After the way she/they screwed up the Battlestar Galactica revival I seriously doubt anyone on the Sci-Fi channels staff is worth keeping around. The Farscape hyjinx is just the tip of the iceberg.
If you can find the right distribution channel, you could create a good app and then sell it for $5 to $10 a pop on a cd at the CompUSA checkout lane.
If the app is well-done, you get a good reputation, more money, and an expanding business. Because your starting out with a single app on a cheap CD, you can focus your resources and save alot of money.
"Low level numeric computation" could involve different problems of it's own though. Is it suppose to be done in real-time, on an embedded system, on a cluster or supercomputer, etc... These issues would influence what tool I use. Perhaps a more accurate question(one with many more possible responses) would be "Which compiler is best for the job." I've rewritten a couple of my own Fortran90 libs into Ada95 using the OpenRavenscar profile, because they were to be used on a Real-Time system. There was nothing wrong(that I was aware of) with the F90 versions of the libs, just that the language/compiler didn't have the kind of safety/security features I needed for the port. The performance on the real-time system(Lynx OS in particular) was actually better than if I had used the F90 code, BUT when running the Ada code on my FreeBSD general purpose workstation the F90 code blew the Ada code away. So, even when talking about low level computation, there are still many variables(pun) to take into consideration when performance is a concern.
If one was only talking about number crunching with no strings attached, I would say Fortran90.
Different languages have different strengths and weaknesses. I use Fortran, C, Ada95, and Ocaml interchangeably for different tasks. Often times linking the object files into a single executable. Fortran, designed for mathematics and engineering, obviously excels at that job. You might want to consider writing the "intensive" parts of your application in Fortran and then linking it with modules written in another language such as C or Ada. I've found that C is perfect for handling the I/O routines for such apps, but my Ada libs are ideal for doing memory managment and when the code outgrows the practical limitations imposed by Fortran.(Note: Interfaces.C and Interfaces.Fortran). Likewise Ocaml tends to fit around anything with a minimum of hassle. Of course, this is just a subjective evaluation derived from my own experiences. However I would encourage you to experiment to find the combination that works best for you. As we all should know "Theres more than one way to do it."
I'm sorry if this post seems somewhat vague, but it would be rather hypocritical of me to outright prescribe a certain language or tool when I personally have a tendency to float around and use whatever tool is most convenient.
I see this as both a Republican and Democratic problem.
Take note that this whole stock bubble nonsense was occuring during the reign of the Clinton administration. Clinton actually took credit for that farce of a bull market. They turned the other way just the same as the Bush administration.
You cannot play pin the tail on the party when both parties are EQUALLY responsible for this whole mess.
A "user-interface" is effective if it matches the intended purpose of the application.
Television remote controls which require a CS degree to operate are absurd. However users who expect thier PC to fire up and operate by means of telepathy are equally absurd.
That's the trade off.
I've often times watched office workers switch on thier "workstation" and spend an hour trying to figure out how to compose an email. The interface is simple, write your letter in the big white box, put the email address in the little box that says address, and click that fat-ass button up on top that says "Send". After I explain these little trivialities to them I get to watch thier face light up when they comprehend that "Send" actually sends the message. This indicates to me that the user is intellectually lazy, or just plain stupid.(As if theres much of a difference.) The only conclusion I can draw is that end-users(as far as Office applications go) are trained to see thier computers as magic talismans that are supposed to read thier mind and magically know whats supposed to be done. Hence the users dont bother to excercise the reasoning that says "To print my document, I click the button labled 'Print'." I really dont know how to turn thier minds back on again.(They really are smart people.) Perhaps a psychologist would be better suited to this analysis then I.
On the other hand, if someone tried to sell me a remote control, or a walkman with the complexity of some Office Applications, I would beat them senseless.
However, for me, it's not the theory that's extrordinary, but the idea some have that such a thing is actually feasible with current technology. Note the "Lifter" experimenters mentioned a while ago on Slashdot. So the idea itself is not outlandish.
The problem is that it takes a ton of juice to get any of these experiments to produce anything near verifiable proof that it works, if such a thing is even possible. Until they solve the power problems, most of these ideas are going to remain stuck on papers and chalkboards.
Actually, I beleive it was Mir that reported some sort of fungus growing on the OUTSIDE of the station a while ago.
Although this may certainly be an exception to the rule, it would seem to indicate that it might take more than just the vacum of space to sterilize a surface.
Basically I had a two day seminar for a group of ten people at a small office. It was informal. I was asked to do the seminar by a relative who works there and knows that I "know alot about computer stuff".(I'm basically semi-professional who does alot of hacking in his spare time.)
First I did in an initial informal "interview" with a few of the people that were interested to get a general idea of where thier "comfort zone" was with computers in general. Most of them ranked somewhere between clueless and intermediate clueless. They thought that essentially a computer equals Windows/Office. So I set a shock therapy presentation for the introduction.
I set up a PC running Windows with Office, a Mac with Office, and a Linux PC running Star Office side by side on the same presentation table. In front of the group where everyone could see. And I used that presentation medium to communicate the fundementals of "computing" if you will. i.e. "What is a 'file'?", "What is a directory?", "What is a hard disk?", etc... And I showed them the similarities on each platform. Slowly, and patiently, expanding thier ability to learn on thier own. By the second day they were asking me how to write bash scripts to automate thier print jobs and database apps.(Of course I directed them to some good online sources on using Bash, writing Windows Batch files, Perl, Python, and a few others.) They actually started experimenting for themselves. I think it was the first taste of the real benefit of automating stuff that got them going.
So a couple weeks go by, and I get call from the office manager asking me to come in and do a larger presentation. I guess those initial ten folks had increased thier "productivity" by a factor of five. What used to take several hours of meticulous manual transcribing by one guy was cut down to about five minutes using a crude script that he concocted. Now he had more time to play on the golf course. He now runs an Mac OSX workstation next to his Windows PC. Says he likes the OSX platform better because it looks "neater" and runs his "scripts" better.(My god, what have I done?!)
Anyways...I think the most effective way to get users to switch to a new platform is to give them ability to pick up the nuances of the platform quickly and on thier own, by getting them familiar with the fundementals of almost all platforms. Once that's accomplished, then you can switch between most any platform with little more than a hiccup.
I realise your post was an attempt at humor, but it does raise an interesting point.
There are alot of naysayers echoing this sentiment. i.e. Those who view space exploration as a waste of capital. However the thing they fail to realize(and something that should be pointed out to them) is that space exploration could be the very thing that solves(or at least takes us a long way to solving) the very problems they frequently site as being reasons for not investing in space exploration. In the short term we could solve many energy problems(though certainly not all of them). It's likely low to zero G's would be very helpful in the manufacturing of new materials for industry(in fact in a couple of cases the evidence is very strong in this regard. i.e. Certain types of fuel refining.) In the long term we would be opening up a new frontier to deal with the "population explosion". In fact, in some ways it's safer to build a habitat in space than on or under the ocean(as others have proposed.)
These are just a few of the reasons why I beleive this bill, and others like it, should be supported. It might be just a drop in the bucket, but it might also be a big enough boost to finally spark at least a little serious public sector investment in this field. There are players out there already in the wings waiting for the chance to break through the beuracratic(sp?) stone wall that's been in place all these years.
Maybe I'm just piping hot air, but this seems like a reasonable step at this point in our techno/societal evolution.
It would seem to make sense that the only time a developer could be held responsible is if they were directly selling(ala shareware perhaps) thier work.
A money transaction would be in effect a signing of a contract. If the recieving party did not pay the developer directly for the software, then the developer could not be held accountable.
This would, however, put additional pressure on companies such as Red Hat and others that distribute Open systems such as thier Linux distributions to do more thorough audits of thier products.
And personally, I like the idea that coders would be given an incentive to become actual developers and maybe even software engineers rather than the current horde of jacked(caffinated) up monkeys we currently have in the industry.
"The more though sweateth in training, the less though bleedeth in combat."
Frankly, I'm tired of this company. They've given up thier right to exist as far as I'm concerned. Since revoking the charter is the equivalent of the Death Penalty for Corporations, I say let 'em have it.
Of course it wont happen until MS decides they want to rape the populace really good.
It's gonna be fun watching all those poor bastards who use MS products being forced to bend over and submit to the corporate masters. I'm gonna laugh in thier faces. After all, we told ya so.
I know, I'm a mean bastard. Just that theres something gratifying about watching someone suffer because they were too arrogant or deliberately ignorant to listen to you in the first place.
Ada95 has supported all these features, both staticly and dynamicly, for the last six years. 20 years if you consider Ada83 before that.
People keep fiddling with this Java/C#/language dejour bullshit for safety critical systems, when theres already a tool out there(Ada95) that does 100 times what these other tools only grasp at.
Hey, C,C++,Java, et... are all nice tools, but for the love of G-d, dont write anything critical using them.
Fully object oriented, if youre platform has a Validated Ada95 compiler, your software will compile and run across platforms.
Just like Java, only it compiles to a native executable and runs about 20 times faster.
Not to mention the oodles of reliability and maintenance features built right into the language.
And the Interfaces.C libs make interfacing with C++ a cinch.
I write cross platform apps with C++ all the time, but for building portable and reliable libraries, nothing has come close to Ada95.
Blah, blah, blahhhhh... Just my personal opinion. It really has saved me alot of time and hassle though.
Good luck on your project.
http://www.adapower.com
comp.lang.ada
Mcdoobie
Obligatory Radsoft mention.
on
Tiny Apps
·
· Score: 1
Another great site for tiny apps(although not exactly free) is www.radsoft.net
These guys have replaced Windows Explorer with an app called X-File thats less than 14kb. ElPlayo-X(an mp3 jukebox) runs under 10kb.
Check it out. It's worth the visit, even if just for thier "charming" articles assessing(sp?) current trends in Windows and Linux.(Despite the fact that they develope on Windows, thier not exactly fond of the platform, to say the least.)
Ever since the DOS days, Watcom has been one of my favorite vendors. Thier compiler produces excellent i386 code.
I, for one, wouldn't have any problem paying for thier products for my Linux endeavors. Furthermore, I hope to submite some of my own little improvements for review over time.(Like perhaps backend support for the GNU Ada compiler.)
Anyways, if Watcom isn't too Anal about working with the Open Source and Free Software communities, we could really take this software a long way.
I would also encourage people to actually purchase thier product also. They really are worth it.
So there are dozens of different Cert courses out there on the market, A+ being one of them.
As someone who is thoroughly grounded in the basics of Linux and Networking, but is not yet "guru" enough to be considered an expert, what is a worthwile Certification to persue so as to get my foot in the door as an entry level grunt?
i.e. Someone who assists the company gurus by handling the menial tasks that they have no interest in dealing with.
At least by starting out as a grunt, I can learn first hand from the company gurus where I should be directing my studies.
Any senior gurus here on Slashdot wanna give me/us some insight as to what you would be looking for in an entry level grunt?
Either system kinda gives me the creeps, as the reputations of both companies seem to be on a similar plank.(At least in Open Source circles).
However, Sun at least has the experience and know how to develope a system like this, and their claims about privacy at least appear to be a bit more realistic than Microsofts.
However Sun has a tendency to weazel around things, sometimes with even more cunning than Microsoft.
If Open Sourcers were to evaluate it and give it a sort of green light, I might be inclined to use it. If IBM were to work with the system as well, then that would be a definite plus in my book.(Fat chance of IBM supporting anything done by Sun.) But who knows, one finds strange bedfellows when opposing the so called "evil empire".(Hype added.)
So I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not. What are some specifics I should look for when deciding whether or not to use a system like this?
Slashdot Mirror
After the way she/they screwed up the Battlestar Galactica revival I seriously doubt anyone on the Sci-Fi channels staff is worth keeping around.
.02 worth.
The Farscape hyjinx is just the tip of the iceberg.
Just my
Need I say more?
If you can find the right distribution channel, you could create a good app and then sell it for $5 to $10 a pop on a cd at the CompUSA checkout lane.
If the app is well-done, you get a good reputation, more money, and an expanding business. Because your starting out with a single app on a cheap CD, you can focus your resources and save alot of money.
Of course, that's they way I might do it.
McDoobie
See my response to the AC post above.
I should have said "I use them both interchangeably and for different distinct tasks."
Too much caffiene sometimes causes my fingers to get ahead of my brain.
NiCad
Good point.
"Low level numeric computation" could involve different problems of it's own though. Is it suppose to be done in real-time, on an embedded system, on a cluster or supercomputer, etc...
These issues would influence what tool I use. Perhaps a more accurate question(one with many more possible responses) would be "Which compiler is best for the job."
I've rewritten a couple of my own Fortran90 libs into Ada95 using the OpenRavenscar profile, because they were to be used on a Real-Time system. There was nothing wrong(that I was aware of) with the F90 versions of the libs, just that the language/compiler didn't have the kind of safety/security features I needed for the port. The performance on the real-time system(Lynx OS in particular) was actually better than if I had used the F90 code, BUT when running the Ada code on my FreeBSD general purpose workstation the F90 code blew the Ada code away.
So, even when talking about low level computation, there are still many variables(pun) to take into consideration when performance is a concern.
If one was only talking about number crunching with no strings attached, I would say Fortran90.
NiCad
Different languages have different strengths and weaknesses. I use Fortran, C, Ada95, and Ocaml interchangeably for different tasks. Often times linking the object files into a single executable.
Fortran, designed for mathematics and engineering, obviously excels at that job. You might want to consider writing the "intensive" parts of your application in Fortran and then linking it with modules written in another language such as C or Ada.
I've found that C is perfect for handling the I/O routines for such apps, but my Ada libs are ideal for doing memory managment and when the code outgrows the practical limitations imposed by Fortran.(Note: Interfaces.C and Interfaces.Fortran).
Likewise Ocaml tends to fit around anything with a minimum of hassle.
Of course, this is just a subjective evaluation derived from my own experiences. However I would encourage you to experiment to find the combination that works best for you. As we all should know "Theres more than one way to do it."
I'm sorry if this post seems somewhat vague, but it would be rather hypocritical of me to outright prescribe a certain language or tool when I personally have a tendency to float around and use whatever tool is most convenient.
NiCad
I see this as both a Republican and Democratic problem.
Take note that this whole stock bubble nonsense was occuring during the reign of the Clinton administration. Clinton actually took credit for that farce of a bull market. They turned the other way just the same as the Bush administration.
You cannot play pin the tail on the party when both parties are EQUALLY responsible for this whole mess.
NiCad
A "user-interface" is effective if it matches the intended purpose of the application.
.02 worth.
Television remote controls which require a CS degree to operate are absurd. However users who expect thier PC to fire up and operate by means of telepathy are equally absurd.
That's the trade off.
I've often times watched office workers switch on thier "workstation" and spend an hour trying to figure out how to compose an email. The interface is simple, write your letter in the big white box, put the email address in the little box that says address, and click that fat-ass button up on top that says "Send". After I explain these little trivialities to them I get to watch thier face light up when they comprehend that "Send" actually sends the message.
This indicates to me that the user is intellectually lazy, or just plain stupid.(As if theres much of a difference.)
The only conclusion I can draw is that end-users(as far as Office applications go) are trained to see thier computers as magic talismans that are supposed to read thier mind and magically know whats supposed to be done. Hence the users dont bother to excercise the reasoning that says "To print my document, I click the button labled 'Print'."
I really dont know how to turn thier minds back on again.(They really are smart people.) Perhaps a psychologist would be better suited to this analysis then I.
On the other hand, if someone tried to sell me a remote control, or a walkman with the complexity of some Office Applications, I would beat them senseless.
My
McDoobie
I concur.
However, for me, it's not the theory that's extrordinary, but the idea some have that such a thing is actually feasible with current technology. Note the "Lifter" experimenters mentioned a while ago on Slashdot.
So the idea itself is not outlandish.
The problem is that it takes a ton of juice to get any of these experiments to produce anything near verifiable proof that it works, if such a thing is even possible.
Until they solve the power problems, most of these ideas are going to remain stuck on papers and chalkboards.
Good luck to the experimenters.
Actually, I beleive it was Mir that reported some sort of fungus growing on the OUTSIDE of the station a while ago.
Although this may certainly be an exception to the rule, it would seem to indicate that it might take more than just the vacum of space to sterilize a surface.
McDoobie
Basically I had a two day seminar for a group of ten people at a small office. It was informal. I was asked to do the seminar by a relative who works there and knows that I "know alot about computer stuff".(I'm basically semi-professional who does alot of hacking in his spare time.)
First I did in an initial informal "interview" with a few of the people that were interested to get a general idea of where thier "comfort zone" was with computers in general.
Most of them ranked somewhere between clueless and intermediate clueless. They thought that essentially a computer equals Windows/Office. So I set a shock therapy presentation for the introduction.
I set up a PC running Windows with Office, a Mac with Office, and a Linux PC running Star Office side by side on the same presentation table. In front of the group where everyone could see. And I used that presentation medium to communicate the fundementals of "computing" if you will. i.e. "What is a 'file'?", "What is a directory?", "What is a hard disk?", etc... And I showed them the similarities on each platform. Slowly, and patiently, expanding thier ability to learn on thier own.
By the second day they were asking me how to write bash scripts to automate thier print jobs and database apps.(Of course I directed them to some good online sources on using Bash, writing Windows Batch files, Perl, Python, and a few others.)
They actually started experimenting for themselves. I think it was the first taste of the real benefit of automating stuff that got them going.
So a couple weeks go by, and I get call from the office manager asking me to come in and do a larger presentation. I guess those initial ten folks had increased thier "productivity" by a factor of five. What used to take several hours of meticulous manual transcribing by one guy was cut down to about five minutes using a crude script that he concocted. Now he had more time to play on the golf course. He now runs an Mac OSX workstation next to his Windows PC. Says he likes the OSX platform better because it looks "neater" and runs his "scripts" better.(My god, what have I done?!)
Anyways...I think the most effective way to get users to switch to a new platform is to give them ability to pick up the nuances of the platform quickly and on thier own, by getting them familiar with the fundementals of almost all platforms. Once that's accomplished, then you can switch between most any platform with little more than a hiccup.
I realise your post was an attempt at humor, but it does raise an interesting point.
There are alot of naysayers echoing this sentiment. i.e. Those who view space exploration as a waste of capital.
However the thing they fail to realize(and something that should be pointed out to them) is that space exploration could be the very thing that solves(or at least takes us a long way to solving) the very problems they frequently site as being reasons for not investing in space exploration.
In the short term we could solve many energy problems(though certainly not all of them). It's likely low to zero G's would be very helpful in the manufacturing of new materials for industry(in fact in a couple of cases the evidence is very strong in this regard. i.e. Certain types of fuel refining.)
In the long term we would be opening up a new frontier to deal with the "population explosion". In fact, in some ways it's safer to build a habitat in space than on or under the ocean(as others have proposed.)
These are just a few of the reasons why I beleive this bill, and others like it, should be supported. It might be just a drop in the bucket, but it might also be a big enough boost to finally spark at least a little serious public sector investment in this field. There are players out there already in the wings waiting for the chance to break through the beuracratic(sp?) stone wall that's been in place all these years.
Maybe I'm just piping hot air, but this seems like a reasonable step at this point in our techno/societal evolution.
McDoobie
...a sig is a sig is a sig
Ada95 has had fully compliant compilers(plural) since at least 1995.(When it was Internationally standardized.)
Java has at least a coherent standard. And Common Lisp has been there for almost 20 years now.
It's funny to watch the members of the C/C++ Gestapo wet thier pants over this. I bet Bjorne is doing a double-take right about now.
For an OS thats supposedly easy to use, why should I have to go through all that B.S. just to remove something I never asked for in the first place?
People who have too much time on thier hands.
I've been working on my own network "kernel" for about two months now, using the Ada Glade Distributed Systems Annex.
It's like everytime I think I've thought of something original, I find out that someone else has already thought of it.
Nonethless, I outta post up my project on sourceforge, if only for the novelty value.
Would anyone here be interested in working on a Distributed Systems kernel?
It would seem to make sense that the only time a developer could be held responsible is if they were directly selling(ala shareware perhaps) thier work.
A money transaction would be in effect a signing of a contract. If the recieving party did not pay the developer directly for the software, then the developer could not be held accountable.
This would, however, put additional pressure on companies such as Red Hat and others that distribute Open systems such as thier Linux distributions to do more thorough audits of thier products.
And personally, I like the idea that coders would be given an incentive to become actual developers and maybe even software engineers rather than the current horde of jacked(caffinated) up monkeys we currently have in the industry.
"The more though sweateth in training, the less though bleedeth in combat."
McDoobie
They can have the MS Corporate Charter revoked.
Frankly, I'm tired of this company. They've given up thier right to exist as far as I'm concerned. Since revoking the charter is the equivalent of the Death Penalty for Corporations, I say let 'em have it.
Of course it wont happen until MS decides they want to rape the populace really good.
It's gonna be fun watching all those poor bastards who use MS products being forced to bend over and submit to the corporate masters. I'm gonna laugh in thier faces. After all, we told ya so.
I know, I'm a mean bastard. Just that theres something gratifying about watching someone suffer because they were too arrogant or deliberately ignorant to listen to you in the first place.
Happy Holidays!
Cheerio
McDoobie
Ada95 has supported all these features, both staticly and dynamicly, for the last six years. 20 years if you consider Ada83 before that.
People keep fiddling with this Java/C#/language dejour bullshit for safety critical systems, when theres already a tool out there(Ada95) that does 100 times what these other tools only grasp at.
Hey, C,C++,Java, et... are all nice tools, but for the love of G-d, dont write anything critical using them.
http://www.adapower.com
comp.lang.ada
http://www.adaic.org
Fully object oriented, if youre platform has a Validated Ada95 compiler, your software will compile and run across platforms.
Just like Java, only it compiles to a native executable and runs about 20 times faster.
Not to mention the oodles of reliability and maintenance features built right into the language.
And the Interfaces.C libs make interfacing with C++ a cinch.
I write cross platform apps with C++ all the time, but for building portable and reliable libraries, nothing has come close to Ada95.
Blah, blah, blahhhhh... Just my personal opinion. It really has saved me alot of time and hassle though.
Good luck on your project.
http://www.adapower.com
comp.lang.ada
Mcdoobie
Another great site for tiny apps(although not exactly free) is www.radsoft.net
.02 worth
These guys have replaced Windows Explorer with an app called X-File thats less than 14kb. ElPlayo-X(an mp3 jukebox) runs under 10kb.
Check it out. It's worth the visit, even if just for thier "charming" articles assessing(sp?) current trends in Windows and Linux.(Despite the fact that they develope on Windows, thier not exactly fond of the platform, to say the least.)
My
McDoobie
Ever since the DOS days, Watcom has been one of my favorite vendors. Thier compiler produces excellent i386 code.
.02 worth
I, for one, wouldn't have any problem paying for thier products for my Linux endeavors. Furthermore, I hope to submite some of my own little improvements for review over time.(Like perhaps backend support for the GNU Ada compiler.)
Anyways, if Watcom isn't too Anal about working with the Open Source and Free Software communities, we could really take this software a long way.
I would also encourage people to actually purchase thier product also. They really are worth it.
My
McDoobie
So there are dozens of different Cert courses out there on the market, A+ being one of them.
As someone who is thoroughly grounded in the basics of Linux and Networking, but is not yet "guru" enough to be considered an expert, what is a worthwile Certification to persue so as to get my foot in the door as an entry level grunt?
i.e. Someone who assists the company gurus by handling the menial tasks that they have no interest in dealing with.
At least by starting out as a grunt, I can learn first hand from the company gurus where I should be directing my studies.
Any senior gurus here on Slashdot wanna give me/us some insight as to what you would be looking for in an entry level grunt?
McDoobie
Bill Gates or Scott McNealy?
.02 worth.
Sun or Microsoft?
Blah or Blah?
Either system kinda gives me the creeps, as the reputations of both companies seem to be on a similar plank.(At least in Open Source circles).
However, Sun at least has the experience and know how to develope a system like this, and their claims about privacy at least appear to be a bit more realistic than Microsofts.
However Sun has a tendency to weazel around things, sometimes with even more cunning than Microsoft.
If Open Sourcers were to evaluate it and give it a sort of green light, I might be inclined to use it. If IBM were to work with the system as well, then that would be a definite plus in my book.(Fat chance of IBM supporting anything done by Sun.) But who knows, one finds strange bedfellows when opposing the so called "evil empire".(Hype added.)
So I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not. What are some specifics I should look for when deciding whether or not to use a system like this?
For what thier worth, that's my
McDoobie
until we here the words "Oh boy."?
I know, I really do know....everyone IS a smartass.
McDoobie