"someone who can hack up a correct program in 10 minutes stands a good chance of writing a correct, clear and maintainable program in an hour."
Patently false, for a number of human reasons:
1) Programmers are are fast are generally easilly bored. This leads to wandering focus. 2) Programmers who are fast often approach problems in a strange way. This can lead to convoluted and confusing implementations. 3) Programmers who are fast rarely see value in commenting. Why comment when I can rewrite faster than I can reuse? 4) Programmers who are fast are usually impatient, and don't work well with teams. I *like* this competition because it has some focus on teamwork, but I'm generalizing.
For such simple problems as are being solved in this competition most of these problems aren't problems. But all of these things will eventually lead to unstable, unmaintainable codebases. I'd prefer to have someone who is good at code re-use, who is good at seeing the complex parts of problems and who is good at getting the right architecture the first time. None of these things are tested in this competition.
See this is where your assumption falls apart. I'm one of those people who just wants a simple phone that does phone things well. I don't have a problem with them providing bigger, better, more drool-worthy phones but that isn't what I'm going to buy.
I have *never* puchased a phone. Every phone I've ever gotten was a hand-me-down from a friend. It isn't because I don't want a better phone. The phones I end up with have universally poor speaker and signal quality. I just followed your advice and didn't buy a phone with a billion features I didn't want. What was the result?
I *still* can't buy a *quality* phone which doesn't have a camera, games, web-browser, bluetooth, or PDA "features". As far as I can tell there will never be a phone made which approaches the "just a damned good phone" moniker:
Requirements: -flip phone -high quality integrated antenna -water proof (or at least water resistant) -light weight/small (the RAZR is a good size for me, but I'm big) -sturdy (impact forces, not necessarily crushing forces) -long battery life (If I forget to charge it for a day it should survive the experience) -silent mode that is really silent (what's up with my phone saying "new voicemail!" in vibrate mode?) -good contact management (please handle: A's Mobile #, B's Mobile #, and A&B's Home #)
Optional (things I'd use if there): -two number functionality (business & personal on same phone. Nextel can, but it sucks...please make it work well if you support it) -per contact ring tone (and/or separate ring tones for each line if you handle two line operation) -Text messaging (I won't use it, but, hey, it's only software) -bluetooth (I won't use it, but many do, and I see the good reasons for hands free operation)
Please don't: -try to be a pda -try to be an ipod -try to be a camera -try to be a gps system -try to be a web browser -try to be a game console -try to pass the turing test
"If we're successful with this, nobody will ever make biodiesel any other way,"
So, what you are trying to say is that you haven't ever done it, but in *theory* it should be a phenomenal improvement over exiting methods of biodeisel production...
The mobile phone doesn't mean that we are always available.
Please someone put this in big bold letters on a sign in every office and school in the country. When I am in a conversation with you, you have my attention. If I'm expecting a call I'll tell you before we start. Until that conversation is completed I don't let myself be distracted by anything less than an emergency. If my phone rings I silence it, if an email arrives I ignore it. If I keep getting calls or emails over and over I'll beg your pardon and figure out what the big problem is. No matter what I'll get back to you within the minute, even if it is just to appologize and explain why I need to deal with this problem immediately.
This has always seemed like common coutesy to me, yet so few people do the same. Not three days ago a contractor calls me to his office to get my help with debugging a problem. Two minutes in he gets a call on his mobile, which he immediately takes (he did finish his sentence at least), with no hesitation, consternation, or appology. After listening to three minutes of one side of a conversation on the relative virtues of Windows XP I left. This was not an isolated incident; similar things have happended to me on several occations.
What is important here is that I give my full attention to one thing at a time. Sometimes I get complaints from people who are trying to call me, but what everyone should understand is that my phone is there for my convenience, not yours.
All Google has done is to further the Chinese government's belief that they can censor the Internet from their citizens
What Google provides is not impossible to duplicate. If the Chinese government wants to they can provide their own replacement for Google. I have little doubt that a Chinese government sponsored search engine would not include the text I see at the bottom of the chinese results page, which translates into something like:
According to the local law laws and regulations, some of the search results are not displayed.
As far as I am concerned this simple phrase is doing the most good that Google could possibly hope to provide.
Excellent reading, thanks. I still maintain that an auto-hidable dock and menu bar are reasonable extentions. I like the idea of using corners as triggers rather than the whole screen edge. Both faster and less annoying. Maybe allow we to use the top left to trigger both the menu bar (top edge) and the dock (left edge).
My problem with these writings WRT this discussion is that they tend to ignore the fact that UI isn't the *only* thing I want to do with my screen real estate. I'd like to select the balance that is right for me. Its garanteed to be different for you, and that's why it should be configurable.
Unfortunately, this coffin is infinitely long. I've tried to argue with ID-ists and there's no hope. Why is it infinitely long? Because there is an infinite wealth of knowledge out there and we can never know all of it. As long as there is something we do not know, there will be room for a god or a designer.
And just in case anyone out there wasn't really sure, this is *the* problem with Intelligent Design. Science isn't arbitrary. There are rules for establishing a theory no matter how whacked out it might sound. A valid theory must predict behaviors and those behaviors must be quantifiable and verifiable.
So my question about I.D. is always this: What piece of evidence should I look for to prove that it is incorrect. The answer to this always appears to be "nothing," so I *must* assume that I.D. is a concept which is only believed through faith. This is the reason that it falls into the category of religion rather than science. Show me a version of I.D. that meets the rigorous definition of a scientific theory and I'll stand beside you in saying it should be taught in our schools.
The main reason not to do this is that it is a stupid idea.
The single most important thing that I look for in *any* toolset is whether it gets out of my way when I'm not using it. What I want is to most efficiently use the screen real estate for my content, not for what controls my content.
And lets face it, vanishing controls aren't a new idea. The dock does it, and I use the dock far more than I use the menu bar. I'm sure some people need to reassurance that the menu bar hasn't taken a trip to Tahiti with the dock and the DVD control panel, but I don't. I'm betting that most people don't either.
15 minutes of reading about user interface design, and you should understand why.
Um, ok. You would have been more convincing if you had actually cited any resource which said so, or elucidated some of the UI "rules" which might argue against it. As it is you come off sounding like a troll. You should try to be convincing rather than derogatory. In any case I remain convinced that my rules ("convenient, not contusive" & "minimal yet complete") are reasonable.
Oh, and I write drivers for a living, so I don't have the slightest inkling what I'm talking about when it comes to UI design. I am, however a user, which means I know what sucks. An ever-present menu bar that I never use == the suck. An (optionally) auto-hiding dock == no suckie.
Here's hoping that the new Mac Minis, whenever they arrive, have a few specific improvements:
1) Optical Audio (we want surround sound!) 2) Better DVD playback software (for a UI centered company like Apple, "DVD Player" program blows donkey wang) 3) RF receiver (for my kick ass universal remote, or maybe Apple can make a bluetooth+RF remote) 4) Better support for my TV (having to use VNC to set it up is beyond most people)
I've been using a Mac Mini as my entertainment hub for a while now (almost a year), and its great. DVDs, AVI and WM files, ITunes though my stereo, internet surfing on my HD TV, flash, movie previews, games; the list goes on and on. Its quiet, low power, wakes quickly, and does what I want it to do.
Oh, and can you guys please make it so I can autohide the menu bar? You know, like the dock can do.
Oh the horror. What has Slashdot become? Not a single person recognized one the the most hilarious of lines from "The Tick". The same scene has the Tick swimming upstream in the river of cloned Santas describing himself as the "great blue salmon of justice".
Is there no one left who appreciates truly fine art?!?
Kids these days. Oh well, you know what they say: "You can't fight Evil with a macaroni duck!"
What about the Mozilla foundation? Opera? KDE? Apple? Because armed with this precendent Eolas is going to go after anyone who has ever coded a browser with the ability to host an applet.
So the basic process is: 1) Get Kooky idea 2) ??? 3) Profit!
Has Microsoft filled in the blanks?:
1) Find software patent covering something so obvious that everyone does it 2a) Hire bungling lawyer to defend against patent case 2b) Lose patent defense, resulting in (relatively) trivial capital expenditure 2c) Snicker as free browser alternatives are dealt crushing legal/financial blow 3) Profit!
um, isn't crushing these browsers Bill's wet dream?
It seems to me, that in a reasonable world there would be a way for a lawyer or law enforcement officer to gain access to this information in an effort to halt ongoing distribution of stolen works.
The question should really be: now that this information is in the court record, what are the ways in which it can be made public?
A pure computational method for generating randomness has not been found...and I'd guess it can't be done.
However, there are a vast number of randomly timed things that happen in a computer. Your mouse movements have some level of randomness, the time between key strokes on your keyboard, etc.
There are ways to harness events which contain levels of randomness and use them to generate truly random numbers. I highly doubt that the ipod firmware really does this...since there are plenty of "random enough" algorithms for such a purpose.
Seems to me that the obvious entry point is a new wireless optical mouse with this built in. Then you could buy (or it ships with) a memory unit that the user wears. Poof, instant computer usage...secure password storage, configuration data, small files of any kind.
My two questions are:
1) can I do a multidrop connection. There is precious little detail about whether my cell phone, pda, mp3 player, watch, HUD (hey I can dream) all play together seamlessly. If so this will kick so much ass.
2) IIRC the field surrounding the human body is fairly unique to each person...can it be used as part of a biometric system through such a device. This seems kind of unlikely, but would be an interesting low security id system.
> > What real computers are currently on the market to compete with this?"
> Out of curiosity, why wouldn't a Mac mini be a 'real computer'?"
Sorry, but I can't let that go. You seem to be attacking parent for implying that the Mac Mini is not a "real computer". Clearly by asking for real computers which compete with it parent is explicitly implying that the Mac Mini is in the same category of competition with these "real computers". Instead of attacking his verbiage, why not answer his question?
Just out of curosity, can anyone define what the precise difference is between "Fault Tolerance" and "Self Healing"?
Explain to me how any of the failure responses I see discussed in the article or in these discussions qualifies as "Healing"? Almost all fault tolerant systems isolate failing components or programs from the rest of the system (killing rouge processes counts as isolation). Quarantine is not an attempt to heal, it is an attempt to tolerate. Are there actually any non-quarantine "self healing" systems out there today?
It's difficult to have a principle-based movement when you ignore your principles.
It's difficult to have a useful principle-based movement without substantial movement also.
Why does it never occur to zealots that their chosen nemesis can have any valid reasons for their actions.
Does it ever occur to an open source zealot that maybe there are valid reasons a company can't provide non-binary drivers? Take, for instance, trade secrets. If the company publishes code which clearly describes their specialized process then it is no longer a secret. It is particularly important to protect hardware implementation secrets since they are
1) easilly reverse engineered and 2) difficult to recover engineering NREs to begin with.
What you are advocating is having a company like nvidia pay its engineers to develop new technologies so that other companies can benefit from them. Why would this idea ever appeal to a for profit company?
Please at least try to see the other perspective before condemning it as short sighted and evil. If you can't look at the problem and suggest a workable alternative then maybe you shouldn't be complaining about the current solution.
What OS? It should probably be "Schoolnix".. a custom distribution of some sort...
So if ad-nix mutes your television whenever an advertisement comes on, and preach-nix changes the channel whenever a televangelist starts yapping, what precisely would school-nix do? Bomb the campus?
Don't even get me started on the whole U-nix thing:)
Slashdot Mirror
"someone who can hack up a correct program in 10 minutes stands a good chance of writing a correct, clear and maintainable program in an hour."
Patently false, for a number of human reasons:
1) Programmers are are fast are generally easilly bored. This leads to wandering focus.
2) Programmers who are fast often approach problems in a strange way. This can lead to convoluted and confusing implementations.
3) Programmers who are fast rarely see value in commenting. Why comment when I can rewrite faster than I can reuse?
4) Programmers who are fast are usually impatient, and don't work well with teams. I *like* this competition because it has some focus on teamwork, but I'm generalizing.
For such simple problems as are being solved in this competition most of these problems aren't problems. But all of these things will eventually lead to unstable, unmaintainable codebases. I'd prefer to have someone who is good at code re-use, who is good at seeing the complex parts of problems and who is good at getting the right architecture the first time. None of these things are tested in this competition.
Don't buy them if they don't suit your needs...
See this is where your assumption falls apart. I'm one of those people who just wants a simple phone that does phone things well. I don't have a problem with them providing bigger, better, more drool-worthy phones but that isn't what I'm going to buy.
I have *never* puchased a phone. Every phone I've ever gotten was a hand-me-down from a friend. It isn't because I don't want a better phone. The phones I end up with have universally poor speaker and signal quality. I just followed your advice and didn't buy a phone with a billion features I didn't want. What was the result?
I *still* can't buy a *quality* phone which doesn't have a camera, games, web-browser, bluetooth, or PDA "features". As far as I can tell there will never be a phone made which approaches the "just a damned good phone" moniker:
Requirements:
-flip phone
-high quality integrated antenna
-water proof (or at least water resistant)
-light weight/small (the RAZR is a good size for me, but I'm big)
-sturdy (impact forces, not necessarily crushing forces)
-long battery life (If I forget to charge it for a day it should survive the experience)
-silent mode that is really silent (what's up with my phone saying "new voicemail!" in vibrate mode?)
-good contact management (please handle: A's Mobile #, B's Mobile #, and A&B's Home #)
Optional (things I'd use if there):
-two number functionality (business & personal on same phone. Nextel can, but it sucks...please make it work well if you support it)
-per contact ring tone (and/or separate ring tones for each line if you handle two line operation)
-Text messaging (I won't use it, but, hey, it's only software)
-bluetooth (I won't use it, but many do, and I see the good reasons for hands free operation)
Please don't:
-try to be a pda
-try to be an ipod
-try to be a camera
-try to be a gps system
-try to be a web browser
-try to be a game console
-try to pass the turing test
From TFA:
"If we're successful with this, nobody will ever make biodiesel any other way,"
So, what you are trying to say is that you haven't ever done it, but in *theory* it should be a phenomenal improvement over exiting methods of biodeisel production...
I'll be over here holding my breath.
The mobile phone doesn't mean that we are always available.
Please someone put this in big bold letters on a sign in every office and school in the country. When I am in a conversation with you, you have my attention. If I'm expecting a call I'll tell you before we start. Until that conversation is completed I don't let myself be distracted by anything less than an emergency. If my phone rings I silence it, if an email arrives I ignore it. If I keep getting calls or emails over and over I'll beg your pardon and figure out what the big problem is. No matter what I'll get back to you within the minute, even if it is just to appologize and explain why I need to deal with this problem immediately.
This has always seemed like common coutesy to me, yet so few people do the same. Not three days ago a contractor calls me to his office to get my help with debugging a problem. Two minutes in he gets a call on his mobile, which he immediately takes (he did finish his sentence at least), with no hesitation, consternation, or appology. After listening to three minutes of one side of a conversation on the relative virtues of Windows XP I left. This was not an isolated incident; similar things have happended to me on several occations.
What is important here is that I give my full attention to one thing at a time. Sometimes I get complaints from people who are trying to call me, but what everyone should understand is that my phone is there for my convenience, not yours.
I am gonna install a cot in my cubical now! "But I *was* working on the new database architecture."
Great Idea!
So good in fact that someone at google already registered it.
All Google has done is to further the Chinese government's belief that they can censor the Internet from their citizens
What Google provides is not impossible to duplicate. If the Chinese government wants to they can provide their own replacement for Google. I have little doubt that a Chinese government sponsored search engine would not include the text I see at the bottom of the chinese results page, which translates into something like:
According to the local law laws and regulations, some of the search results are not displayed.
As far as I am concerned this simple phrase is doing the most good that Google could possibly hope to provide.
Excellent reading, thanks. I still maintain that an auto-hidable dock and menu bar are reasonable extentions. I like the idea of using corners as triggers rather than the whole screen edge. Both faster and less annoying. Maybe allow we to use the top left to trigger both the menu bar (top edge) and the dock (left edge).
My problem with these writings WRT this discussion is that they tend to ignore the fact that UI isn't the *only* thing I want to do with my screen real estate. I'd like to select the balance that is right for me. Its garanteed to be different for you, and that's why it should be configurable.
Unfortunately, this coffin is infinitely long. I've tried to argue with ID-ists and there's no hope. Why is it infinitely long? Because there is an infinite wealth of knowledge out there and we can never know all of it. As long as there is something we do not know, there will be room for a god or a designer.
And just in case anyone out there wasn't really sure, this is *the* problem with Intelligent Design. Science isn't arbitrary. There are rules for establishing a theory no matter how whacked out it might sound. A valid theory must predict behaviors and those behaviors must be quantifiable and verifiable.
So my question about I.D. is always this: What piece of evidence should I look for to prove that it is incorrect. The answer to this always appears to be "nothing," so I *must* assume that I.D. is a concept which is only believed through faith. This is the reason that it falls into the category of religion rather than science. Show me a version of I.D. that meets the rigorous definition of a scientific theory and I'll stand beside you in saying it should be taught in our schools.
The main reason not to do this is that it is a stupid idea.
The single most important thing that I look for in *any* toolset is whether it gets out of my way when I'm not using it. What I want is to most efficiently use the screen real estate for my content, not for what controls my content.
And lets face it, vanishing controls aren't a new idea. The dock does it, and I use the dock far more than I use the menu bar. I'm sure some people need to reassurance that the menu bar hasn't taken a trip to Tahiti with the dock and the DVD control panel, but I don't. I'm betting that most people don't either.
15 minutes of reading about user interface design, and you should understand why.
Um, ok. You would have been more convincing if you had actually cited any resource which said so, or elucidated some of the UI "rules" which might argue against it. As it is you come off sounding like a troll. You should try to be convincing rather than derogatory. In any case I remain convinced that my rules ("convenient, not contusive" & "minimal yet complete") are reasonable.
Oh, and I write drivers for a living, so I don't have the slightest inkling what I'm talking about when it comes to UI design. I am, however a user, which means I know what sucks. An ever-present menu bar that I never use == the suck. An (optionally) auto-hiding dock == no suckie.
Thanks for playing,
-SpeedBump
Here's hoping that the new Mac Minis, whenever they arrive, have a few specific improvements:
1) Optical Audio (we want surround sound!)
2) Better DVD playback software (for a UI centered company like Apple, "DVD Player" program blows donkey wang)
3) RF receiver (for my kick ass universal remote, or maybe Apple can make a bluetooth+RF remote)
4) Better support for my TV (having to use VNC to set it up is beyond most people)
I've been using a Mac Mini as my entertainment hub for a while now (almost a year), and its great. DVDs, AVI and WM files, ITunes though my stereo, internet surfing on my HD TV, flash, movie previews, games; the list goes on and on. Its quiet, low power, wakes quickly, and does what I want it to do.
Oh, and can you guys please make it so I can autohide the menu bar? You know, like the dock can do.
Oh the horror. What has Slashdot become? Not a single person recognized one the the most hilarious of lines from "The Tick". The same scene has the Tick swimming upstream in the river of cloned Santas describing himself as the "great blue salmon of justice".
Is there no one left who appreciates truly fine art?!?
Kids these days. Oh well, you know what they say:
"You can't fight Evil with a macaroni duck!"
Am I the only person who keeps thinking:
"YULE TIDE!!!"
But the trains are really too noisy (underground) to have an intelligent conversation.
Maybe that will make noise cancelling headsets more popular
#define TIN_FOIL_HAT
What about the Mozilla foundation? Opera? KDE? Apple? Because armed with this precendent Eolas is going to go after anyone who has ever coded a browser with the ability to host an applet.
So the basic process is:
1) Get Kooky idea
2) ???
3) Profit!
Has Microsoft filled in the blanks?:
1) Find software patent covering something so obvious that everyone does it
2a) Hire bungling lawyer to defend against patent case
2b) Lose patent defense, resulting in (relatively) trivial capital expenditure
2c) Snicker as free browser alternatives are dealt crushing legal/financial blow
3) Profit!
um, isn't crushing these browsers Bill's wet dream?
#undef TIN_FOIL_HAT
It seems to me, that in a reasonable world there would be a way for a lawyer or law enforcement officer to gain access to this information in an effort to halt ongoing distribution of stolen works.
The question should really be: now that this information is in the court record, what are the ways in which it can be made public?
The IPod Flea
Computers can't generate true random numbers...
Right, but wrong.
A pure computational method for generating randomness has not been found...and I'd guess it can't be done.
However, there are a vast number of randomly timed things that happen in a computer. Your mouse movements have some level of randomness, the time between key strokes on your keyboard, etc.
There are ways to harness events which contain levels of randomness and use them to generate truly random numbers. I highly doubt that the ipod firmware really does this...since there are plenty of "random enough" algorithms for such a purpose.
I'll just bet you really wanted to know that too.
Seems to me that the obvious entry point is a new wireless optical mouse with this built in. Then you could buy (or it ships with) a memory unit that the user wears. Poof, instant computer usage...secure password storage, configuration data, small files of any kind.
My two questions are:
1) can I do a multidrop connection. There is precious little detail about whether my cell phone, pda, mp3 player, watch, HUD (hey I can dream) all play together seamlessly. If so this will kick so much ass.
2) IIRC the field surrounding the human body is fairly unique to each person...can it be used as part of a biometric system through such a device. This seems kind of unlikely, but would be an interesting low security id system.
While the solar backlight might be interesting I just can't ignore these
they're just so darn cute.
> > What real computers are currently on the market to compete with this?"
> Out of curiosity, why wouldn't a Mac mini be a 'real computer'?"
Sorry, but I can't let that go. You seem to be attacking parent for implying that the Mac Mini is not a "real computer". Clearly by asking for real computers which compete with it parent is explicitly implying that the Mac Mini is in the same category of competition with these "real computers". Instead of attacking his verbiage, why not answer his question?
SpeedBump
Just out of curosity, can anyone define what the precise difference is between "Fault Tolerance" and "Self Healing"?
Explain to me how any of the failure responses I see discussed in the article or in these discussions qualifies as "Healing"? Almost all fault tolerant systems isolate failing components or programs from the rest of the system (killing rouge processes counts as isolation). Quarantine is not an attempt to heal, it is an attempt to tolerate. Are there actually any non-quarantine "self healing" systems out there today?
I was going to go with:
"Shall we play a game?"
It's difficult to have a principle-based movement when you ignore your principles.
It's difficult to have a useful principle-based movement without substantial movement also.
Why does it never occur to zealots that their chosen nemesis can have any valid reasons for their actions.
Does it ever occur to an open source zealot that maybe there are valid reasons a company can't provide non-binary drivers? Take, for instance, trade secrets. If the company publishes code which clearly describes their specialized process then it is no longer a secret. It is particularly important to protect hardware implementation secrets since they are
1) easilly reverse engineered and
2) difficult to recover engineering NREs to begin with.
What you are advocating is having a company like nvidia pay its engineers to develop new technologies so that other companies can benefit from them. Why would this idea ever appeal to a for profit company?
Please at least try to see the other perspective before condemning it as short sighted and evil. If you can't look at the problem and suggest a workable alternative then maybe you shouldn't be complaining about the current solution.
(NRE == Non-Recurring Expense)
What OS? It should probably be "Schoolnix" .. a custom distribution of some sort...
:)
So if ad-nix mutes your television whenever an advertisement comes on, and preach-nix changes the channel whenever a televangelist starts yapping, what precisely would school-nix do? Bomb the campus?
Don't even get me started on the whole U-nix thing