I didn't see anybody else point it out, but you know voltage is not the same as power, or energy. On their web site, and many other overunity electrical sites, they always talk about voltage going back up to the starting point after use. This does not violate any physics laws at all, as it is energy that is conserved, not voltage. All it would take is a device which maintains constant voltage at any current setting, even if the current is almost zero.
The most productive coders in my experience of managing are the ones who are at work fewer hours. I have had my share of reports who consistently work sixteen hour days but are also consistently late on their work once the QA cycle kicks in. A fully rested well balanced programmer makes better decisions and fewer mistakes.
Some of the comments imply that management is making the schedule to tight; thats just nuts. If the schedule isnt made by the programmers themselves, the project is doomed to be late. Managers should always get the programmers to give estimates on the schedule, and then encourage them to meet that schedule. This is far more reliable than arbitrary dates with fancy names.
Finally, programmers should train themselves to 'aim for the target' [not aim low, not aim high] when making schedules, refining their ability after each project. Doing this the programmer will learn how to meet schedules without having to pull all nighters to get it done on time.
Oh yeah, those people are "no hire". However, I don't need to rub it in their face. They will fail in the less aggressive interview as well. They will just feel better about the failure, and not come onto slashdot posting how microsoft is full of bs and hate them forever.
I have mostly seen the reverse problem when it comes to arrays. Everyone studied linked lists, trees, splays, what-have-you in school so they use them everywhere. Most of the time (in boiler-plate code) arrays are the right answer. Arrays are simple, memory efficient and fast. Granted, when arrays start causing algorithmic inefficiencies in larger data sets, you gotta know when and how to switch.
Regular expressions are apparently not understood by the most successful programmers in the world, because severval of the billionaire and hundred-millionaire coders I know made their dough on the most hideous hacks I've ever seen. They made something that worked once, and now whole companies are reliant on their hacks. Kind of sad, but not for them.
No. A *necessary* skill is for MS engineers to be able to implement strcpy(). The question is a filter for candidates who, with a BS or even an MS with all the right stuff on their resume who cant code at all. As I said, most candidates fail, even though as noted above, the canonical strcpy() is one line of code. Completing the rest of the interview is of escalating difficulty where the color counting problem gets arbitrarily sophisticated. By the end I will know how competent *and* how smart the person is.
The correct answer for this is "flip a coin", this guarantee's you a 50-50 chance of winning. (the logic give in the parent mail is incorrect, if Monty hall is not biased, the odds are 66% if you switch. Write a program...) The canonical answer 'switch' is not best because it does not take into account the intentions of Monty Hall. If Monty wants you to lose (and he knows where the goats are), he will give you a second chance in only the cases that you picked correctly the first time. Of course, if he wants you to win (for ratings and ads we presume), he will give you a second chance only if you didnt pick correctly the first time. Given a total lack of information on Monty's information and intentions, you do best to go with a coin flip.
I did a lot of interviews at MS when I was there, and I quickly learned not to ask riddles. First off, it makes people who don't get them uncomfortable and angry. Second, it doesn't actually show that the person can write software.
I used a much simpler approach, so simple most people think its silly. But thats the point; nobody leaves the interview thinking they were tricked or duped. I always started with implementation of strcpy(). Half of the candidates failed right there! They took most of the hour to get it right (or not), but were able to see point-blank that they were not ready for the job. Next, I would ask about crashing cases, and if they figured out overlapping memory locations, have them write a 'fixed' version. This weeded out another big chunk. After that, I went into some color counting algorithms. I stayed well withing the field of what the candidate would expect, and did not try to trick him or make him nervous with off the wall riddles.
This approach worked great, and didn't leave anyone feeling robbed and abused. The ability to solve riddles *is* an indicator of how smart the person is, but it is *not* an indicator of how good a programmer they will be.
It seems to me that most people miss the biggest (yet veiled) point in 1984. Orwell was against organized religion, thats who the bad guys really were. Yes its about power, but not technological power. Its about mind control. Mind control of the type the Church has. Look in the book and you will see they convince their captors that 2+2=5 *and* that god is powerful.
The reviewer should pay a little more attention when he decides to write a review. The fact that he missed the part about the leader being Zed, not "Sid" is a big indicator of how much he missed.
MIB movies are not really about the plot. They are about mind expansion. About reading between the lines. And about perspective. That our perception is marred by the flaws of our memory, and our wishful thinking, and our emotional pain. That your world view is just one of many, and pointedly, that thats OK.
The idea that so many people have missed is that 3D for its own sake is just a gee-whiz widget.
What they need to be aiming for is immersion. Immersion is the experience of being inside an environment rather than being an external viewer. You can get the immersive effect in 2D, and in fact this has been done with great effect by Disney on some of their rides.
What factors influence the experience of immersion? Foremost is a wide viewing angle; this is where most 3D simulators fail. You must see 'reality' everywhere, not floating in box in front of your face. Also very important is proper audio cueing, as much of a human's experience of spatial orientation is from subtle echoes and pitch changes. Other things that I think add more to the experience than 3D is view tracking, an engaging plot line and breeze control. Also, odor control, as in it cant be stinky:)
How could the Iowa state court system enforce this decision? Unless Microsoft has a business outlet in Iowa (which I dont think they do), through what means would the state of Iowa be able to make Microsoft pay? Seems like a temptest in a teapot then, because Microsoft is not bound by the laws of Iowa.
The author says that it took Microsoft two months to fix a big flaw in IIS, while it took open source only three days to fix a little flaw in Mozilla. This comparison defies rational comprehension. The length of time it takes to do two totally different tasks on two totally different pieces of sofware for two totally different markets is completely meaningless. I can write a program and pop it onto internet in an hour...so what? Whats the relationship?
Why when I were a lad, we werent allowed to use calculators. (Only the rich kids had them anyway.) We had to do all of our plotting with protractors and compasses. It was tedius and we'd forget what we were doing while we were doing it because there were so many steps. Most understanding was lost while going through the motions, making mistakes and erasing holes into the paper. When we got to things like polar coordinate translation, or calculus, the steps become so complex that most of the students didnt have a clue about the big picture as they became mindless rote automatons emulating a tape head.
Kids these days get these glorious plotting computers that bypass the tedium and take you straight to the insight. They even have algorithms that do their algebra for them. And I am sure they have a much better high level understanding of what they're doing than I did even in college.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if their ability to actually solve by hand some of this stuff is as good as ours simply because they understand it better than we did.
What a very strange name this thing has. A terapin is a turtle, and a mine is a place where you dig up riches. So if you get one of these you will become rich with turtles?
gravitons are fiction until proven otherwise. I believe this is no evidence that gravity travels at any speed. Relativity predicts it, as do other theories like the one you mention, but it has never been shown experimentally.
It appears that science is much more human-interest oriented and (perhaps) less objective than we would like to believe. I counted no less than 30 different names mentioned explicitely (not used as units) in this paper. Thats almost two a page, and I didnt even count the formal acknowledgements!
Starring, in order of Apperance Raymond Chiao Meissner Lense Thirring Ginzburg Landau Hertz DeWitt Lagrange Hamilton Papini Josephson Anandan Cooper Minkowski Aharonov Bohm Sagnac London Newton Cart Avagadro Gauss Ohm Maxwell Ampere Einsten Faraday Coulomb Shroedinger Fresnel Fitelson
In the abstract, he references no less than six effects with other physists last names. So name dropping probably works better than saying things like "Einstein and his cronies are fools! I am the one true world genius!"
Your source is...? Mine was the second in command of a nuclear submarine.
Think man! If there is a communication method that can be jammed, the enemy only has to jam it to completely disable the entire fleet! No way! What if all the command centers in the US were destroyed before anyone knew what happened? The sub commanders would just sit around because they didnt get the codes?
Removing gopher will effect a very very small number of people, and probably no 3rd party software vendors. Removing HTML rendering AND HTTP support (which is what removing IE equals) would screw many many users and thousands of 3rd party software vendors who rely on this support from the OS, in in fact render the system unusable as too many components rely on this support, 3rd party and otherwise.
When MS says Windows is not modular, they are using a legal, not technical, argument. This is based on past cases where, for example, Ford was banned from buidling pick-up trucks with covers (ie snugtop) because it was an optional module.
This is a fiction from Hollywood. For example, the commanders of a nuclear submarine can launch their nuclear weapons whenever they want to. It has to be this way. Otherwise disabling the American nuclear arsenal would be as easy as killing the handful of people who have the codes, or even just blocking their communications.
If I were the manager of IE, I'd just rip out support for gopher too. Why support this protocol which nobody uses (in IE) but has at least one major known security breach? The testing and validation of the bug fix's security, as well as the the rest of the code, would cost way more than its worth.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't see anybody else point it out, but you know voltage is not the same as power, or energy. On their web site, and many other overunity electrical sites, they always talk about voltage going back up to the starting point after use. This does not violate any physics laws at all, as it is energy that is conserved, not voltage. All it would take is a device which maintains constant voltage at any current setting, even if the current is almost zero.
The most productive coders in my experience of managing are the ones who are at work fewer hours. I have had my share of reports who consistently work sixteen hour days but are also consistently late on their work once the QA cycle kicks in. A fully rested well balanced programmer makes better decisions and fewer mistakes.
Some of the comments imply that management is making the schedule to tight; thats just nuts. If the schedule isnt made by the programmers themselves, the project is doomed to be late. Managers should always get the programmers to give estimates on the schedule, and then encourage them to meet that schedule. This is far more reliable than arbitrary dates with fancy names.
Finally, programmers should train themselves to 'aim for the target' [not aim low, not aim high] when making schedules, refining their ability after each project. Doing this the programmer will learn how to meet schedules without having to pull all nighters to get it done on time.
Oh yeah, those people are "no hire". However, I don't need to rub it in their face. They will fail in the less aggressive interview as well. They will just feel better about the failure, and not come onto slashdot posting how microsoft is full of bs and hate them forever.
I have mostly seen the reverse problem when it comes to arrays. Everyone studied linked lists, trees, splays, what-have-you in school so they use them everywhere. Most of the time (in boiler-plate code) arrays are the right answer. Arrays are simple, memory efficient and fast.
Granted, when arrays start causing algorithmic inefficiencies in larger data sets, you gotta know when and how to switch.
Regular expressions are apparently not understood by the most successful programmers in the world, because severval of the billionaire and hundred-millionaire coders I know made their dough on the most hideous hacks I've ever seen. They made something that worked once, and now whole companies are reliant on their hacks. Kind of sad, but not for them.
No. A *necessary* skill is for MS engineers to be able to implement strcpy(). The question is a filter for candidates who, with a BS or even an MS with all the right stuff on their resume who cant code at all. As I said, most candidates fail, even though as noted above, the canonical strcpy() is one line of code.
Completing the rest of the interview is of escalating difficulty where the color counting problem gets arbitrarily sophisticated. By the end I will know how competent *and* how smart the person is.
The correct answer for this is "flip a coin", this guarantee's you a 50-50 chance of winning.
(the logic give in the parent mail is incorrect, if Monty hall is not biased, the odds are 66% if you switch. Write a program...)
The canonical answer 'switch' is not best because it does not take into account the intentions of Monty Hall. If Monty wants you to lose (and he knows where the goats are), he will give you a second chance in only the cases that you picked correctly the first time. Of course, if he wants you to win (for ratings and ads we presume), he will give you a second chance only if you didnt pick correctly the first time. Given a total lack of information on Monty's information and intentions, you do best to go with a coin flip.
I did a lot of interviews at MS when I was there, and I quickly learned not to ask riddles. First off, it makes people who don't get them uncomfortable and angry. Second, it doesn't actually show that the person can write software.
I used a much simpler approach, so simple most people think its silly. But thats the point; nobody leaves the interview thinking they were tricked or duped. I always started with implementation of strcpy(). Half of the candidates failed right there! They took most of the hour to get it right (or not), but were able to see point-blank that they were not ready for the job.
Next, I would ask about crashing cases, and if they figured out overlapping memory locations, have them write a 'fixed' version. This weeded out another big chunk. After that, I went into some color counting algorithms.
I stayed well withing the field of what the candidate would expect, and did not try to trick him or make him nervous with off the wall riddles.
This approach worked great, and didn't leave anyone feeling robbed and abused. The ability to solve riddles *is* an indicator of how smart the person is, but it is *not* an indicator of how good a programmer they will be.
It seems to me that most people miss the biggest (yet veiled) point in 1984. Orwell was against organized religion, thats who the bad guys really were. Yes its about power, but not technological power. Its about mind control. Mind control of the type the Church has. Look in the book and you will see they convince their captors that 2+2=5 *and* that god is powerful.
The reviewer should pay a little more attention when he decides to write a review. The fact that he missed the part about the leader being Zed, not "Sid" is a big indicator of how much he missed.
MIB movies are not really about the plot. They are about mind expansion. About reading between the lines. And about perspective. That our perception is marred by the flaws of our memory, and our wishful thinking, and our emotional pain.
That your world view is just one of many, and pointedly, that thats OK.
Excellent explanation. Thank you. Now I get it.
CA aren't going to replace mathematics. Stephen Wolfram is basically insane.
The idea that so many people have missed is that 3D for its own sake is just a gee-whiz widget.
:)
What they need to be aiming for is immersion.
Immersion is the experience of being inside an environment rather than being an external viewer.
You can get the immersive effect in 2D, and in fact this has been done with great effect by Disney on some of their rides.
What factors influence the experience of immersion? Foremost is a wide viewing angle; this is where most 3D simulators fail. You must see 'reality' everywhere, not floating in box in front of your face. Also very important is proper audio cueing, as much of a human's experience of spatial orientation is from subtle echoes and pitch changes. Other things that I think add more to the experience than 3D is view tracking, an engaging plot line and breeze control. Also, odor control, as in it cant be stinky
They do? Whats the address?
What do they do there?
How could the Iowa state court system enforce this decision? Unless Microsoft has a business outlet in Iowa (which I dont think they do), through what means would the state of Iowa be able to make Microsoft pay? Seems like a temptest in a teapot then, because Microsoft is not bound by the laws of Iowa.
The author says that it took Microsoft two months to fix a big flaw in IIS, while it took open source only three days to fix a little flaw in Mozilla.
This comparison defies rational comprehension. The length of time it takes to do two totally different tasks on two totally different pieces of sofware for two totally different markets is completely meaningless. I can write a program and pop it onto internet in an hour...so what? Whats the relationship?
Why when I were a lad, we werent allowed to use calculators. (Only the rich kids had them anyway.) We had to do all of our plotting with protractors and compasses. It was tedius and we'd forget what we were doing while we were doing it because there were so many steps. Most understanding was lost while going through the motions, making mistakes and erasing holes into the paper. When we got to things like polar coordinate translation, or calculus, the steps become so complex that most of the students didnt have a clue about the big picture as they became mindless rote automatons emulating a tape head.
Kids these days get these glorious plotting computers that bypass the tedium and take you straight to the insight. They even have algorithms that do their algebra for them. And I am sure they have a much better high level understanding of what they're doing than I did even in college.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if their ability to actually solve by hand some of this stuff is as good as ours simply because they understand it better than we did.
What a very strange name this thing has. A terapin is a turtle, and a mine is a place where you dig up riches.
So if you get one of these you will become rich with turtles?
gravitons are fiction until proven otherwise. I believe this is no evidence that gravity travels at any speed. Relativity predicts it, as do other theories like the one you mention, but it has never been shown experimentally.
It appears that science is much more human-interest oriented and (perhaps) less objective than we would like to believe. I counted no less than 30 different names mentioned explicitely (not used as units) in this paper. Thats almost two a page, and I didnt even count the formal acknowledgements!
Starring, in order of Apperance
Raymond Chiao
Meissner
Lense
Thirring
Ginzburg
Landau
Hertz
DeWitt
Lagrange
Hamilton
Papini
Josephson
Anandan
Cooper
Minkowski
Aharonov
Bohm
Sagnac
London
Newton
Cart
Avagadro
Gauss
Ohm
Maxwell
Ampere
Einsten
Faraday
Coulomb
Shroedinger
Fresnel
Fitelson
In the abstract, he references no less than six effects with other physists last names. So name dropping probably works better than saying things like "Einstein and his cronies are fools! I am the one true world genius!"
Your source is...? Mine was the second in command of a nuclear submarine.
Think man! If there is a communication method that can be jammed, the enemy only has to jam it to completely disable the entire fleet! No way!
What if all the command centers in the US were destroyed before anyone knew what happened? The sub commanders would just sit around because they didnt get the codes?
Notices the 's' at the end of the word "commander". Yes, indeed it takes the second in command to agree.
Removing gopher will effect a very very small number of people, and probably no 3rd party software vendors.
Removing HTML rendering AND HTTP support (which is what removing IE equals) would screw many many users and thousands of 3rd party software vendors who rely on this support from the OS, in in fact render the system unusable as too many components rely on this support, 3rd party and otherwise.
When MS says Windows is not modular, they are using a legal, not technical, argument. This is based on past cases where, for example, Ford was banned from buidling pick-up trucks with covers (ie snugtop) because it was an optional module.
This is a fiction from Hollywood. For example, the commanders of a nuclear submarine can launch their nuclear weapons whenever they want to.
It has to be this way. Otherwise disabling the American nuclear arsenal would be as easy as killing the handful of people who have the codes, or even just blocking their communications.
If I were the manager of IE, I'd just rip out support for gopher too. Why support this protocol which nobody uses (in IE) but has at least one major known security breach? The testing and validation of the bug fix's security, as well as the the rest of the code, would cost way more than its worth.