CTRL-V? No. What I am saying is that many people don't understand why highlighting something would copy it. Take a minute to think about that. Shouldn't you have to take some sort of action to copy something? How hard would it be to allow the user to choose a "Middle click required to copy text" checkbox? Problem solved. Yes, it requires one extra click, but some of us would like to be able to choose that as an option. I don't care if the zealots keep their old wrong-headed copy scheme. I don't even care if its the default. But for Linux to really take hold, it needs to adopt functionality that will allow users coming from other UI worlds to function in a reasonably similar environment instead of having to adopt all sorts of strange new conventions.
Azureus. Its an Open Source Java client available on sourceforge.
:)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/azureus/
Its a great client that allows you to control just about everything, plus the detail view of torrents is absolutely outstanding. It displays how much you've got, which pieces you have and which are missing, which pieces you're currently downloading, and a view of the status of other clients leeching the torrent. Be careful, its mesmerizing, you may find yourself watching it as time slips by you
When I first grabbed the torrent (English ver), there were a few seeds online and a couple hundred leechers. I got about 50 k/s to start out.
About an hour later, there were over 120 seeds and thousands of leechers. I was getting over 250 k/s.
How many other distribution methods can you say actually get FASTER when the bulk of the slashbots arrive on the scene? Bittorrent, my friends, is a beautiful thing.
Sure, when there aren't many folks on a torrent, its not that fast. And if there aren't any seeders you can't get the whole thing. But when a crowd this size comes into play, Bittorrent just makes sense.
I'm really surprised to see as many complaints as I saw in this thread. Especially given that bt is free, and that the speed has ramped up to rediculous proportions.
I managed to download a 696.2 MB file, which was posted on the front page of Slashdot, in 1h 25m. To me, thats absolutely stunning.
Go Bittorrent! And, if I may say so, thank you slashbots! When else can you say "thank you" for people slashdotting something? (Well, unless its a spammers IP...)
Whats a better client? There are a crapload of them out there, whats a good one?
Its fine and dandy to say "you're using the wrong client", but if you don't provide an example of the "right client", you're wasting our time.
That is all.
Oy, threads like this are disheartening - so many stupid little things that need to be fixed. Open Source GUIs are still playing catch up, rather than pushing boundaries. I give you:
"Besides, if I have both mplayer and xine installed, how does the One File Browser know which one to launch ? Or Emacs and Vi ? Or whatever ?"
"And yes, I realize you can set this in preferences; but suppose you want to use different tools for different tasks, despite the file format being the same ? Or if I just want to try out a new program ?"
Sorry to bring this up, but windows has a right click menu "Open With" which allows you to select the program to use right from the menu. So it seems to me, the One File Browser could allow you to choose.
"Because that would mean resizing application windows to fit them besides the directory windows, and be a lot more hassle than simply using a selector window ?"
I say allow both options. And I think this is one area where the boundaries could be pushed. Seems to me that an "export file" option - which would simply begin a "drag" event with the current file attached, and minimize the application window - would be pretty darn handy. Obviously there are a lot of hurdles there, you're probably going to need application support for one thing, but it'd be "better than windows", which is what Open Source needs to be looking for.
"Matthew Thomas pointed out better than I could that the separate file-picker is user interface cruft left over from an earlier age.
No, it's a useability feature. Lacking a separate file selector would give users unneccessary grief."
Usability feature? It exists because programs didn't used to be able to rely on the GUI to provide the necessary dialogs to take care of this. The grandparent post already mentioned this, and he's right.
"Let's just have one file browser in the desktop and make it good enough to use for everything.
The more features you bundle into a single program, the less likely it performs any of them well, simply because different features (such as useability and low learning curve) conflict with one another."
I have to disagree with this last statement. The file open and save dialogs are highly correlated with the file browser dialog. Really they're almost identical, except for the action button. (No button, Open, Save).
Anyway, I'm glad to see Open Source going in the right direction, we're just not quite there yet. I look forward to this release and future ones!