Yes, I read Google's whole site on the topic, not just a couple pages. It's not very detailed or long yet, but it will be -- eventually. I'm sure of that.
I do like that they've opted to do it right in the open rather than behind closed doors, so it's easy for developers to keep an eye on. Hopefully they provide a comment process/form for the community to provide feedback. After all, feedback is the whole goal of open design and planning documentation.
I appreciate that the Google pages are a draft and work in progress, but they're a far cry from the level of detail provided by IBM's CUA (which got right down to function key actions), Microsoft's Windows Style Guide (which tells you how you should USE the widgets built into the system, not how to MANUALLY HIGHLIGHT touchpads like Google's guide does), or Apple's obviously detailed specifications.
On the other hand, IBM spent a LONG time writing and editing the CUA style guide before it was published, and Microsoft and Apple also have had a few iterations and updates under their belt.
So, great idea, keep at it, but it's not there yet.:)
My second job was writing the overnight rollover system for AVCO Financial Services in London Ontario (summer 1988.) I spent six months at 40 hours a week writing it.
That was pretty much the last time in my career I only worked 40 hours a week until around 2001-2002 when I was often too sick with migraines to put in the long hours any more.
I can only think of two times I didn't have a manager try to demand I reschedule my long-booked vacation because of some "emergency."
So yes, managers don't forget when you won't sacrifice your ENTIRE life for "the good of the company."
Fuck the company. All it ever did for me is sign a paycheque. After nearly 30 years of contracting, I have no delusions that any company of substantial size has ANY respect for the IT team, or that even a so-called "permanent" job will last longer than the project that you are hired to work on.
I READ the article, where do you think I got the quote from?
Douglas Rushkoff must be the first of the million monkeys it takes to produce Shakespeare by randomly banging on a keyboard. As he's the first to utterly fail to produce even ONE coherent word, I think it's an apt analogy.
It's time Americans begin treating computer code the way we do the alphabet or arithmetic. Code is the stuff that makes computer programs work -- the list of commands that tells a word processor, a website, a video game, or an airplane navigation system what to do. That's all software is: lines of code, written by people.
I cannot begin to express my disgust at this oversimplification of a career that can take DECADES to master. The idea that you can "teach anyone to program" in a year is so fucking INSULTING it's not even real.
Can you teach a doctor to operate in a year?
A lawyer to handle a case in a year?
An engineer to design a building in a year?
Then why in God's name does this FUCKTARD think you can treat programming in the same way.
What a way to expose his complete and utter ignorance.
Tell you what buddy, how about we let people take over YOUR job. After all, it's just spitting out random words that make no sense. Anyone can spout nonsense. Apparently YOU get paid for it.
I got my first exposure to financial or banking systems VERY early in my career. I wrote the ENTIRE rollover batch system myself. It wasn't done and there were more enhancements to be added when my contract was over, but it was a great job and a great experience.
Banking systems are FAR too complex for one man to code nowadays.
My second job of my career was programming the very first beta releases of the Santa Cruz Operations unix on an IBM PS/2 Model 60 for AVCO Financial Services in London Ontario. I remember spending several weeks working with their team to debug the tape drivers.
A few months later, my machine was upgraded to a PS/2 Model 80, because the Model 60 didn't have enough snort to run the overnight batch rollover processing I was hired to write.
How we define "life" when searching the cosmos is entertaining, but to me the bigger philosophical question to consider is alien sentience (not just intelligence) -- self willed, thinking, rational or irrational beings who think, feel, and act for themselves similar to us, but likely following completely different structures of society and morality.
Experienced programmers lose that attitude about the value of other employee's work in a company. Sure some of us laugh at the stupid shit marketing comes up with, but we also know they're just doing their job. We keep complaining about management, but we learn to speak their language and explain things in their terms if we want to succeed. Only arrogant fools keep thinking they're superior to everyone else.
And how could it be otherwise?
After you've spent a few years making mistakes and correcting bugs in your code, you either lose the ego that you're infallible, or you drown in a sea of egotistical misery.
When a bug report is filed, the experienced programmer thinks "Oh shit. What did I miss."
The junior programmer thinks "Damn users. Always complaining. They don't know how anything works."
Nothing but experience can burn the ego out of a programmer. And either it gets burned out of your system, or you get frustrated enough to quit the industry.
Erlang has a very powerful feature whose technical name I forget. It allows you to define a function within a function to be processed by higher level routine, such as a list iterator. My understanding is that a similar feature is to be added to Java 8. I think it'll be a very powerful addition to the Java syntax.
But as to Jigsaw and any competing approaches, I have no opinion or comment. May the best technology win.
it uses technology to keep anyone else from threatening its advertising revenue.
No doubt Google leverages their market share advantage for all they're worth and allowed to by law, but I can't think of a single example where they've used technology to BLOCK competition in any way. Instead, they use technology to open NEW MARKETS for their advertising core business, such as creating Android and giving it away.
Is there anything in Chrome that stops you from surfing Apple's website, for example?
Can you provide even a SINGLE example where Google has stifled competition through the abuse of technology?
I'm proud to be a "geek", but I've always thought of myself as a Canadian of Ukrainian descent.
I've never even considered adding "geek" to the hyphenation.
The technically literate are more aware of issues like copyright, piracy, internet access rights, filtering, and a host of technical concerns that most of the public doesn't understand.
But I don't know any technologists who aren't MORE concerned about the same issues as everyone else: unnecessary wars, rapacious corporate executives, job losses due to offshoring, bank executives rewarded for mismanagement and fraud instead of being prosecuted, etc.
First and foremost, geeks are PEOPLE.
We've been trying to get "The Jocks" to accept that for decades. Why would we now want to pigeon-hole ourselves as being either sub-human or elite? We're neither, just differently-abled people.
Your obstinate refusal to accept his core tenet that you can do more with a PC device (be it Windows, Linux, OS/X or other OS) doesn't make you insightful or right.
But you are right in that I'm starting to see people who own a smartphone but who do not have a PC. However, they are not trying to edit documents, work with spreadsheets, do their taxes, etc. on a smart phone. They're just satisfied media CONSUMERS instead of content and data creators.
And that's ok. But without the majority creating content on PC type devices, what will the smartphone and tablet crowd consume?
That's not to say customer data can't or shouldn't be protected. I'm talking about SHARED CONTENT, not data security.
In theory you could encrypt everyone's posts in a secure forum, hash their logins, hide their names, and "protect" them from surveillance. I'm surprised no one has done it yet.
But it goes against the original core design goal of DARPA, who created the internet: a tool for exchanging and sharing information.
If the data is available from a website, the government can crawl it. robots.txt is a polite request not to search the content of a website, not a physical lock or encryption.
It may be EASIER for the governments to find "miscreants" on social networks because they're all in one database and more easily scanned, but that definitely doesn't mean you're safe from prying eyes ANYWHERE on the internet. If you post it where others can read it, the three-letter agencies can, will, and DO read it.
Privacy on the internet is an illusion, nothing more. It has alway been so, will always be so, and cannot be otherwise if people are to share information.
Speculating about what might happen when you have no idea where the market is going or what the Android vendors might want is silly. Just watch as people get riled up about what they come up in their own paranoid imaginations and scream about how wrong it all is... this is gonna be a fun topic to read.:)
Because it's VERY expensive to ship earth-moving construction equipment (sorry, MARS-moving equipment) through space, and it'd take far too long to dig a habitat with a shovel.
Cryosleep might be needed if we're ever to engage in interstellar travel in the future, but the problem with a Mars mission is not that the astronauts are going to age into old farts before they get there: it's surviving once they DO get there.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I read Google's whole site on the topic, not just a couple pages. It's not very detailed or long yet, but it will be -- eventually. I'm sure of that.
I do like that they've opted to do it right in the open rather than behind closed doors, so it's easy for developers to keep an eye on. Hopefully they provide a comment process/form for the community to provide feedback. After all, feedback is the whole goal of open design and planning documentation.
I appreciate that the Google pages are a draft and work in progress, but they're a far cry from the level of detail provided by IBM's CUA (which got right down to function key actions), Microsoft's Windows Style Guide (which tells you how you should USE the widgets built into the system, not how to MANUALLY HIGHLIGHT touchpads like Google's guide does), or Apple's obviously detailed specifications.
On the other hand, IBM spent a LONG time writing and editing the CUA style guide before it was published, and Microsoft and Apple also have had a few iterations and updates under their belt.
So, great idea, keep at it, but it's not there yet. :)
Small companies run by HUMAN BEINGS who actually know all their employees are a different story.
My second job was writing the overnight rollover system for AVCO Financial Services in London Ontario (summer 1988.) I spent six months at 40 hours a week writing it.
That was pretty much the last time in my career I only worked 40 hours a week until around 2001-2002 when I was often too sick with migraines to put in the long hours any more.
I can only think of two times I didn't have a manager try to demand I reschedule my long-booked vacation because of some "emergency."
So yes, managers don't forget when you won't sacrifice your ENTIRE life for "the good of the company."
Fuck the company. All it ever did for me is sign a paycheque. After nearly 30 years of contracting, I have no delusions that any company of substantial size has ANY respect for the IT team, or that even a so-called "permanent" job will last longer than the project that you are hired to work on.
A far more lucid and coherent argument than my offended outrage.
But I still think the author of the original article was the first of a million monkeys to bang on a keyboard...
I READ the article, where do you think I got the quote from?
Douglas Rushkoff must be the first of the million monkeys it takes to produce Shakespeare by randomly banging on a keyboard. As he's the first to utterly fail to produce even ONE coherent word, I think it's an apt analogy.
I cannot begin to express my disgust at this oversimplification of a career that can take DECADES to master. The idea that you can "teach anyone to program" in a year is so fucking INSULTING it's not even real.
Can you teach a doctor to operate in a year?
A lawyer to handle a case in a year?
An engineer to design a building in a year?
Then why in God's name does this FUCKTARD think you can treat programming in the same way.
What a way to expose his complete and utter ignorance.
Tell you what buddy, how about we let people take over YOUR job. After all, it's just spitting out random words that make no sense. Anyone can spout nonsense. Apparently YOU get paid for it.
I got my first exposure to financial or banking systems VERY early in my career. I wrote the ENTIRE rollover batch system myself. It wasn't done and there were more enhancements to be added when my contract was over, but it was a great job and a great experience.
Banking systems are FAR too complex for one man to code nowadays.
QIC-80? I think that was the drive technology. Long obsolete.
My second job of my career was programming the very first beta releases of the Santa Cruz Operations unix on an IBM PS/2 Model 60 for AVCO Financial Services in London Ontario. I remember spending several weeks working with their team to debug the tape drivers.
A few months later, my machine was upgraded to a PS/2 Model 80, because the Model 60 didn't have enough snort to run the overnight batch rollover processing I was hired to write.
'nuff said.
By now it wouldn't surprise me if IBM had the biggest patent arsenal in the world. They've spent decades investing heavily in R&D.
Yet you never hear about IBM suing anyone or anyone suing IBM, except for Darl McBride. Remember him? Took a long time to settle that case, didn't it?
How we define "life" when searching the cosmos is entertaining, but to me the bigger philosophical question to consider is alien sentience (not just intelligence) -- self willed, thinking, rational or irrational beings who think, feel, and act for themselves similar to us, but likely following completely different structures of society and morality.
Experienced programmers lose that attitude about the value of other employee's work in a company. Sure some of us laugh at the stupid shit marketing comes up with, but we also know they're just doing their job. We keep complaining about management, but we learn to speak their language and explain things in their terms if we want to succeed. Only arrogant fools keep thinking they're superior to everyone else.
And how could it be otherwise?
After you've spent a few years making mistakes and correcting bugs in your code, you either lose the ego that you're infallible, or you drown in a sea of egotistical misery.
When a bug report is filed, the experienced programmer thinks "Oh shit. What did I miss."
The junior programmer thinks "Damn users. Always complaining. They don't know how anything works."
Nothing but experience can burn the ego out of a programmer. And either it gets burned out of your system, or you get frustrated enough to quit the industry.
More to the point: What the hell is "Personalized Search"?
I've used search engines for years, I know how to wield a keyword group. What more would you want it to do?
Sounds suspiciously like marketing-department speak to me: invented buzzwords and phrases devoid of actual meaning.
Erlang has a very powerful feature whose technical name I forget. It allows you to define a function within a function to be processed by higher level routine, such as a list iterator. My understanding is that a similar feature is to be added to Java 8. I think it'll be a very powerful addition to the Java syntax.
But as to Jigsaw and any competing approaches, I have no opinion or comment. May the best technology win.
No doubt Google leverages their market share advantage for all they're worth and allowed to by law, but I can't think of a single example where they've used technology to BLOCK competition in any way. Instead, they use technology to open NEW MARKETS for their advertising core business, such as creating Android and giving it away.
Is there anything in Chrome that stops you from surfing Apple's website, for example?
Can you provide even a SINGLE example where Google has stifled competition through the abuse of technology?
I'm proud to be a "geek", but I've always thought of myself as a Canadian of Ukrainian descent.
I've never even considered adding "geek" to the hyphenation.
The technically literate are more aware of issues like copyright, piracy, internet access rights, filtering, and a host of technical concerns that most of the public doesn't understand.
But I don't know any technologists who aren't MORE concerned about the same issues as everyone else: unnecessary wars, rapacious corporate executives, job losses due to offshoring, bank executives rewarded for mismanagement and fraud instead of being prosecuted, etc.
First and foremost, geeks are PEOPLE.
We've been trying to get "The Jocks" to accept that for decades. Why would we now want to pigeon-hole ourselves as being either sub-human or elite? We're neither, just differently-abled people.
Your obstinate refusal to accept his core tenet that you can do more with a PC device (be it Windows, Linux, OS/X or other OS) doesn't make you insightful or right.
But you are right in that I'm starting to see people who own a smartphone but who do not have a PC. However, they are not trying to edit documents, work with spreadsheets, do their taxes, etc. on a smart phone. They're just satisfied media CONSUMERS instead of content and data creators.
And that's ok. But without the majority creating content on PC type devices, what will the smartphone and tablet crowd consume?
That's not to say customer data can't or shouldn't be protected. I'm talking about SHARED CONTENT, not data security.
In theory you could encrypt everyone's posts in a secure forum, hash their logins, hide their names, and "protect" them from surveillance. I'm surprised no one has done it yet.
But it goes against the original core design goal of DARPA, who created the internet: a tool for exchanging and sharing information.
Not hiding it.
If the data is available from a website, the government can crawl it. robots.txt is a polite request not to search the content of a website, not a physical lock or encryption.
It may be EASIER for the governments to find "miscreants" on social networks because they're all in one database and more easily scanned, but that definitely doesn't mean you're safe from prying eyes ANYWHERE on the internet. If you post it where others can read it, the three-letter agencies can, will, and DO read it.
Privacy on the internet is an illusion, nothing more. It has alway been so, will always be so, and cannot be otherwise if people are to share information.
Speculating about what might happen when you have no idea where the market is going or what the Android vendors might want is silly. Just watch as people get riled up about what they come up in their own paranoid imaginations and scream about how wrong it all is... this is gonna be a fun topic to read. :)
I agree. While Tolkien's stories are detailed and entertaining, it's not "great literature" in the critical sense.
Because it's VERY expensive to ship earth-moving construction equipment (sorry, MARS-moving equipment) through space, and it'd take far too long to dig a habitat with a shovel.
Cryosleep might be needed if we're ever to engage in interstellar travel in the future, but the problem with a Mars mission is not that the astronauts are going to age into old farts before they get there: it's surviving once they DO get there.