Given that the UK public transport system is, in all practical senses, unusable This is quite a ridiculous statement. Millions upon millions of people use public transport in the UK every day. It is not perfect and definitely needs more investment. But to say it is "unusable" just boggles the mind....
I concede that the London Underground provides a useful service (providing you only need to move around London) - and that a there is a much acclaimed "Tram" system in central Manchester. If these systems meet your needs then I consider you very lucky. The shabby rail network can not be relied upon when faced with deadlines and busses remain a quaint 1960s throwback - absolutely useless for the majority of journeys... Where a bus service exists it is usually quicker, more pleasant and less stressful to walk.
I think you would be surprised at the proportion of the workforce who are absolutely dependent upon private vehicles. If decent affordable housing were to be available within walking distance of realistic career opportunity then I guess this problem might be diminished - but I won't inflict you with my rant on that topic.
At present British citizens do not require a passport unless they want to go abroad. Until I was in my mid-20s I had no passport. My only proof of identity was by "Birth Certificate" - a duplicate copy of which can be acquired by anyone by visiting the office at which my birth was registered.
I'm British - and while I agree with all the statements, I am dissuaded from signing the petition because they won't let me sign without also signing up for a newsletter.
I DO NOT WANT YOUR NEWSLETTER! DO NOT SPAM ME! I BELIEVE IN THE PETITION BUT I DON'T WANT JUNK POST OR JUNK EMAIL. I AM "SIGNING" A WEB FORM I CAN LOOK AT YOUR WEBSITE IF I WANT MORE INFORMATION!!!
Until recently I've been undecided about the whole identity card debate. I can see that it would be extremely useful to make something equivalent to the British Passport compulsory for British citizens - though I never fail to be amazed at the gross incompetence surrounding even that system. I was always deeply sceptical that the government could successfully pull off a project on the scale of national IDS - their track record is abysmal. Recently my opinions have crystallised by the most recent decision to track every motorist by satellite and charge by the mile - this proposal is, in my opinion clear evidence of dishonesty, cretinism - or possibly both. Given that the UK public transport system is, in all practical senses, unusable this proposal would give unprecedented levels of information on the movements of almost every member of society. While I once saw the purpose of being able to definitively identify those born in Britain I can only find underhand motives for these policies.
I'm yet to vote (having chosen to abstain in 3 general elections) - I would now seriously consider voting for a candidate who demonstrably opposes these malicious proposals.
I might be concerned that your personal preferences would conflict with your professional conduct in future Exactly. This is what I don't get.
I suppose a lot depends upon the position in question. My distinction between a visible and a hidden tattoo is that the latter makes no statement - a hidden tattoo is no more relevant than the colour of your underwear - a non-issue. A visible tattoo or jewellery makes a significant visual statement about how you wish to be perceived - it is inevitable that this will be taken into account by everyone you meet. I suspect male jewellery and tattoos are more likely to hinder than to assist your image for positions involving sales or PR.
If you consider your personal statements more important than presenting a restrained conservative appearance, I can't fault your decision. Conversely, this will likely be an obstacle for some positions. In circumstances where the stakes are high and competition fierce, the smallest details may cost you success. Business decisions are frequently made on pathetically little information - under these circumstances even the most subtle (mis)communication can make or break a deal.
Mind you, that said, my body art is for me. I don't do it to impress anyone (hence why 99% of sits under my clothes).
This comment sums up what your body art would mean to me, should you ever be a candidate I have to interview. Obviously, if I can't tell by looking at you then it would be entirely irrelevant but your personal choices make a statement about your personality. That would be something I'd be VERY interested in - one of my responsibilities as interviewer is to identify potential risks of employing a candidate. Depending upon role I might be pleased that you define yourself outside a corporate career... or I might be concerned that your personal preferences would conflict with your professional conduct in future. In customer facing roles a consistent company image is important - even if this conflicts with individual expression - an employer must be sure your personal statements don't drown out your professional message.
Personally, I don't like tattoos or piercing - I would never consider them for myself - even if the tables were turned and it were more socially acceptable to be pieced or tattooed than not. You have an absolute right to choose to adorn yourself, just as I have the right otherwise, however we must both be ready to accept the consequences for our image. The impression given by tattoos and piercing (especially on men) is one of aggression - they represent a statement you've chosen to make irrespective of whom you meet. This necessarily makes you less approachable and I would expect this would affect how suited you are to various careers.
Well Tom, in the real world, you need to have the ability to work under pressure. You need to be a well rounded person that can admit that you don't know everything.
I consider myself "in the real world" - but I dismiss the idea that I don't know everything. Don't be fooled. I am omniscient - even if recall and other trivia are sometimes problematic.
HEAR HEAR! I wholeheartedly agree with you about widescreen... I've got one of the last Dells before widescreen became common - 1600x1200 in a regular 15" display... and it is fantastic. This beast could be replaced now (it is over 2 years old) but I can't find anything I'd prefer to use. In order to get 1200 dots vertical resolution without loosing readability (which sadly seems to plague the modern widescreen Dells I've used) I need to get a 17" widescreen - which is pretty pricey. I'd make use of an in-built DVD writer and I'd benefit from a faster processor and memory bus. My hard-disk was (fortunately) easily upgradeable - as was memory. Bring by the regular ratio screen - please! As it stands I'm waiting and hoping at last one manufacturer starts supplying a suitable replacement before this one breaks.
Fortunately, we don't need to go to either to realize a profitble space venture...all we need is orbit.
The value of satellites in orbit is obvious, but what is the benefit in supporting humans in an un-natural habitat? In my view the most valuable thing would be technologies to build, launch and manage small featureful cheap unmanned satellites. That doesn't look like where this space program is going.
There's ridiculous amounts of money to be made in space...
I don't "get" your point. I understand why it is extraordinarily expensive to escape gravity and to sustain life in space. I don't see why this is profitable. I'm not saying that space exploration isn't worthwhile (though I can think of many things which I consider more useful.) I do not understand, for example, why anyone would consider another trip the moon or one to Mars an enterprise for profit... The moon landing was valuable only as a "pissing" contest in international politics... what makes the return trip potentially profitable?
I can't even get this to work with the latest release of Firefox 1.04 and Thunderbird 1.02 - I wonder if this is why it is not listed among the extensions on the main Mozilla update page?
Can plebs like me do this yet? I've not been invited - even though, as I remember it I requested inclusion in the beta on day one. Maybe I'm just not important enough... sniff...
"His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge "a thing of the past"." -Bill Gates
That just might possibly dethrone the 640kb crack. I know, I know, it isn't what he meant and is misconstrued. THIS little gem is fairly unambigous. Yes, let's remember it.
The important thing to note here are the crucial words "without the users' knowledge" - Bill isn't promising that there will be no malware unintentionally installed - only that users will be informed about it.
Your argument that future developers "don't even have to read the function for the code (unless they suspect the function is the source of a bug)" is fallacious for exactly that reason. Typically maintenance of code involves fixing bugs and making subtle changes... Particularly when trying to establish the cause of bugs, especially for substantial programs, the challenge is rarely to establish a fault or issue, but rather to establish the most appropriate way to rectify the problem. Your comment doesn't help me at all - it re-states in a different informal syntax, roughly what the function name implies. I wouldn't be interested in what the function "does" - that is pretty straightforward to establish from the code. I want to know _why_ this approach is taken; _how_ the feature is intended to be used by the solution as well as the pre-conditions and post-conditions (as formally as possible) Commenting is a religious issue. Literate programmers have a good idea - when the design is right and the structure of solution permits a linear narrative. OO refactoring proponents have a great idea when the problem can be clearly decomposed by types in such a way as to provide a natural expression of the implementation in type and method names without requiring comments. My own feeling is that comments are dangerous... There is nothing worse than a complex program with extensive commenting where the comments are self-contradictory. When code is self contradictory automated type-checking provides an invaluable strategy - I'm get to see any automation of this for natural language. My own philosophy is that mandating style independent of context is a reliable indication of cretinism. What matters is to express the solution as clearly and concisely as possible. I think it should be safe to assume detailed familiarity with the syntax and semantics of any standardized programming language - thereafter it is a matter of artistic merit. While I feel that the idea of writing code entangled with prose is an idea with extremely limited applicability - I see a far stronger correlation between the kinds of best practice for writing good prose and writing good code. For example, I see many similarities between the advice in the Economist Style Guide [http://www.economist.com/research/StyleGuide/] for writing in natural language and my own ideal for code.
While the original poster was clearly talking inflated baloney - I wouldn't be so hasty in saying that probability is completely irrelevant.
Sure, when measuring a quantity of data the distribution of values is irrelevant, however, things are no so clear where we are measuring information. An analogy might be found measuring volume of fluid contained within and the capacity of a bottle - we can use similar units, but these are distinct concepts. It is usual to measure data in bits, and information in nats (1 nat is equivalent to log(2) bits).
Too bad the word "it's" as used is correct, since it also stands as a contraction for the phrase "it has." The only issue I see here is possible tense confusion between "it has" and "was," although in certain instances that would be considered correct, if not very graceful.
Personally I prefer the "heads-up" notification on issues like this - though I am reluctantly willing to admit that the phrase might (in a technical sense) be an example of poor style rather than incorrect grammar.
"Everything it marked wrong was correct"
"Everything it has marked wrong was correct"
Which of these two sentences better captures your intended claim? The latter suggests that issues were "marked wrong" because the understanding of what is correct changed over time... but doesn't make that particularly clear.
English grammar is complex and, in many cases, involves subjective judgements. The Word "Grammar Checker" highlights patterns which correlate with grammatical error... and I find this very useful. Sure, I can find phrases that are technically correct that Word thinks are faulty - and vice-versa... but that is not the point. I find the green squiggle dictates that a sentence would benefit from a careful proof-read... this frequently identifies phrases which, if re-written, make for a slicker document that is easier to read. I consider Word's grammar check feedback as if it were mark-up from an inexperienced proof-reader. I always review the marked sections again - even if I reject the specific recommendations.
I have no desire for automated correction - but just as I would always use a spelling checker as a verification tool (without ever trusting one to correct my spelling) I find a grammar checker similarly useful. The faults detected by the spelling checker are more frequently typos than poor spelling - and the faults detected by the grammar checker are more frequently caused by an erroneous cut-n-paste than a failure to understand how sentences should be constructed.
In an ideal world I would like an automated "style" checker which expands scope from sentences to whole documents... or, maybe, even wider (to impose a house-style) - and, that way, identify subtle inconsistencies. Of course, such a tool could be used by someone who doesn't know how to write to produce garbage - but I contend that they would likely produce garbage anyway. I would find a grammar _and_ style checker (coupled with a serious spell-checker) to be the most useful productivity tool since the invention of the word-processor.
Sorry to be a pedant: everything it's marked wrong was correct,
I cut and paste your grammatically incorrect post into Word (2002 version) and it immediately highlights your incorrect use of "it's". If you had used Word you probably wouldn't have made this mistake.
at this point, Microsoft really doesn't have anything useful to add to a word processor.
If only this were true.
For all the faults with MS Office (and there are many!) it has at least 3 important benefits over OO 2.0 as it stands today:
1. MS Word has far superior spell checking to OO. 2. MS Word has a (crappy) grammar checker - OO has none. 3. Word has better interactive response - especially on less capable PCs.
All of these could be rectified... but as it stands today Word _does_ offer some important advantages over OO Writer - I'm sad to say - as, these issues asside, I do prefer OO to MSO.
Hmmm - that's sort-of news about Skype... I never really cared about "skype-out" like functionality - as I can probably influence at least software choices with those who need cheap communications with my setup. I guess if I were to have an "Asterisk PBX" then I would be able to interact over the internet with other "Askerisk PBX" setups. (Wouldn't I?) All that would remain then would be some sort of directory service... does such a facility exist? (Yet?)
While I understand your suggestions - I guess because this is a "home" project (rather than a business one) I'm willing to put in much more time tinkering - but less cash into the deal... For example - while I accept that a provider like Vonage is likely to be "worth" $25/month to a heavy user it is certainly not worth that to me... that subscription figure exceeds my private expenditure on outgoing calls twofold! I hope to use Skype in conjunction with my mobile and existing land-line (on which I have ADSL as an extra service.) I realise that what I'm looking to do isn't the primary focus for most of those interested in VOIP - but as a gadget appreciator I'd still like to try this stuff.
1. I've heard lots about Asterisk - and understand that it can be used as a PBX for a small-medium sized enterprise... and that it supports tailored voicemail etc. I am interested in a far smaller scale scenario. I have one land-line; one ADSL line and one mobile phone (with a number for which I can divert phone calls wherever I choose.) I want to manage calls in a more effective way... Ideally all my calls would arrive at my server - and depending upon time of day; caller ID; my location (at desk; at home; in-car etc.) handle calls appropriately. Anonymous callers should only get voicemail; calls from contacts I flag as "urgent" should be routed to me wherever I happen to be - etc. Can anyone point me at practical case studies of individuals setting up this sort of facility? 2. I don't feel comfortable with loudspeaker/microphone phone calls - I prefer to use a phone. I've seen £30 USB handsets that would work at my desk; I've seen £200 802.11b units too... as well as £30 boxes to allow me to use conventional phones as if they were SIP phones. Bearing in mind that I want this for a home-project (not to run an enterprise) what would be my cheapest option to get a cordless IP phone which both allows me to wander into the kitchen while on the phone as well as indicating to me who is calling if the phone rings when I'm away from my PC (but still in the same building)? Are there any good hardware reviews of budget-level equipment?
Linux alone is an OS but not a platform. Linux distributions bundle applications to present a platform. True - Linux alone will never be a platform - but neither will the NT kernel.
I do not believe that businesses want self-contained systems - I believe business needs inter-operable systems. Linux has the potential to be the basis of the most consistent, predictable, scalable and inter-operable platform.
Linux is not an application framework itself - there are, however numerous application frameworks which can be selected for Linux.
If you think (as you claimed) that the windows platform guarantees inter-operability then you are living in an alternate reality. This is fallacious.
Linux doesn't need to compete with Windows per-se, but Windows is competing with Linux. As the IT market matures more and more customers can fix their requirements. In turn, this makes credible the supply of bespoke configurations to best fit customer needs. While inertia may have hampered individuals moving away from Windows in the past, when new systems are specified the benefits of relaxed licence terms; scalability and expansive possibilities for configuration makes Linux a more and more appealing basis for a platform.
To some extent I share your frustration - and to some extent I feel you are feigning a troll.
I too read the first question and went "I wonder what on earth they want here" - I felt frustrated that, given just the question and arbitrary access to research data, that I'd stand little chance of picking up all the marks. The question asks a complex fuzzy question and clearly expects uniform answers - I found this quite frustrating. Conversely, as you are lead through the question there are sufficiently many clues as to what the question intended to ask that a correct answer to the sample question is trivial.
Back when I was at school I hated "comprehension tests" - to my mind they concentrated on test and had barely anything to do with comprehension. The worst kind often included the instruction that you should base answers solely on the text. This patently ridiculous instruction always made me angry. Am I intended to use my understanding of the meaning of the words themselves or not? For example, if text refers to both mammals and cows, am I permitted to use my knowledge that a cow is a mammal in order to expand my answer - even if this fact is not explicitly stated? Should I assume that the author has suffered brain damage and uses all terms in isolation without understanding their meanings unless there is evidence to the contrary or should I assume the author intelligent? How on earth am I meant to assess any of the text without using some prior understanding? In my experience things went from bad to worse when my own use of English happened not to coincide with the expectations of the mark scheme and I would fail to pick up marks because I answered more concisely than was expected. The only way to pick up top marks was to ignore what would be a good answer, or even what you know to be the correct answer, and to concentrate on mentioning as many things as possible that vaguely relate to the question and text. I found this ridiculous - essentially a test of which candidates could write faster while repeating words from the text legibly. What an utter waste of time!
I don't feel I had a particular problem with comprehension per-se (ironically I found the title of the tests insulting.) To this day I relish reading well written complex texts and I suspect I fare at least reasonably in interpreting them. In my opinion the setting of questions for assessment is a responsible task that should not be taken lightly. I consider a question faulty if it is not crystal-clear without room for ambiguities - otherwise candidates may as well roll die for their scores. The question on this test failed in so far as it asked for an answer relevant to the "real world" whereas it clearly intended an answer with reference only to the supplied data. They didn't want to know about trends in book sales - and this was not explicit... hence being unnecessarily misleading. While I accept that intelligent candidates are likely to grasp what the question should have asked - I personally find it despicable when candidates are required to guess what the question intends, yet are penalised if they infer a different interpretation. It looks to me as if this could easily be the case with this test.
We do not complain about the high death toll caused by traffic anymore, do we? I thought that it was very telling how people were so outraged over 9-11, but attacked people who pointed out that more people die in traffic accidents every year, and that we could save that many lives every year simply by driving more safely. I too find popular reaction to tragedy a little bemusing... It is a fact of life that people die - around 200,000 per day retains a stable worldwide population - which is the same ball-park figure as died unnaturally on 9/11. As I see it, the reason people found 9/11 frightening is not the death toll but rather the shock that they could no-longer feel in control - essentially because the perceived risks were no longer easily estimated. Deaths from road traffic accidents are usually isolated incidents - and this makes it easier for people to respond rationally. The simple fact that people (especially in areas where traffic accidents are common) are aware of the dangers allows people to make a rational assessment - usually determining that the benefit of vehicular transport outweighs the risks involved. Another reason that road safety causes less furore is that safety is taken seriously - this can be demonstrated clearly because despite a staggering increase in road traffic in recent years, and a corresponding increase in the total number of traffic incidents, the number of fatalities has fallen considerably. Progress such as this is a consequence of rational not knee-jerk reaction. Now, if only the authorities and campaigning public would acknowledge that it is collisions and not speed that is the real problem - then we may further improve the situation.
It really is a shame when the prevailing "geek" attitude towards agencies like the FBI is mistrust and fear, not confidence and respect.
What a loaded sentence! It is sufficiently ambiguous that despite feeling I disagree, the multiple potential interpretations make it difficult to make a counter argument.
I do think it is a shame that historic institutional dishonesty demands contemporary suspicion. The vast majority of people have nothing to fear from the likes of the FBI - mainly because they are likely to be insignificant. Neither mistrust or fear are mutually exclusive with respect. I feel I'm cross-over Gen-X to Gen-Y... Respect is automatic; disrespect is earned. Reverence is most likely an indication of fear or stupidity. Mistrust is a pragmatic reaction under whenever strong personal relationships can't be relied upon.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the UK public transport system is, in all practical senses, unusable
This is quite a ridiculous statement. Millions upon millions of people use public transport in the UK every day. It is not perfect and definitely needs more investment. But to say it is "unusable" just boggles the mind....
I concede that the London Underground provides a useful service (providing you only need to move around London) - and that a there is a much acclaimed "Tram" system in central Manchester. If these systems meet your needs then I consider you very lucky. The shabby rail network can not be relied upon when faced with deadlines and busses remain a quaint 1960s throwback - absolutely useless for the majority of journeys... Where a bus service exists it is usually quicker, more pleasant and less stressful to walk.
I think you would be surprised at the proportion of the workforce who are absolutely dependent upon private vehicles. If decent affordable housing were to be available within walking distance of realistic career opportunity then I guess this problem might be diminished - but I won't inflict you with my rant on that topic.
At present British citizens do not require a passport unless they want to go abroad. Until I was in my mid-20s I had no passport. My only proof of identity was by "Birth Certificate" - a duplicate copy of which can be acquired by anyone by visiting the office at which my birth was registered.
I'm British - and while I agree with all the statements, I am dissuaded from signing the petition because they won't let me sign without also signing up for a newsletter.
I DO NOT WANT YOUR NEWSLETTER! DO NOT SPAM ME! I BELIEVE IN THE PETITION BUT I DON'T WANT JUNK POST OR JUNK EMAIL. I AM "SIGNING" A WEB FORM I CAN LOOK AT YOUR WEBSITE IF I WANT MORE INFORMATION!!!
Until recently I've been undecided about the whole identity card debate. I can see that it would be extremely useful to make something equivalent to the British Passport compulsory for British citizens - though I never fail to be amazed at the gross incompetence surrounding even that system. I was always deeply sceptical that the government could successfully pull off a project on the scale of national IDS - their track record is abysmal. Recently my opinions have crystallised by the most recent decision to track every motorist by satellite and charge by the mile - this proposal is, in my opinion clear evidence of dishonesty, cretinism - or possibly both. Given that the UK public transport system is, in all practical senses, unusable this proposal would give unprecedented levels of information on the movements of almost every member of society. While I once saw the purpose of being able to definitively identify those born in Britain I can only find underhand motives for these policies.
I'm yet to vote (having chosen to abstain in 3 general elections) - I would now seriously consider voting for a candidate who demonstrably opposes these malicious proposals.
I might be concerned that your personal preferences would conflict with your professional conduct in future
Exactly. This is what I don't get.
I suppose a lot depends upon the position in question. My distinction between a visible and a hidden tattoo is that the latter makes no statement - a hidden tattoo is no more relevant than the colour of your underwear - a non-issue. A visible tattoo or jewellery makes a significant visual statement about how you wish to be perceived - it is inevitable that this will be taken into account by everyone you meet. I suspect male jewellery and tattoos are more likely to hinder than to assist your image for positions involving sales or PR.
If you consider your personal statements more important than presenting a restrained conservative appearance, I can't fault your decision. Conversely, this will likely be an obstacle for some positions. In circumstances where the stakes are high and competition fierce, the smallest details may cost you success. Business decisions are frequently made on pathetically little information - under these circumstances even the most subtle (mis)communication can make or break a deal.
Mind you, that said, my body art is for me. I don't do it to impress anyone (hence why 99% of sits under my clothes).
This comment sums up what your body art would mean to me, should you ever be a candidate I have to interview. Obviously, if I can't tell by looking at you then it would be entirely irrelevant but your personal choices make a statement about your personality. That would be something I'd be VERY interested in - one of my responsibilities as interviewer is to identify potential risks of employing a candidate. Depending upon role I might be pleased that you define yourself outside a corporate career... or I might be concerned that your personal preferences would conflict with your professional conduct in future. In customer facing roles a consistent company image is important - even if this conflicts with individual expression - an employer must be sure your personal statements don't drown out your professional message.
Personally, I don't like tattoos or piercing - I would never consider them for myself - even if the tables were turned and it were more socially acceptable to be pieced or tattooed than not. You have an absolute right to choose to adorn yourself, just as I have the right otherwise, however we must both be ready to accept the consequences for our image. The impression given by tattoos and piercing (especially on men) is one of aggression - they represent a statement you've chosen to make irrespective of whom you meet. This necessarily makes you less approachable and I would expect this would affect how suited you are to various careers.
Steve
Well Tom, in the real world, you need to have the ability to work under pressure. You need to be a well rounded person that can admit that you don't know everything.
I consider myself "in the real world" - but I dismiss the idea that I don't know everything. Don't be fooled. I am omniscient - even if recall and other trivia are sometimes problematic.
HEAR HEAR! I wholeheartedly agree with you about widescreen... I've got one of the last Dells before widescreen became common - 1600x1200 in a regular 15" display... and it is fantastic. This beast could be replaced now (it is over 2 years old) but I can't find anything I'd prefer to use. In order to get 1200 dots vertical resolution without loosing readability (which sadly seems to plague the modern widescreen Dells I've used) I need to get a 17" widescreen - which is pretty pricey. I'd make use of an in-built DVD writer and I'd benefit from a faster processor and memory bus. My hard-disk was (fortunately) easily upgradeable - as was memory. Bring by the regular ratio screen - please! As it stands I'm waiting and hoping at last one manufacturer starts supplying a suitable replacement before this one breaks.
Fortunately, we don't need to go to either to realize a profitble space venture...all we need is orbit.
The value of satellites in orbit is obvious, but what is the benefit in supporting humans in an un-natural habitat? In my view the most valuable thing would be technologies to build, launch and manage small featureful cheap unmanned satellites. That doesn't look like where this space program is going.
There's ridiculous amounts of money to be made in space...
I don't "get" your point. I understand why it is extraordinarily expensive to escape gravity and to sustain life in space. I don't see why this is profitable. I'm not saying that space exploration isn't worthwhile (though I can think of many things which I consider more useful.) I do not understand, for example, why anyone would consider another trip the moon or one to Mars an enterprise for profit... The moon landing was valuable only as a "pissing" contest in international politics... what makes the return trip potentially profitable?
Spellbound
I can't even get this to work with the latest release of Firefox 1.04 and Thunderbird 1.02 - I wonder if this is why it is not listed among the extensions on the main Mozilla update page?
Can plebs like me do this yet? I've not been invited - even though, as I remember it I requested inclusion in the beta on day one. Maybe I'm just not important enough... sniff...
"His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge "a thing of the past"."
-Bill Gates
That just might possibly dethrone the 640kb crack. I know, I know, it isn't what he meant and is misconstrued. THIS little gem is fairly unambigous. Yes, let's remember it.
The important thing to note here are the crucial words "without the users' knowledge" - Bill isn't promising that there will be no malware unintentionally installed - only that users will be informed about it.
Your argument that future developers "don't even have to read the function for the code (unless they suspect the function is the source of a bug)" is fallacious for exactly that reason. Typically maintenance of code involves fixing bugs and making subtle changes... Particularly when trying to establish the cause of bugs, especially for substantial programs, the challenge is rarely to establish a fault or issue, but rather to establish the most appropriate way to rectify the problem. Your comment doesn't help me at all - it re-states in a different informal syntax, roughly what the function name implies. I wouldn't be interested in what the function "does" - that is pretty straightforward to establish from the code. I want to know _why_ this approach is taken; _how_ the feature is intended to be used by the solution as well as the pre-conditions and post-conditions (as formally as possible)
Commenting is a religious issue. Literate programmers have a good idea - when the design is right and the structure of solution permits a linear narrative. OO refactoring proponents have a great idea when the problem can be clearly decomposed by types in such a way as to provide a natural expression of the implementation in type and method names without requiring comments.
My own feeling is that comments are dangerous... There is nothing worse than a complex program with extensive commenting where the comments are self-contradictory. When code is self contradictory automated type-checking provides an invaluable strategy - I'm get to see any automation of this for natural language.
My own philosophy is that mandating style independent of context is a reliable indication of cretinism. What matters is to express the solution as clearly and concisely as possible. I think it should be safe to assume detailed familiarity with the syntax and semantics of any standardized programming language - thereafter it is a matter of artistic merit. While I feel that the idea of writing code entangled with prose is an idea with extremely limited applicability - I see a far stronger correlation between the kinds of best practice for writing good prose and writing good code. For example, I see many similarities between the advice in the Economist Style Guide [http://www.economist.com/research/StyleGuide/] for writing in natural language and my own ideal for code.
While the original poster was clearly talking inflated baloney - I wouldn't be so hasty in saying that probability is completely irrelevant.
Sure, when measuring a quantity of data the distribution of values is irrelevant, however, things are no so clear where we are measuring information. An analogy might be found measuring volume of fluid contained within and the capacity of a bottle - we can use similar units, but these are distinct concepts. It is usual to measure data in bits, and information in nats (1 nat is equivalent to log(2) bits).
Too bad the word "it's" as used is correct, since it also stands as a contraction for the phrase "it has." The only issue I see here is possible tense confusion between "it has" and "was," although in certain instances that would be considered correct, if not very graceful.
Personally I prefer the "heads-up" notification on issues like this - though I am reluctantly willing to admit that the phrase might (in a technical sense) be an example of poor style rather than incorrect grammar.
Which of these two sentences better captures your intended claim? The latter suggests that issues were "marked wrong" because the understanding of what is correct changed over time... but doesn't make that particularly clear.
English grammar is complex and, in many cases, involves subjective judgements. The Word "Grammar Checker" highlights patterns which correlate with grammatical error... and I find this very useful. Sure, I can find phrases that are technically correct that Word thinks are faulty - and vice-versa... but that is not the point. I find the green squiggle dictates that a sentence would benefit from a careful proof-read... this frequently identifies phrases which, if re-written, make for a slicker document that is easier to read. I consider Word's grammar check feedback as if it were mark-up from an inexperienced proof-reader. I always review the marked sections again - even if I reject the specific recommendations.
I have no desire for automated correction - but just as I would always use a spelling checker as a verification tool (without ever trusting one to correct my spelling) I find a grammar checker similarly useful. The faults detected by the spelling checker are more frequently typos than poor spelling - and the faults detected by the grammar checker are more frequently caused by an erroneous cut-n-paste than a failure to understand how sentences should be constructed.
In an ideal world I would like an automated "style" checker which expands scope from sentences to whole documents... or, maybe, even wider (to impose a house-style) - and, that way, identify subtle inconsistencies. Of course, such a tool could be used by someone who doesn't know how to write to produce garbage - but I contend that they would likely produce garbage anyway. I would find a grammar _and_ style checker (coupled with a serious spell-checker) to be the most useful productivity tool since the invention of the word-processor.
Not that I want to defend MS... You don't need to "buy" that program:
h tm
http://sector7g.wurzel6.de/pdfcreator/index_en.
Sorry to be a pedant:
everything it's marked wrong was correct,
I cut and paste your grammatically incorrect post into Word (2002 version) and it immediately highlights your incorrect use of "it's". If you had used Word you probably wouldn't have made this mistake.
at this point, Microsoft really doesn't have anything useful to add to a word processor.
If only this were true.
For all the faults with MS Office (and there are many!) it has at least 3 important benefits over OO 2.0 as it stands today:
1. MS Word has far superior spell checking to OO.
2. MS Word has a (crappy) grammar checker - OO has none.
3. Word has better interactive response - especially on less capable PCs.
All of these could be rectified... but as it stands today Word _does_ offer some important advantages over OO Writer - I'm sad to say - as, these issues asside, I do prefer OO to MSO.
Hmmm - that's sort-of news about Skype... I never really cared about "skype-out" like functionality - as I can probably influence at least software choices with those who need cheap communications with my setup.
I guess if I were to have an "Asterisk PBX" then I would be able to interact over the internet with other "Askerisk PBX" setups. (Wouldn't I?) All that would remain then would be some sort of directory service... does such a facility exist? (Yet?)
While I understand your suggestions - I guess because this is a "home" project (rather than a business one) I'm willing to put in much more time tinkering - but less cash into the deal... For example - while I accept that a provider like Vonage is likely to be "worth" $25/month to a heavy user it is certainly not worth that to me... that subscription figure exceeds my private expenditure on outgoing calls twofold!
I hope to use Skype in conjunction with my mobile and existing land-line (on which I have ADSL as an extra service.)
I realise that what I'm looking to do isn't the primary focus for most of those interested in VOIP - but as a gadget appreciator I'd still like to try this stuff.
1. I've heard lots about Asterisk - and understand that it can be used as a PBX for a small-medium sized enterprise... and that it supports tailored voicemail etc. I am interested in a far smaller scale scenario. I have one land-line; one ADSL line and one mobile phone (with a number for which I can divert phone calls wherever I choose.) I want to manage calls in a more effective way... Ideally all my calls would arrive at my server - and depending upon time of day; caller ID; my location (at desk; at home; in-car etc.) handle calls appropriately. Anonymous callers should only get voicemail; calls from contacts I flag as "urgent" should be routed to me wherever I happen to be - etc. Can anyone point me at practical case studies of individuals setting up this sort of facility?
2. I don't feel comfortable with loudspeaker/microphone phone calls - I prefer to use a phone. I've seen £30 USB handsets that would work at my desk; I've seen £200 802.11b units too... as well as £30 boxes to allow me to use conventional phones as if they were SIP phones. Bearing in mind that I want this for a home-project (not to run an enterprise) what would be my cheapest option to get a cordless IP phone which both allows me to wander into the kitchen while on the phone as well as indicating to me who is calling if the phone rings when I'm away from my PC (but still in the same building)? Are there any good hardware reviews of budget-level equipment?
Linux alone is an OS but not a platform. Linux distributions bundle applications to present a platform. True - Linux alone will never be a platform - but neither will the NT kernel.
I do not believe that businesses want self-contained systems - I believe business needs inter-operable systems. Linux has the potential to be the basis of the most consistent, predictable, scalable and inter-operable platform.
Linux is not an application framework itself - there are, however numerous application frameworks which can be selected for Linux.
If you think (as you claimed) that the windows platform guarantees inter-operability then you are living in an alternate reality. This is fallacious.
Linux doesn't need to compete with Windows per-se, but Windows is competing with Linux. As the IT market matures more and more customers can fix their requirements. In turn, this makes credible the supply of bespoke configurations to best fit customer needs. While inertia may have hampered individuals moving away from Windows in the past, when new systems are specified the benefits of relaxed licence terms; scalability and expansive possibilities for configuration makes Linux a more and more appealing basis for a platform.
To some extent I share your frustration - and to some extent I feel you are feigning a troll.
I too read the first question and went "I wonder what on earth they want here" - I felt frustrated that, given just the question and arbitrary access to research data, that I'd stand little chance of picking up all the marks. The question asks a complex fuzzy question and clearly expects uniform answers - I found this quite frustrating. Conversely, as you are lead through the question there are sufficiently many clues as to what the question intended to ask that a correct answer to the sample question is trivial.
Back when I was at school I hated "comprehension tests" - to my mind they concentrated on test and had barely anything to do with comprehension. The worst kind often included the instruction that you should base answers solely on the text. This patently ridiculous instruction always made me angry. Am I intended to use my understanding of the meaning of the words themselves or not? For example, if text refers to both mammals and cows, am I permitted to use my knowledge that a cow is a mammal in order to expand my answer - even if this fact is not explicitly stated? Should I assume that the author has suffered brain damage and uses all terms in isolation without understanding their meanings unless there is evidence to the contrary or should I assume the author intelligent? How on earth am I meant to assess any of the text without using some prior understanding? In my experience things went from bad to worse when my own use of English happened not to coincide with the expectations of the mark scheme and I would fail to pick up marks because I answered more concisely than was expected. The only way to pick up top marks was to ignore what would be a good answer, or even what you know to be the correct answer, and to concentrate on mentioning as many things as possible that vaguely relate to the question and text. I found this ridiculous - essentially a test of which candidates could write faster while repeating words from the text legibly. What an utter waste of time!
I don't feel I had a particular problem with comprehension per-se (ironically I found the title of the tests insulting.) To this day I relish reading well written complex texts and I suspect I fare at least reasonably in interpreting them. In my opinion the setting of questions for assessment is a responsible task that should not be taken lightly. I consider a question faulty if it is not crystal-clear without room for ambiguities - otherwise candidates may as well roll die for their scores. The question on this test failed in so far as it asked for an answer relevant to the "real world" whereas it clearly intended an answer with reference only to the supplied data. They didn't want to know about trends in book sales - and this was not explicit... hence being unnecessarily misleading. While I accept that intelligent candidates are likely to grasp what the question should have asked - I personally find it despicable when candidates are required to guess what the question intends, yet are penalised if they infer a different interpretation. It looks to me as if this could easily be the case with this test.
We do not complain about the high death toll caused by traffic anymore, do we?
I thought that it was very telling how people were so outraged over 9-11, but attacked people who pointed out that more people die in traffic accidents every year, and that we could save that many lives every year simply by driving more safely.
I too find popular reaction to tragedy a little bemusing... It is a fact of life that people die - around 200,000 per day retains a stable worldwide population - which is the same ball-park figure as died unnaturally on 9/11. As I see it, the reason people found 9/11 frightening is not the death toll but rather the shock that they could no-longer feel in control - essentially because the perceived risks were no longer easily estimated.
Deaths from road traffic accidents are usually isolated incidents - and this makes it easier for people to respond rationally. The simple fact that people (especially in areas where traffic accidents are common) are aware of the dangers allows people to make a rational assessment - usually determining that the benefit of vehicular transport outweighs the risks involved.
Another reason that road safety causes less furore is that safety is taken seriously - this can be demonstrated clearly because despite a staggering increase in road traffic in recent years, and a corresponding increase in the total number of traffic incidents, the number of fatalities has fallen considerably. Progress such as this is a consequence of rational not knee-jerk reaction. Now, if only the authorities and campaigning public would acknowledge that it is collisions and not speed that is the real problem - then we may further improve the situation.
It really is a shame when the prevailing "geek" attitude towards agencies like the FBI is mistrust and fear, not confidence and respect.
What a loaded sentence! It is sufficiently ambiguous that despite feeling I disagree, the multiple potential interpretations make it difficult to make a counter argument.
I do think it is a shame that historic institutional dishonesty demands contemporary suspicion. The vast majority of people have nothing to fear from the likes of the FBI - mainly because they are likely to be insignificant. Neither mistrust or fear are mutually exclusive with respect. I feel I'm cross-over Gen-X to Gen-Y... Respect is automatic; disrespect is earned. Reverence is most likely an indication of fear or stupidity. Mistrust is a pragmatic reaction under whenever strong personal relationships can't be relied upon.