If I had a nickle for every.doc file I have seen that wasn't a Word document, I'd be rich.
A preamble embedded in the file is a better way to go and even better is to use some sort of universally recognized structure like XML or TLV. Either way, file browsers can read the first few bytes of the file and find out what it really is, instead of trying to guess based on the extension.
As far as compressed files are concerned, 'file' already has a '-z' flag to make it look inside compressed files. This should be expanded to to include gzip'd files etc.
By the way, Microsoft is moving towards embedding information with their CLI Metadata.
A coder knowing the context is a bad thing. His context ends at the public interface and if he needs more information then something is wrong with the design. If he knows more than the public interface spec then he is likely to use that information (consciously or not) and make assumptions about the environment in which his code will run. In the long run, those assumptions will turn out to be wrong and his code will break.
The most productive environment I ever worked thought about the problem and listed the functions that were likely to be useful in creating the application (we were coding in C).
Once the specific functions were identified, it was considered if they weren't instances of more generic functions. If so, then the generic function was substituted as a requirement.
Then people split into pairs and wrote code to implement those functions without regard as to their application. Since we had a prototype statement and everything had to be explicitly passed in and out, we could. Coding in pairs allowed one person to focus on syntax and typing while the other thought about the algorithm and spotted bugs. If a routine turned out to be more than about 50 lines (without comments) it was mostly likely broken into two routines.
Each "finished" routine was then tested rigorously. Inputs which caused failure had to be fixed or at least caught. All the routines were kept in libraries by religiously using make with ar to keep things synch'd.
Only after all the library routines were written did we go back to the application which was now fairly trivial to write. Using these techniques we were able to write as much as 2,000 LOC of bug free C code per pair per day. Typical productivity was more like 500 LOC per pair per day of bug free code.
By bug free I mean relative to normal standards. Obviously we sometimes found a bug but the rate was something like 1 bug per 100,000 lines of code in the first six months of use, or less. Code that had been in use for more than six months had perhaps 1 bug in a million lines of code and that showed up in the first year. Code older than a year didn't provoke any bugs that might have remained.
Think top down then code bottom up, don't make assumptions about contexts, pass everything explicitly, test continuously (especially unit test - consider making it the last step make does when compiling), use good tools like make, RCS/CVS, ar, or whatever analogues apply in your environment.
I am old enough to remember.
Red was more derogatory back then.
It was definitely better dead than Red!
There was hardly a greater insult than to call someone a Commie.
The 60s were very different from today.
For example, most Americans thought that accepting welfare was shameful and an indication of personal failure.
It was also expected that you could travel at will, free of government surveillance.
Employment drug tests would have been unimaginable.
An abortion was thought about in the same sort of way as an attempted suicide.
I also remember segregated facilities and the integration of schools through bussing.
I knew Charlie Smith, a man who had been a slave and who had been freed by Lincoln.
While some things are very much better today (such as race relations and technology), overall I would say that things are not as good as they were.
As a country, today we are very much less free and live in much greater fear largely due to the War on Drugs and the inescapable flow of information.
By "inescapable flow of information" I am talking about the fact that it is now possible to terrify 280M people by putting a report of a neighborhood mugging on CNN.
There is one sort of fear you experience when living in a "duck and cover" society but it is largely impersonal and you trust that "they" will make everything alright in the end.
It is a completely different sort of fear living in a "drug crazed Columbine uni-bomber" sort of society where no one can protect you (or more importantly, your kids) without effectively locking everyone up.
As far as the War on Drugs is concerned, it has been a complete failure.
It has failed to stop the use and distribution of drugs; it has destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives by giving otherwise innocent kids criminal drug records (thereby rendering them largely unemployable); and it has resulted in a police state the likes of which would have been unimaginable in the 60s, even when what was at stake was the possible annihilation of the world.
Having experienced both, I would take a Cold War over a Drug War any day.
I have given up on people getting smarter.
In the case of the Apollo astronauts that is true but it is because they were not returning from an orbital flight.
Therefore, they could graze the Earth and bounce off.
However, in an orbital flight, any contact with the atmosphere reduces your speed which reduces your kinetic energy which lowers your orbit.
I have been to Kazakhstan, my co-workers have been to places like Moscow and Chelyabinsk, I have worked closely with Russians, Bulgarians, Romanians, and Poles here in the U.S.
Without exception, everyone we have had contact with from the USSR/CIS/Eastern Block completely disagrees with your assessment of the US vs. USSR.
While it is true that a few might have been trying to ingratiate themselves with us, I do not believe that 100% of several hundred people would do that.
Also, what we have observed for ourselves when in-country contradicts your conclusions.
A sub-orbital parabola is enough for a Cold War ICBM to hit its target.
According to NASA:
(ICBM) - a strategic weapon whose parabolic trajectory arced into space
If the flight is not sub-orbital, then it's orbital meaning the ICBM makes an orbit of the Earth before landing.
ICBMs go up and come back down as quickly as possible to minimize the warning.
Remember too that the USA and the USSR are not actually 180 degrees apart on the globe in a polar flight.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had a nickle for every .doc file I have seen that wasn't a Word document, I'd be rich.
A preamble embedded in the file is a better way to go and even better is to use some sort of universally recognized structure like XML or TLV. Either way, file browsers can read the first few bytes of the file and find out what it really is, instead of trying to guess based on the extension.
As far as compressed files are concerned, 'file' already has a '-z' flag to make it look inside compressed files. This should be expanded to to include gzip'd files etc.
By the way, Microsoft is moving towards embedding information with their CLI Metadata.
A coder knowing the context is a bad thing. His context ends at the public interface and if he needs more information then something is wrong with the design. If he knows more than the public interface spec then he is likely to use that information (consciously or not) and make assumptions about the environment in which his code will run. In the long run, those assumptions will turn out to be wrong and his code will break.
The most productive environment I ever worked thought about the problem and listed the functions that were likely to be useful in creating the application (we were coding in C).
Once the specific functions were identified, it was considered if they weren't instances of more generic functions. If so, then the generic function was substituted as a requirement.
Then people split into pairs and wrote code to implement those functions without regard as to their application. Since we had a prototype statement and everything had to be explicitly passed in and out, we could. Coding in pairs allowed one person to focus on syntax and typing while the other thought about the algorithm and spotted bugs. If a routine turned out to be more than about 50 lines (without comments) it was mostly likely broken into two routines.
Each "finished" routine was then tested rigorously. Inputs which caused failure had to be fixed or at least caught. All the routines were kept in libraries by religiously using make with ar to keep things synch'd.
Only after all the library routines were written did we go back to the application which was now fairly trivial to write. Using these techniques we were able to write as much as 2,000 LOC of bug free C code per pair per day. Typical productivity was more like 500 LOC per pair per day of bug free code.
By bug free I mean relative to normal standards. Obviously we sometimes found a bug but the rate was something like 1 bug per 100,000 lines of code in the first six months of use, or less. Code that had been in use for more than six months had perhaps 1 bug in a million lines of code and that showed up in the first year. Code older than a year didn't provoke any bugs that might have remained.
Think top down then code bottom up, don't make assumptions about contexts, pass everything explicitly, test continuously (especially unit test - consider making it the last step make does when compiling), use good tools like make, RCS/CVS, ar, or whatever analogues apply in your environment.
Read The Hacker's Diet by John Walker (of Autodesk fame).
Smart is smart and Woz is smart. Only the details of the technology have changed.
Obviously he wouldn't use TTL today, the same way he didn't use vacuum tubes back then.
I am old enough to remember. Red was more derogatory back then. It was definitely better dead than Red! There was hardly a greater insult than to call someone a Commie.
The 60s were very different from today. For example, most Americans thought that accepting welfare was shameful and an indication of personal failure. It was also expected that you could travel at will, free of government surveillance. Employment drug tests would have been unimaginable. An abortion was thought about in the same sort of way as an attempted suicide.
I also remember segregated facilities and the integration of schools through bussing. I knew Charlie Smith, a man who had been a slave and who had been freed by Lincoln.
While some things are very much better today (such as race relations and technology), overall I would say that things are not as good as they were. As a country, today we are very much less free and live in much greater fear largely due to the War on Drugs and the inescapable flow of information.
By "inescapable flow of information" I am talking about the fact that it is now possible to terrify 280M people by putting a report of a neighborhood mugging on CNN. There is one sort of fear you experience when living in a "duck and cover" society but it is largely impersonal and you trust that "they" will make everything alright in the end. It is a completely different sort of fear living in a "drug crazed Columbine uni-bomber" sort of society where no one can protect you (or more importantly, your kids) without effectively locking everyone up.
As far as the War on Drugs is concerned, it has been a complete failure. It has failed to stop the use and distribution of drugs; it has destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives by giving otherwise innocent kids criminal drug records (thereby rendering them largely unemployable); and it has resulted in a police state the likes of which would have been unimaginable in the 60s, even when what was at stake was the possible annihilation of the world.
Having experienced both, I would take a Cold War over a Drug War any day. I have given up on people getting smarter.
In the case of the Apollo astronauts that is true but it is because they were not returning from an orbital flight. Therefore, they could graze the Earth and bounce off. However, in an orbital flight, any contact with the atmosphere reduces your speed which reduces your kinetic energy which lowers your orbit.
You are quite right as a quick search on Google will show. For example, see this link.
I have been to Kazakhstan, my co-workers have been to places like Moscow and Chelyabinsk, I have worked closely with Russians, Bulgarians, Romanians, and Poles here in the U.S. Without exception , everyone we have had contact with from the USSR/CIS/Eastern Block completely disagrees with your assessment of the US vs. USSR. While it is true that a few might have been trying to ingratiate themselves with us, I do not believe that 100% of several hundred people would do that. Also, what we have observed for ourselves when in-country contradicts your conclusions.
A sub-orbital parabola is enough for a Cold War ICBM to hit its target. According to NASA:
If the flight is not sub-orbital, then it's orbital meaning the ICBM makes an orbit of the Earth before landing. ICBMs go up and come back down as quickly as possible to minimize the warning. Remember too that the USA and the USSR are not actually 180 degrees apart on the globe in a polar flight.