I'll go out on a limb here and what we are really talking about is sofware quality. This Aspect oriented programming seeks to improve software quality. OO did over procedural designs by introducing concepts like encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism.
I agree with you that it would be good to have this "aspect" or role quality rolled into the language rather than requiring manual construction.
I disagree, though, that repetative processes, in themselves, are bad. Some repetative processes are bad, others are good. There is a wide grey line between the good and bad too, which is worth a long discussion. But I won't get into buzzword bingo, developers edition here.
I've never heard of it either, but I'm suspicious of things that claim to be The next big methodology.
From what the reviewer talked about with A types, B types and C types, it sounds a whole lot like roles and the delegation design pattern.
Agree? Disagree?
You challenged my proposal for a way to prevent spoofing, yet you never supplied a valid arguement supporting that challenge.
Although, I do agree with you that preventing spoofing will not stop all spam, but will make it more costly for those who engage in it legally.
Because it requires some level of tracking, any system to hinder spoofing is going to require more resources than current email implementations. I'm no expert in smtp. Does smtp contain specifications to prevent spoofing? Is there anything being talked about to prevent spoofing?
True for our current system, but what about a system where the message is sent and the receiving mail server asks the sender "did you send this?" and the recipient's mail server only sends it to the recipient if the verification if confirmed?
To Quote a section of the Yahoo article: From a scientific perspective, we can definitively say that brain fingerprinting could have substantial benefits in identifying terrorists or in exonerating people accused of being terrorists," Farwell said"
My wife and I saw the first MIB in the theater in Springfield, MO. One scene that stands out was when Zed said "Thank you gentlemen, you are everything we have come to expect from years of government training." We were the only two in the room to laugh. We got some funny looks too.
From what I've seen and heard coming out of hollywood recently. I'm going to save my money and wait for LOTR II.
when working with relatively new parts of APIs, determining whether something is a bug or a "feature". My current one is with Xerces SAX parsing. I'm trying to validate a filtering package we've developed (by undoing the changes and doing diffs), but the #IMPLIED values from the DTD creep into the attributes of the output, even though the feature "http://xml.org/sax/features/namespace-prefixes" is set to false. The org.xml.sax.Attributes interface incidates that the implied attributes should NOT be in the parsed output, but it is. So I'm searching the web for docs on this and digging into the Xerces SAX source to see what gives.
Is your motivation money only? Are you otherwise happy with your position?
I really think that whether or not you accept a counter offer depends on the nature of the company you work for. If you think that the belief system of the company is based around these ideas, then maybe it would be best not to stay. I have issues with almost all of these points. These points are based on a cut-throat enviroment based on suspision and distrust. I have found that this is generally *not* the case in an enviromnent where the company's success is dependant on creative and happy employees.
I don't know anyone who wants to work for boss pinhead. But If you don't have a corporate environment based on suspicion and distrust, then I don't see that accepting a counter offer under the following conditions would be all that bad: 1. Did you *ask* for a raise or promotion? If not, then you don't know 2. are you generally happy where you are working? 3. are you advancing your career reasonably? 4. how do you get along with your co-workers? your bosses?
these are some simple metrics. The decision is of course based on a good deal of factors.
Granted it would be hard to duplicate the browsing experience (It is a rare treat I seldom enjoy), but many of my friends pass books around. This way, I've read books I normally either would pass up, or just not know about. In the same respects, online communities bring titles and authors to the attention of their members. In a way, one could see the referal systems like this as a secondary form of "browsing", and a primary form of finding books out of the mainstream for those who don't have to ability or the time to "browse the used bookstore aisles"
Regarding the cnet review, on the win xp benchmarks page, it seems that the caffeinemark gives ie 6 a 100% performance, while its three results where 22-46-22 (hmm, those numbers could be obscene too, but I digress;) which are *nowhere* near 100%
Look at the first 2 tiers of the 3 tier enterprise architecture: web server tier, business logic tier, and database tier.
As I understand it this is how it works:
The web server tier should be stateless and perform operations quickly. For this reason it scales horizontally, that is, you scale it up in performance by adding more equivalent machines.
The business logic tier is stateful and/or it takes a significant amount of time to crunch data for output to the web server tier. For this reason it scales vertically, that is, you want to add more processors/and or memory to each machine in this tier. This is where the "big iron" can come into play, to scale the business tier vertically. Because, it is programmatically easier to add more raw power to one machine to statefully crunch the data, than try to distribute the state machine across multiple systems.
Thanks for clarifying that, programcsharp. I did not think that the abbreviation would be confused with the paranormal acronym, but then, I should realize that english is not the primary language to many/. readers. Now, having said that, about ESP as in extra sensory perception, this could really be something, but I just don't see it happening until they hammer out the nasty details of MRML.
Seriously, if you are looking to get her something that she can't afford on her own, may I suggest a pda? I sure wish I had one, esp to remind me of my projects and homework due.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll go out on a limb here and what we are really talking about is sofware quality. This Aspect oriented programming seeks to improve software quality. OO did over procedural designs by introducing concepts like encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism.
I agree with you that it would be good to have this "aspect" or role quality rolled into the language rather than requiring manual construction.
I disagree, though, that repetative processes, in themselves, are bad. Some repetative processes are bad, others are good.
There is a wide grey line between the good and bad too, which is worth a long discussion.
But I won't get into buzzword bingo, developers edition here.
I've never heard of it either, but I'm suspicious of things that claim to be The next big methodology.
From what the reviewer talked about with A types, B types and C types, it sounds a whole lot like roles and the delegation design pattern.
Agree? Disagree?
Taking that line, MS can "borrow" AOL's ad campaign,
"Windows 2kX, the most secure Windows yet!"
You mean people use something besides google?
You challenged my proposal for a way to prevent spoofing, yet you never supplied a valid arguement supporting that challenge.
Although, I do agree with you that preventing spoofing will not stop all spam, but will make it more costly for those who engage in it legally.
Because it requires some level of tracking, any system to hinder spoofing is going to require more resources than current email implementations. I'm no expert in smtp. Does smtp contain specifications to prevent spoofing? Is there anything being talked about to prevent spoofing?
True for our current system, but what about a system where the message is sent and the receiving mail server asks the sender "did you send this?"
and the recipient's mail server only sends it to the recipient if the verification if confirmed?
Agreed. Question: Aren't the /. editors supposed to review the article postings for content, quality, and /or redundancy before publishing them?
Oh, wait, what am I saying?
that 150 was referring to Euros, not dollars.
And here I always thought it was "hokey-pokey".
Obligatory This is a good thing?
To Quote a section of the Yahoo article:
From a scientific perspective, we can definitively say that brain fingerprinting could have substantial benefits in identifying terrorists or in exonerating people accused of being terrorists," Farwell said"
Sounds like a definite maybe?
My wife and I saw the first MIB in the theater in Springfield, MO.
One scene that stands out was when Zed said "Thank you gentlemen, you are everything we have come to expect from years of government training." We were the only two in the room to laugh. We got some funny looks too.
From what I've seen and heard coming out of hollywood recently. I'm going to save my money and wait for LOTR II.
They were inspired by watching CHUD
when working with relatively new parts of APIs, determining whether something is a bug or a "feature".
My current one is with Xerces SAX parsing.
I'm trying to validate a filtering package we've developed (by undoing the changes and doing diffs), but the #IMPLIED values from the DTD creep into the attributes of the output, even though the feature "http://xml.org/sax/features/namespace-prefixes" is set to false. The org.xml.sax.Attributes interface incidates that the implied attributes should NOT be in the parsed output, but it is. So I'm searching the web for docs on this and digging into the Xerces SAX source to see what gives.
I'm trying to determing if whis the behavior
So its rather like a thought crime, eh? If you think it may happen then you are liable, but if you don't think it will happen, then you are not?
In that case, then New Zealand should have significant UFO sitings reported. BBC article on counting NZ's lost sheep
Is your motivation money only? Are you otherwise happy with your position?
I really think that whether or not you accept a counter offer depends on the nature of the company you work for. If you think that the belief system of the company is based around these ideas, then maybe it would be best not to stay. I have issues with almost all of these points. These points are based on a cut-throat enviroment based on suspision and distrust. I have found that this is generally *not* the case in an enviromnent where the company's success is dependant on creative and happy employees.
I don't know anyone who wants to work for boss pinhead. But If you don't have a corporate environment based on suspicion and distrust, then I don't see that accepting a counter offer under the following conditions would be all that bad:
1. Did you *ask* for a raise or promotion?
If not, then you don't know
2. are you generally happy where you are working?
3. are you advancing your career reasonably?
4. how do you get along with your co-workers? your bosses?
these are some simple metrics. The decision is of course based on a good deal of factors.
Granted it would be hard to duplicate the browsing experience (It is a rare treat I seldom enjoy), but many of my friends pass books around. This way, I've read books I normally either would pass up, or just not know about. In the same respects, online communities bring titles and authors to the attention of their members.
In a way, one could see the referal systems like this as a secondary form of "browsing", and a primary form of finding books out of the mainstream for those who don't have to ability or the time to "browse the used bookstore aisles"
like the Magic Box hoax?
Regarding the cnet review, on the win xp benchmarks page, ;) which are *nowhere* near 100%
it seems that the caffeinemark gives ie 6 a 100% performance, while its three results where 22-46-22 (hmm, those numbers could be obscene too, but I digress
Anyone else notice this?
this would be the link: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010823. html
Look at the first 2 tiers of the 3 tier enterprise architecture: web server tier, business logic tier, and database tier.
As I understand it this is how it works:
The web server tier should be stateless and perform operations quickly. For this reason it scales horizontally, that is, you scale it up in performance by adding more equivalent machines.
The business logic tier is stateful and/or it takes a significant amount of time to crunch data for output to the web server tier. For this reason it scales vertically, that is, you want to add more processors/and or memory to each machine in this tier. This is where the "big iron" can come into play, to scale the business tier vertically. Because, it is programmatically easier to add more raw power to one machine to statefully crunch the data, than try to distribute the state machine across multiple systems.
Thanks for clarifying that, programcsharp. I did not think that the abbreviation would be confused with the paranormal acronym, but then, I should realize that english is not the primary language to many /. readers.
Now, having said that, about ESP as in extra sensory perception, this could really be something, but I just don't see it happening until they hammer out the nasty details of MRML.
That takes all the fun out of it!
Seriously, if you are looking to get her something that she can't afford on her own, may I suggest a pda? I sure wish I had one, esp to remind me of my projects and homework due.
Well.... it would be nice to have the original content of IV-VI on a legal DVD (as opposed to the bootlegs )
I, for one, curl my lip every time I see Greedo make that first shot. What was he trying to do?