WMF are not static images. There are a script of the Windows GUI instructions to create the image you see, so they are a program and can have all the problems of a program. This allows.WMF files to be edited by layers and scaled easily.
No. The real difference is that I know who writes a New York Times or Encylopaedia Britannica article but I don't know who writes a Wikepedia article.
Each Wikepedia article needs to have a byline for the author and all those who edited it. The byline needs to have some biographical information and contact information (perhaps through Wikipedia itself) so that I can evaluate the biases of the author before trusting the article.
I have several volumes of the 1911 edition of the Encylopaedia Britannica. Some of the articles are quite biased, looking at things from a euro-centric point of view. But because each article also has the initials of the author and a there is a key at beginning of each volume giving name and short bio of the authors, I can read it with the biases apparent. Wikipedia needs to do the same.
And Stalin really wasn't Russian at all, the country at the time had been taken over by very corrupt leaders.
Well he was born in Gori, Georgia, which is not part of Russia, so his despotism can not be blamed on Russia.
The bomb on Hiroshima may have saved lives. The one on Nagasaki certainly did not and was completely unneccessary. The U.S. should have waited longer than one day for Japan to surrender before attacking Nagasaki. The main reason that Nagasaki seems to have been attacked was that it was the "American" city, the place where the Americans had first settled in the 19th century and the city in Japan with the longest historic ties to the United States. Bombing it said to Japan that the U.S. was willing to do anything to defeat it, even destroy the most American city in Japan.
I think the usefulness of this tool is to help humans to understand what they are saying when they state requirements. One of the most common problems when specifying systems, whether computer or otherwise, is that my understanding of what I say is different from your understanding of what I say.
Just by formalizing a statement, it helps people to see the limitations of the original statemwnt and perhaps the ambiguities. When I have worked on projects that turned out well, it was because the people on the project understood the goals well and the scope was well defined. WHen I have worked on projects that failed, it was because the goals changed at somebody's whim and and the scope continually expanded.
This tool should help people to look at a problem and better understand the goals and scope. It is much higher level than UML, but also produces something that can be formally checked. The very fact it chokes on complex sentences is a benefit not a problem. People often misunderstand complexity without realizing it as well and this will get a that before code is created not after.
C (C##, Java etc.) is the language that has wonky operators, not Pascal. It is just because so many people have grown up with C with its unique precedence structure that Pascal seems wonky.
C# has some nice features like Delphi since it was created by the same person (Anders Hejlsberg) who designed Delphi, but its restriction to CLR means that it does not have the full expressive power of Delphi.
Many of your examples seem to be places where C/C++ allow you to create program errors where VB does not. Yow show many places where you as a bit-picking programmer try to gain nanoseconds at the expense of security and good code. C has a string strage convention that inexorably leads to buffer overflows without significant programmer overhead. A language that automatically checks buffer size won't (and the check is built in to the x86 architecture so has very little overhead).
VB is not a very good language either. Try Delphi as a language that has all the advantages of VB in creating a GUI and has a fast development cycle, while it generates good code and is written in a structure manner that better models the problem with forcing one to program at the bit level for high level problems (say set manipulation) like C/C++.
Wrong. Canada did not become independent in 1867, it just became one colony of four provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) instead of four separate colonies. Its foreign policy was still determined by the United Kingdom and the British appointed Governor-General could strike down any law.
Canada (as well as Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and South Africa) did not become fully independent until 1931 under the Statute of Westminster, in which Britain renounced all of its claims on any Commonwealth "Dominion". Newfoundland later went bankrupt during the depression and reverted to being a colony, which it was until 1949 when it joined Canada as the 10th province.
The pipe shouldn't actually do anything but is mis-interpreted by Internet Explorer. It is the wildcard in the DNS of the phisher site that picks up everything before the last two parts of the domain name. Here is the actual DNS entries for one of those sites
(http://barclays.co.uk|snc9d8ynusktl2wpqxzn1anes89 gi8z.dvdlinKs.at/pgcgc3p/):
This says that http://barclays.co.uk|snc9d8ynusktl2wpqxzn1anes89g i8z.dvdlinKs.at/pgcgc3p/
goes to the kickme.to web site. THis applies to anything replacing the *.
Internet Explorer misreads the | as a network redirect (from NT4) and ignores the rest in URL so people think that they are going to Barclays Bank since that is what shows up in information windows.
What is needed with UML is a way to execcute the design it creates. We need a tool that will parse the UML to generate the relationships between modules, show the data flow and transformations, allow one to make a mockup of forms and trace the consequences of the ranges of values allowed. If UML or any other design language is to be useful in the long term, it needs to be linkable directly to code. So every design change should be easily transferable from UML to code and there should never be the need to change code independently of the UML.
This is difficult at the moment because our programming languages are still too low level. We are enamoured of language constructs that still are at the 1950's level of detail, such as worrying about word length in integers or buffer size for strings. Everybody learns C++ or Java etc. as first languages and from then on feel that they have to program at the level of these languages, only slightly higher than machine code. They force a programmer to break a high level view of the problems into tiny discrete chunks quite unrelated to the actual problem language.
Good compilers exist for functional languages that produce optimized code as fast as C++. Even modern Fortran has more functional programming abilities than C++. We need to see our data as a whole and program for the streams rather than the bits.
The best managers know what the clients really want and how to explain that to the engineers to create it. A manager who is too technically involved ofent makes decisions by what is easiest to do rather than what is best to do. A manager who is not techically competent enoguh makes decisions sole on what ccan be marketed and not what can be economically built.
So the ideal manager has enough competence to avoid bullshit, but is alos aware of her limitations to avoid micro-managing everything. She also should be capable of translating the needs of clients into goals and specifications that create a product that fufills needs, not egos.
Comments that state what the code does are pretty useless, since the code says the same thing.
But comments that state WHY it does what it does are golden. When I read code I need to know the decisions the programmer made so I usnderstand the reasoning behind it.
All variable declarations should be commented to explain what they should contain, the assumed range of values they will hold, and whether they contain local scope values (intermediate results) or values used for a longer term (in a database or file or from user etc.). Names don't have to be sentences, but they should not be cryptic. You are much less likely to make a typo in a word you understand than in a meaningless set of letters.
Clear code is also easier for the compiler to optimize. Reusing variables for different purposes means that the compiler can not optimize the use of the variable away into a register. It neeeds to save it after use so it is available for the second re-use. Names are local to a {} block in C so temporary variables can be optimized away if they only exist within such a block.
Good code is also easy to optimize code.
Ny daughter is taking bioinformatics in University
( Carleton University). In a software development course for biologists, here required language was VB6 becuase that is all the instructor (a biologist) was familiar with.
When I was at U of Waterloo in the late 60's, I read a book called SIMULA Begin that revolutionized my thinking about programs. Instead of of a programmer trying to foresee every possible input to a program and handle it, it showed how to program by having objects interact more like people do with a problem. One looked at a problem by trying to model they way a group of people would handle it by assigning different parts to "specialists". AEach specialist would have certain skills and certain tools and would work on the part that it was best at, keeping track of its own data etc, then passing it on to the next object to further refine the problem. Really revolutionary at the time but obvious today.
Unfortunately I could not get hold of the compiler to play with the language and it was not until 15 years later that there were any freely available languages that had the same power.
The problem is that parts of IE DO run as part of the kernel space, specifically the rendering engine. Being part of the kernel is meaningless on Windows, which is made of a number of separately running processes for each kernel space function. It is running in kernel space that is significant for security problems.
Actually the Windows 2000/XP/2003 CLI comes with command completion for directories and files.
Control-D is directory completion and Control-F is file completion if you add/F:ON to the CMD command when creating the CLI session
As well, one can put multiple commands on a line with &, do conditional commands with || and $$ and extract substrings from variables.
Type help cmd in the CMD box for more information.
Corporate users want a product that is the same across platform, that follow well defined and uniform GUI conventions for the platform on which it is installed and that can be easily supported by their helpdesk/technical staff.
Without a Macintosh GUI version, Open Office fails this and would not be eligible for many companies purchasing requirements. I like Open Office and I have installed it on a number of friends systems, but it needs to have a corporate reputation, not just a geek reputation. As long as Sun/OpenOffice.org does not take the coprorate market seriously, they will lose out to Microsoft, which does.
Microsoft Office was originally developed for the Macintosh (Before it was ported to Windows) so Mac users have been used to the MS Office interface for quite along time (20+ years). Without a Macintosh version using Macintosh interface conventions, Open Office will never be able to replace MS Office in the corporate world.
Yes, most corporate desktops run Windows, but a significant number, mostly in creative areas like advertising and design, use Macs. Engineering might have Solaris/HP Unix workstations, but these groups also have Windows machines for personal use Since both Mac and Windows machines run MS Office, corporations recommend MS Office for cross platform compatibility in any purchase RFP. Without a native Mac version of Open Office, Open Office will be ineligible for use by any corporation that uses Macs.
I, for one, would like the rule to be if you want to come in and get it, it's TAXPAYER OWNED/FUNDED and you can do so.
Since the United States stockpile of nuclear weapons are taxpayer funded, you believe we should all have access to them in our back yard?
The fact that taxpayer's money went into paying for something is completely irrelevant to who should control it. What should be web published is anything that would be public information if not on the web, such as zoning maps, street maps, etc., even land transfer data for land parcels. It should be available at no more than cost price. But somethings, such as layouts of all buildings etc. are not normally freely available, so there is no reason to publish them on the web.
CIBC lost a bundle with Enron and WorldCom with the people starting Genuity being the principal advisors who got CIBC into the mess. They were noted as a bit underhanded while they worked for the bank, so the reputation of the new firm wwould have been a bit weak already. CIBC itself has gone through a corporate manaement shakeup itself because of the actions of these people already so there was a lot of reason to go after them.
Slashdot Mirror
WMF are not static images. There are a script of the Windows GUI instructions to create the image you see, so they are a program and can have all the problems of a program. This allows .WMF files to be edited by layers and scaled easily.
Each Wikepedia article needs to have a byline for the author and all those who edited it. The byline needs to have some biographical information and contact information (perhaps through Wikipedia itself) so that I can evaluate the biases of the author before trusting the article.
I have several volumes of the 1911 edition of the Encylopaedia Britannica. Some of the articles are quite biased, looking at things from a euro-centric point of view. But because each article also has the initials of the author and a there is a key at beginning of each volume giving name and short bio of the authors, I can read it with the biases apparent. Wikipedia needs to do the same.
And Stalin really wasn't Russian at all, the country at the time had been taken over by very corrupt leaders.
Well he was born in Gori, Georgia, which is not part of Russia, so his despotism can not be blamed on Russia.
The bomb on Hiroshima may have saved lives. The one on Nagasaki certainly did not and was completely unneccessary. The U.S. should have waited longer than one day for Japan to surrender before attacking Nagasaki. The main reason that Nagasaki seems to have been attacked was that it was the "American" city, the place where the Americans had first settled in the 19th century and the city in Japan with the longest historic ties to the United States. Bombing it said to Japan that the U.S. was willing to do anything to defeat it, even destroy the most American city in Japan.
Social lubrication: just another word for beer.
cache != cachet
Yes, it was Santa Cruz. I need a memory checker.
Actually they sold it to the Santa Clara Operation, now called SCO. Which is how SCO got into the Unix business and look where that has led.
Just by formalizing a statement, it helps people to see the limitations of the original statemwnt and perhaps the ambiguities. When I have worked on projects that turned out well, it was because the people on the project understood the goals well and the scope was well defined. WHen I have worked on projects that failed, it was because the goals changed at somebody's whim and and the scope continually expanded.
This tool should help people to look at a problem and better understand the goals and scope. It is much higher level than UML, but also produces something that can be formally checked. The very fact it chokes on complex sentences is a benefit not a problem. People often misunderstand complexity without realizing it as well and this will get a that before code is created not after.
C# has some nice features like Delphi since it was created by the same person (Anders Hejlsberg) who designed Delphi, but its restriction to CLR means that it does not have the full expressive power of Delphi.
VB is not a very good language either. Try Delphi as a language that has all the advantages of VB in creating a GUI and has a fast development cycle, while it generates good code and is written in a structure manner that better models the problem with forcing one to program at the bit level for high level problems (say set manipulation) like C/C++.
Canada (as well as Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and South Africa) did not become fully independent until 1931 under the Statute of Westminster, in which Britain renounced all of its claims on any Commonwealth "Dominion". Newfoundland later went bankrupt during the depression and reverted to being a colony, which it was until 1949 when it joined Canada as the 10th province.
This says that http://barclays.co.uk|snc9d8ynusktl2wpqxzn1anes89g i8z.dvdlinKs.at/pgcgc3p/
goes to the kickme.to web site. THis applies to anything replacing the *.
Internet Explorer misreads the | as a network redirect (from NT4) and ignores the rest in URL so people think that they are going to Barclays Bank since that is what shows up in information windows.
This is difficult at the moment because our programming languages are still too low level. We are enamoured of language constructs that still are at the 1950's level of detail, such as worrying about word length in integers or buffer size for strings. Everybody learns C++ or Java etc. as first languages and from then on feel that they have to program at the level of these languages, only slightly higher than machine code. They force a programmer to break a high level view of the problems into tiny discrete chunks quite unrelated to the actual problem language.
Good compilers exist for functional languages that produce optimized code as fast as C++. Even modern Fortran has more functional programming abilities than C++. We need to see our data as a whole and program for the streams rather than the bits.
So the ideal manager has enough competence to avoid bullshit, but is alos aware of her limitations to avoid micro-managing everything. She also should be capable of translating the needs of clients into goals and specifications that create a product that fufills needs, not egos.
But comments that state WHY it does what it does are golden. When I read code I need to know the decisions the programmer made so I usnderstand the reasoning behind it.
All variable declarations should be commented to explain what they should contain, the assumed range of values they will hold, and whether they contain local scope values (intermediate results) or values used for a longer term (in a database or file or from user etc.). Names don't have to be sentences, but they should not be cryptic. You are much less likely to make a typo in a word you understand than in a meaningless set of letters.
Clear code is also easier for the compiler to optimize. Reusing variables for different purposes means that the compiler can not optimize the use of the variable away into a register. It neeeds to save it after use so it is available for the second re-use. Names are local to a {} block in C so temporary variables can be optimized away if they only exist within such a block. Good code is also easy to optimize code.
Imagine trying to get BLAST working with VB!!
Unfortunately I could not get hold of the compiler to play with the language and it was not until 15 years later that there were any freely available languages that had the same power.
The problem is that parts of IE DO run as part of the kernel space, specifically the rendering engine. Being part of the kernel is meaningless on Windows, which is made of a number of separately running processes for each kernel space function. It is running in kernel space that is significant for security problems.
Control-D is directory completion and Control-F is file completion if you add /F:ON to the CMD command when creating the CLI session
As well, one can put multiple commands on a line with &, do conditional commands with || and $$ and extract substrings from variables.
Type help cmd in the CMD box for more information.
Without a Macintosh GUI version, Open Office fails this and would not be eligible for many companies purchasing requirements. I like Open Office and I have installed it on a number of friends systems, but it needs to have a corporate reputation, not just a geek reputation. As long as Sun/OpenOffice.org does not take the coprorate market seriously, they will lose out to Microsoft, which does.
Yes, most corporate desktops run Windows, but a significant number, mostly in creative areas like advertising and design, use Macs. Engineering might have Solaris/HP Unix workstations, but these groups also have Windows machines for personal use Since both Mac and Windows machines run MS Office, corporations recommend MS Office for cross platform compatibility in any purchase RFP. Without a native Mac version of Open Office, Open Office will be ineligible for use by any corporation that uses Macs.
Since the United States stockpile of nuclear weapons are taxpayer funded, you believe we should all have access to them in our back yard?
The fact that taxpayer's money went into paying for something is completely irrelevant to who should control it. What should be web published is anything that would be public information if not on the web, such as zoning maps, street maps, etc., even land transfer data for land parcels. It should be available at no more than cost price. But somethings, such as layouts of all buildings etc. are not normally freely available, so there is no reason to publish them on the web.
CIBC lost a bundle with Enron and WorldCom with the people starting Genuity being the principal advisors who got CIBC into the mess. They were noted as a bit underhanded while they worked for the bank, so the reputation of the new firm wwould have been a bit weak already. CIBC itself has gone through a corporate manaement shakeup itself because of the actions of these people already so there was a lot of reason to go after them.