Which i don't think is in the long term
interest of MS (like i care). Many people
have mentioned a lot of software uses a licensing model, but this
is almost always software used by businesses.
How many home systems use the model save for
quicken and few others that really need yearly
updates? People will want to use at work what
they use at home. If people can't afford MS
at home they will eventually drive out MS
at work. MS would be smart to give away
their systems to home users.
Fundamentally data and behaviour should
not be coupled. Decoupling gives the most
flexibility, but of course there is a cost.
Objects are about behaviour. Data are about
state. Multiple behaviours can be layed over
the same state and most of does.
This is a fundamental division that makes
everything messy, but in the end it's there
a must be accomidated.
I have no problem with other countries
monitoring each other, including china
making recon flights. Information about
what the other side is doing is what
keeps us out of wars.
I'll pay for salon. I'd pay for slashdot.
But that's because i've learned to enjoy
them over time. It's unlikely as a new user
i would pay money to subscribe because
the value would not be obvious. Chicken and
the egg problem. But once you allow a free
user period people can just ride the free
periods.
>Should graduates be able to program? That's
>not clear (to me),
If they can't then what good are they?
What would they do outside talk theory?
>but they certainly should be able to
>design computer algorithms to solve problems.
>Once you can do that, actually writing the
>code is generally not difficult.
This attitude pisses me off to no end.
Writing code is that difficult. If it's so
easy why do people suck at it so bad?
We are talking about writing a system here,
not a class exercise, not yet another standalone
version of bubble sort that nobody will ever
care about again. Writing good code for
a product is extremely difficult and is
clearly not well taught. From most of the
attitudes written about here it's clear why.
Coding seems to be something people pick
up in an hour or two when it really is
a multi-year process.
I suspect all of you who think you know how
to code early on in school really don't. But
i don't see how a professor or TA can teach you either. Coding should be continuously taught
because it is a process of perpetual insight and
reintigration.
You don't just learn how to code and move on.
It's a profession. A quarterback isn't good
until their 3rd or 4th year of experience at
the *professional* level. Coding is no different.
I hate to see it given so little emphais. People
i see coming out of school couldn't code there
way out of a multiple reader/one writer problem.
Many distros can be a good thing in a certain
environmental niche. But then you can't complain
that others in a different niche don't come
over to play.
i bought both of thier products when they
came out because they were pretty good.
Later they jacked the price too high
causing me to switch products at considerable
cost. Needless to say the engendered a lot
of ill will with me and i'm not sad to see
them go.
User interaction will give people more sense
of control which usually translates into more
acceptance, even if people never exercise
control.
Banner adds are done to us. Changing
that relationship might help.
For low bandwidth users, for example, if they
could tell the system their parameters and
the add system would actually pick the text
version, smaller version, etc, then one objection
goes away.
CTOs are wortheless management appendages.
This is like most management however.
As far as i can tell they do nothing but
meet with other CTOs and management types
all the while loosing connection with technology
and anyone doing real work.
When picking a CTO they must:
1. Have no clue how to dress themselves.
2. Carry many electronic devices that go off
in meetings. They of course take the call
because they are so very important.
3. Have opinions based on articles they read
on a plane.
4. Have lots of stock so they can quit early
to spend time with their family, which
translates to their pets.com hand puppet.
attention is the preditor
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
Attention is the preditor of the infosphere.
All infons must compete for attention. Attention
keeps infons alive. Attention derives from
humans, businesses, programs, other infons, etc.
Without attention infons die the death of the
ignored and unwanted. Resources don't ally
with the attentionless. You just have to look
around to see this invisible hand working.
New infons are created and by various gambits attract attention units. Naturally infons
die out as other infons compete. Very few infons
last long as they stop being attended to as
other infons become more popular and demand
more attention.
It takes a lot of attention to keep and infon alive.
Slashdot Mirror
Which i don't think is in the long term interest of MS (like i care). Many people have mentioned a lot of software uses a licensing model, but this is almost always software used by businesses. How many home systems use the model save for quicken and few others that really need yearly updates? People will want to use at work what they use at home. If people can't afford MS at home they will eventually drive out MS at work. MS would be smart to give away their systems to home users.
Fundamentally data and behaviour should not be coupled. Decoupling gives the most flexibility, but of course there is a cost. Objects are about behaviour. Data are about state. Multiple behaviours can be layed over the same state and most of does. This is a fundamental division that makes everything messy, but in the end it's there a must be accomidated.
I have no problem with other countries monitoring each other, including china making recon flights. Information about what the other side is doing is what keeps us out of wars.
I'll pay for salon. I'd pay for slashdot. But that's because i've learned to enjoy them over time. It's unlikely as a new user i would pay money to subscribe because the value would not be obvious. Chicken and the egg problem. But once you allow a free user period people can just ride the free periods.
>not clear (to me),
If they can't then what good are they? What would they do outside talk theory?
>but they certainly should be able to
>design computer algorithms to solve problems.
>Once you can do that, actually writing the
>code is generally not difficult.
This attitude pisses me off to no end. Writing code is that difficult. If it's so easy why do people suck at it so bad? We are talking about writing a system here, not a class exercise, not yet another standalone version of bubble sort that nobody will ever care about again. Writing good code for a product is extremely difficult and is clearly not well taught. From most of the attitudes written about here it's clear why. Coding seems to be something people pick up in an hour or two when it really is a multi-year process.
I suspect all of you who think you know how to code early on in school really don't. But i don't see how a professor or TA can teach you either. Coding should be continuously taught because it is a process of perpetual insight and reintigration. You don't just learn how to code and move on. It's a profession. A quarterback isn't good until their 3rd or 4th year of experience at the *professional* level. Coding is no different. I hate to see it given so little emphais. People i see coming out of school couldn't code there way out of a multiple reader/one writer problem.
All good points. Unfortunately a perfect solution was not an option :-)
Relics from an era long gone. For a different take see: http://www.possibility.com/urlspace/
Many distros can be a good thing in a certain environmental niche. But then you can't complain that others in a different niche don't come over to play.
You are going to a be a lot of quiting in your life.
Isn't the goal justice? Justice does not well mind straight absolute lines.
i bought both of thier products when they came out because they were pretty good. Later they jacked the price too high causing me to switch products at considerable cost. Needless to say the engendered a lot of ill will with me and i'm not sad to see them go.
If you had the option of a subscription that would turn off adds for you, would you take it?
User interaction will give people more sense of control which usually translates into more acceptance, even if people never exercise control. Banner adds are done to us. Changing that relationship might help. For low bandwidth users, for example, if they could tell the system their parameters and the add system would actually pick the text version, smaller version, etc, then one objection goes away.
I've worked at over 20 companies. I have never seen a CTO be other than an obstruction. Of course there are exceptions. I'm glad you are one.
CTOs are wortheless management appendages. This is like most management however. As far as i can tell they do nothing but meet with other CTOs and management types all the while loosing connection with technology and anyone doing real work. When picking a CTO they must: 1. Have no clue how to dress themselves. 2. Carry many electronic devices that go off in meetings. They of course take the call because they are so very important. 3. Have opinions based on articles they read on a plane. 4. Have lots of stock so they can quit early to spend time with their family, which translates to their pets.com hand puppet.
Attention is the preditor of the infosphere. All infons must compete for attention. Attention keeps infons alive. Attention derives from humans, businesses, programs, other infons, etc. Without attention infons die the death of the ignored and unwanted. Resources don't ally with the attentionless. You just have to look around to see this invisible hand working. New infons are created and by various gambits attract attention units. Naturally infons die out as other infons compete. Very few infons last long as they stop being attended to as other infons become more popular and demand more attention. It takes a lot of attention to keep and infon alive.