It's all part of ACM's ongoing efforts to try to make their publications look as non-professional as possible. God knows no one wants to read magazines and/or websites with text on them anymore!
All pundits fit this mold and politicians on either side of the fence are often the same.
I hate this kind of "argument".
Even though both sides have made mistakes, if you put CBS's long, distinguished history up against Fox's tawdry few months, there is a great difference in quality. It's the same comparing Rather's 40+ years in print and TV journalism and comparing it with O'Reilly's distinguished hisory on Inside Edition or Hannity's history of... oh yeah, nothing. Saying they're both "the same" is akin to saying that Pol Pot was like Abe Lincoln because they both declared war and, as a result, got people killed.
Your statement is both disingenuous and stupid. But I guess, from your use of it, that Fox has also lifted the level of logic in this country by training it's viewers well in their tactics.
Vague specification, like vague design is an indicator of not understanding the problem.
It may also be that the market is not completely understood and, as such, neither is the solution. If you can say you completely understand any market, you are a better man than I. Or maybe you have the luxury of ignoring your market.
Bottom line, I believe that there is a certain amount of understanding beyond which trying to understand the problem further is wasted effort. This point is reached far before the amount of uncertainty or "lack of understanding" reaches zero. It happens even sooner in rapidly shifting knowledge domains or markets. Unfortunately, that's also where the most profitable use of software lies.
... was in a book in my high school library that showed how you could use relays to make gates and gates to build simple functions like adders. It went on to show a Fortran II program to calculate pi to some large number of digits. This being 1974 in a rural high school, it was the only exposure to computers that I had. Needless to say, I was hooked.
When I was a sophmore, a drummer in one of my bands left to study engineering in college and came home on winter break with a book on Fortran programming. I borrowed the book from him and wrote and hand simulated various problems from the book. He needed the book back the following autumn for another programming course and that was my last exposure until my second semester college freshman programming course where we learned Fortran and PL\I. the next course was PDP-11 assembly and the languages were flowing fairly heavily by then until I had learned the basics of about a dozen languages and OSes by my first year in grad school.
All that being said, I think the best language to teach kids to program in is Scheme. It has no syntax to get in the way and has all of the semantics you'd want to teach. I've taught explorer scouts using this language and it worked great.
This article marks its one day aniversary after an expected lifetime of just 3 hours. In honor of its important anniversary and the shortness of notice in the Slashdot editors' minds, here's the original link for this blast from the past!
Given the kinds of mental health treatment options for health plans provided by most cleaning services (if they even offer a heath care plan), for people with mental health disorders it can indeed be a death sentence. Or were you just being unthoughtful with your response?
Re:This is a new trend
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Same here. Although our process is one managerial phone screen (with me), one technical phone screen with one of my better tech folks, a site interview, and (if all goes well) an offer. We generally dump about 90% of the resumes we get, another 70% of the remaining in the phone screens, and end up doing site interviews with maybe 3% of the folks who we get resumes from.
Granted, with Google, who probably gets 20,000 resumes with each announcement of a junior programmer position, you'd still be working with a pool of 600 candidates, but you could be a lot more selective in the pre-interview process and a lot more focused during the interview.
All this tells me that Google, though they may have a lot of very bright people, aren't quite sure what they want to do, so they're not sure of what they want in their personnel (beyond "smart"), and they can't be rigorously selective because they don't know exactly what to focus on. Personally, I think I'd start looking for some leaders who can show vision, definition, and focus which seems to be the root cause of this issue.
And there was a bug in the 68000 which made page fault processing unsafe. Instruction backout/resumption didn't work. So the compiler had to generate only idempotent memory-referencing instructions, ones that if done twice had the same effect as doing it once.
As I recall (and this may be apocryphal - somebody correct me) some workstations overcame this in a second way - they ran two 68K's in parallel, one a clock cyle or two ahead of the other and, when the early one faulted, they asserted an interrupt (which saved state properly) on the second processor. They reloaded the state of the first processor from the second after the "page fault" was handled and went on their way. Yes, it was slow and it sucked, but it worked.
Hasn't lightning struck again with the iPod? I wonder if the lightning analogy makes sense... maybe they're just good...?
Not really. But, also, yes.
The point is that it's not the iPod that is "revolutionizing" personal music consumption, but the combo of the iPod and iTunes. In the end, you'll find that it's iTunes that will have the greater impact. Apple figured out that the iPod razor will mean a lot of iTunes blade sales.
More importantly, this is the sort of thing that Apple is really good at - not seeing more deeply (though they do seem to do a good job of that), but seeing more broadly, designing systems that seem to fit well to completely blanket a niche of uses.
The fact that they can do this over and over is truely astounding. I am continuously in awe of what this company accomplishes; not only well, but with grace, elan, and a pinch of panache.
In reality, very few companies can compete in their mind space. It may not lead to the biggest profits, but it leads to really interesting products that make the world richer (and the company rich enough); all-in-all, a very commendable thing.
What I would like to see is a modified LGPL that would allow companies to pay the developers of these libraries for the right to include them in proprietary packages.
It's already perfectly legal to negotiate different usage licenses with the developers of a library. Many already have links on their website to allow you to contact them to negotiate such licenses. And many have set up commercial enterprises that redistribute these libraries with support. I don't understand where there's any need for YAL (yet another license).
In the land of the unsecured, the WEP-ecured man is king.
The point is that I don't have to be totally secure, just more secure than my neighbors. Unless I am specifically targeted by some scoflaw, there are a lot easier access points to get to in my neighborhood for general malfeasance.
Am I the only one that thinks paying $999 for a computer that Dell does with a flatpanel and twice the RAM for $699 is absolutely stupid?!
Am I the only one that thinks paying $60,000 for a car that GM does with a stereo and twice the horsepower for $35,000 is absolutely stupid?!
Perhaps. But, in the real world (TM), people tend to pay attention to non-functional things like styling, prestige, and ease of use, as well as raw functionality. Macs are worth twice as much as PC's if for nothing else than their nice OS and ease of maintenance, let alone their non-functional attributes.
Anyone know if there's an automatically multithreading (functional) programming language in existance or being invented?
There have been for years. Just look at Lisp* for the Connection Machine. Or check out Sisal.
That being said, most functional languages have included imperative, state-based facilities to make the languages look more "normal" to most programmers or because they thought a purely functional language would be too inefficient. Of course, they have now screwed themselves with respect to having an easy to compile, simple parallel language. Maybe they can get rid of all that crap now. In any case, it has been the way to go for many years.
If keeping the high-tech industry and high-tech jobs in America is such a big deal then why is it that there wasn't a single US company prepared to fight for a partnership with PARC?
Because we don't do R here anymore. And we oursource D to Maylaysia and India. And we got rid of manufacturing years ago. What do we do these days? Sue, market, and surf, baby... sue, market, and surf...
(1) Pick a piece of semi-popular software (popular would be too easy). (2) Contest is to see who can locate and download a cracked copy the fastest. (3) Profit?
The point is that finding information is just as important as creating it these days. Plus, downloading warzed stuff seems to be something many high-schoolers are interested in.
Note, however, that Willie Wonka himself possessed none of these qualities.
Why is it when I read these two postings, I am sadly reminded of Washington, D.C. and politicians? And then, secondly, of our own flawed nature and our own searches for something to good to be true?
Maybe Willie and/or Charlie still have something to teach all of us.
Few companies, Microsoft included, could afford to have a 24x7 staff of patch writers for all of the applications they have deployed.
Well, Symantec, McAffee, etc., seem to be able to do it pretty well. After all, what's a virus definition update other than a quickly deployed patch to an AV system that doesn't recognize a particular new virus? Any company that sees a profit in doing this kind of thing can do it fairly easily and inexpensively. The main issue is one of whether or not the company thinks it's profitable to do so and whether or not it wants to set up the infrastructure to support it. But it doesn't cost that much.
When a tornado hits a trailer park, journalists are not required to look for a second opinion...
But if someone claims that a tornado has roared through their trailer park, destroying it, shouldn't the reporter at least go out to the trailer park to see if there's any damage at all? The bottom line is that in journalism, as in most othr things, the lines of demarcation are blurry. When it comes to what is a fact vs. what is an allegation, and what you treat as a fact vs. treating it as an allegation and what kind of allegation is supportable (and reportable) vs. that which is not, the reporter needs to do more than simply report an allegation.
I could claim that I flew like Superman above the Vatican and used my X-ray vision to see the Pope eating babies. I could make a press release to that effect, too. The bottom line is that my allegation should not be taken seriously, nor should it be reported.
The real trouble with today's press is that they (a) too often report rumor, allegation. and spin without checking as to whether any of these is likely and (b) they fail to follow up saying that the rumors, allegation, and spin were false and castigating the person spreading it for misleading the public. And, even though I'm on the blue side of things, I acknowledge it happens on the left and on the right. In this case, at least the person alleging the story is willing to sign an affadavit. It still doesn't mean that the press should simply report the allegation without doing further legwork.
Slashdot Mirror
You ever try to shave by hoding the blade in your fingers? If the razor is a "non-product", then it's a pretty damn important one...
It's all part of ACM's ongoing efforts to try to make their publications look as non-professional as possible. God knows no one wants to read magazines and/or websites with text on them anymore!
I hate this kind of "argument".
Even though both sides have made mistakes, if you put CBS's long, distinguished history up against Fox's tawdry few months, there is a great difference in quality. It's the same comparing Rather's 40+ years in print and TV journalism and comparing it with O'Reilly's distinguished hisory on Inside Edition or Hannity's history of... oh yeah, nothing. Saying they're both "the same" is akin to saying that Pol Pot was like Abe Lincoln because they both declared war and, as a result, got people killed.
Your statement is both disingenuous and stupid. But I guess, from your use of it, that Fox has also lifted the level of logic in this country by training it's viewers well in their tactics.
Then they market you in the C&W genre, as long as the song is about waving American flags.
Unless it's propogated by a conservative journalist being paid for by the Department of Education.
Then it's just publicity...
It may also be that the market is not completely understood and, as such, neither is the solution. If you can say you completely understand any market, you are a better man than I. Or maybe you have the luxury of ignoring your market.
Bottom line, I believe that there is a certain amount of understanding beyond which trying to understand the problem further is wasted effort. This point is reached far before the amount of uncertainty or "lack of understanding" reaches zero. It happens even sooner in rapidly shifting knowledge domains or markets. Unfortunately, that's also where the most profitable use of software lies.
When I was a sophmore, a drummer in one of my bands left to study engineering in college and came home on winter break with a book on Fortran programming. I borrowed the book from him and wrote and hand simulated various problems from the book. He needed the book back the following autumn for another programming course and that was my last exposure until my second semester college freshman programming course where we learned Fortran and PL\I. the next course was PDP-11 assembly and the languages were flowing fairly heavily by then until I had learned the basics of about a dozen languages and OSes by my first year in grad school.
All that being said, I think the best language to teach kids to program in is Scheme. It has no syntax to get in the way and has all of the semantics you'd want to teach. I've taught explorer scouts using this language and it worked great.
This article marks its one day aniversary after an expected lifetime of just 3 hours. In honor of its important anniversary and the shortness of notice in the Slashdot editors' minds, here's the original link for this blast from the past!
Given the kinds of mental health treatment options for health plans provided by most cleaning services (if they even offer a heath care plan), for people with mental health disorders it can indeed be a death sentence. Or were you just being unthoughtful with your response?
Granted, with Google, who probably gets 20,000 resumes with each announcement of a junior programmer position, you'd still be working with a pool of 600 candidates, but you could be a lot more selective in the pre-interview process and a lot more focused during the interview.
All this tells me that Google, though they may have a lot of very bright people, aren't quite sure what they want to do, so they're not sure of what they want in their personnel (beyond "smart"), and they can't be rigorously selective because they don't know exactly what to focus on. Personally, I think I'd start looking for some leaders who can show vision, definition, and focus which seems to be the root cause of this issue.
As I recall (and this may be apocryphal - somebody correct me) some workstations overcame this in a second way - they ran two 68K's in parallel, one a clock cyle or two ahead of the other and, when the early one faulted, they asserted an interrupt (which saved state properly) on the second processor. They reloaded the state of the first processor from the second after the "page fault" was handled and went on their way. Yes, it was slow and it sucked, but it worked.
Not really. But, also, yes.
The point is that it's not the iPod that is "revolutionizing" personal music consumption, but the combo of the iPod and iTunes. In the end, you'll find that it's iTunes that will have the greater impact. Apple figured out that the iPod razor will mean a lot of iTunes blade sales.
More importantly, this is the sort of thing that Apple is really good at - not seeing more deeply (though they do seem to do a good job of that), but seeing more broadly, designing systems that seem to fit well to completely blanket a niche of uses.
The fact that they can do this over and over is truely astounding. I am continuously in awe of what this company accomplishes; not only well, but with grace, elan, and a pinch of panache.
In reality, very few companies can compete in their mind space. It may not lead to the biggest profits, but it leads to really interesting products that make the world richer (and the company rich enough); all-in-all, a very commendable thing.
Yeah! Because the CEOs and exec VPs of a company like Phillips risk so much.
It's already perfectly legal to negotiate different usage licenses with the developers of a library. Many already have links on their website to allow you to contact them to negotiate such licenses. And many have set up commercial enterprises that redistribute these libraries with support. I don't understand where there's any need for YAL (yet another license).
Where are we going to find the five quarfloos to pay the Martian homeless person with the squeegee?
Please don't use the word "retarded" to mean stupid. That's just crazy.
The point is that I don't have to be totally secure, just more secure than my neighbors. Unless I am specifically targeted by some scoflaw, there are a lot easier access points to get to in my neighborhood for general malfeasance.
And don't forget Carly Fiorina, who, as CEO, turned a minor electronics company into one of the most interesting companies around.
Yes, I am trolling...
Am I the only one that thinks paying $60,000 for a car that GM does with a stereo and twice the horsepower for $35,000 is absolutely stupid?!
Perhaps. But, in the real world (TM), people tend to pay attention to non-functional things like styling, prestige, and ease of use, as well as raw functionality. Macs are worth twice as much as PC's if for nothing else than their nice OS and ease of maintenance, let alone their non-functional attributes.
There have been for years. Just look at Lisp* for the Connection Machine. Or check out Sisal.
That being said, most functional languages have included imperative, state-based facilities to make the languages look more "normal" to most programmers or because they thought a purely functional language would be too inefficient. Of course, they have now screwed themselves with respect to having an easy to compile, simple parallel language. Maybe they can get rid of all that crap now. In any case, it has been the way to go for many years.
Because we don't do R here anymore. And we oursource D to Maylaysia and India. And we got rid of manufacturing years ago. What do we do these days? Sue, market, and surf, baby... sue, market, and surf...
(1) Pick a piece of semi-popular software (popular would be too easy).
(2) Contest is to see who can locate and download a cracked copy the fastest.
(3) Profit?
The point is that finding information is just as important as creating it these days. Plus, downloading warzed stuff seems to be something many high-schoolers are interested in.
I'm not sure if I'm actually serious here or not.
Why is it when I read these two postings, I am sadly reminded of Washington, D.C. and politicians? And then, secondly, of our own flawed nature and our own searches for something to good to be true?
Maybe Willie and/or Charlie still have something to teach all of us.
Well, Symantec, McAffee, etc., seem to be able to do it pretty well. After all, what's a virus definition update other than a quickly deployed patch to an AV system that doesn't recognize a particular new virus? Any company that sees a profit in doing this kind of thing can do it fairly easily and inexpensively. The main issue is one of whether or not the company thinks it's profitable to do so and whether or not it wants to set up the infrastructure to support it. But it doesn't cost that much.
But if someone claims that a tornado has roared through their trailer park, destroying it, shouldn't the reporter at least go out to the trailer park to see if there's any damage at all? The bottom line is that in journalism, as in most othr things, the lines of demarcation are blurry. When it comes to what is a fact vs. what is an allegation, and what you treat as a fact vs. treating it as an allegation and what kind of allegation is supportable (and reportable) vs. that which is not, the reporter needs to do more than simply report an allegation.
I could claim that I flew like Superman above the Vatican and used my X-ray vision to see the Pope eating babies. I could make a press release to that effect, too. The bottom line is that my allegation should not be taken seriously, nor should it be reported.
The real trouble with today's press is that they (a) too often report rumor, allegation. and spin without checking as to whether any of these is likely and (b) they fail to follow up saying that the rumors, allegation, and spin were false and castigating the person spreading it for misleading the public. And, even though I'm on the blue side of things, I acknowledge it happens on the left and on the right. In this case, at least the person alleging the story is willing to sign an affadavit. It still doesn't mean that the press should simply report the allegation without doing further legwork.