This is why GPL'd products are technologically outstripping M$ Windows. GPL licensed products (as opposed to BSD) will allow people to alter the product for specialized projects that push the product's current boundaries/parameters and allow that code to be shared for all to benefit from. BSD-style licensing and short-sighted views on capitalism almost encourage the closure of previously open sourced codebases. Not that this is a bad thing in the short term for the company doing it, but it definitely is bad for the community as a whole in the long term.
An example, is GNOME, a GPL'd product that others built, allowing Sun to expend its resources to improving and optimizing its configuration. If Sun had to build it from scratch AND spend resources to find just the right configuration, they would've probably have failed (they have in the past). But, now everyone can benefit from Sun's configuration and optimized changes because the products they altered were GPL'd. Sun benefited from the work of others and all other Linux distros benefit from Sun's work.
Adabas-D is only commercial if you buy it under that name. Under another guise, it was called SAP-DB and Open Sourced in 2001. It is now called MaxDB and according to SAP is being marketed and developed by my MySQL as an enterprise ready Open Source product.
There's a Slashdot article that talks about SAP-DB. And, there's a decent article by someone who installed it.
I wish slashdotters would stop shocking their pilot friends. They're already paranoid enough to demand to carry guns on their flights (good for impressing chicks at the bar while still in uniform). Just what we need: paranoid, gun-totting, alcoholic, would-be-cassanovas flying something equivalent to a missile, while you and your family are too afraid to go to the bathroom on the chance that the rest of the passengers might mistakenly jump your ass for the crime of having a permament tan.
Due to the permament tan I carry, the last couple of years travelling by plane have been rather trying. This article doesn't improve my opinion on the next couple of years. While the government and quasi-governmental agencies control the fastest and most convenient method of travel long distances, they exert unacceptable control over the citizenry.
One possible scenario I can see is that as American IT disappears, America loses the ability to innovate in IT. The ability to innovate in IT at the rate we currently enjoy took about 40 years of IT experience building on itself, teaching itself, capturing a small percentage of those lessons in books, then moving them into the brains and character of the IT worker. Most of the experience learned, however, was never captured on text (at least not widely published text), and must be recreated continuously to maintain a momentum. That very momentum has kept America on the leading edge of tech. Tech can thank other supportive industries and sciences in helping it reach that momentum, and America can thank tech for helping it become a world leader. Unfortunately, while America as a whole is grateful for IT's role in helping it become a world leader, American politician's have taken American tech's role for granted except when they need to reduce soldier casualties (directly related to votes and corporate incursions into foreign countries) by utilizing high-tech oriented smart-bombs, guided missiles, satellites, mine-sniffing robots, fighter jets, and pilotless drones.
If nothing is done to stem the bleeding of America's IT, it's probably true that American tech will not disappear entirely, but it will be reduced to that of other countries. While those countries we've chosen over others, to gain hard-earned tech experience in our place, will rise and surpass their teacher. This may very well result in an economical reversal of roles. Corporations will move labor (IT/management/research/scientists) from cheap country to cheaper country (causing economic crises is less stable economies as jobs leave) until corporations find themselves hiring IT in an economically unrecognizable United States; an America probably still significant in IT (otherwise the IT jobs wouldn't come back), but as a country no more the super power than Canada is now. This may take anywhere from a few short years to decades, but companies will manage to get cheap labor that by happenstance also speaks English (assuming that English is still the language of business).
If there was a person of middle-eastern ethnicity who could at the flip of a switch cause America to lose its IT workers, we (knowing all the benefits of even HAVING an IT capability) would've called it an act of terrorism and gone to war. If an American citizen were able to intentionally cause a massive disruption that resulted in the loss of the American IT to a foreign power, we (understanding the economic and security capabilities one gains from having IT capability at home) would declare the citizen a traitor. When an American company does this to America, what do we call it? Sun's Scott McNealy calls it an "international company". If the Chief Executive Officer of Sun no longer considers Sun an American company, it should be treated as such. Otherwise, it is given an unfair advantage over other foreign companies that don't have the luxury of pretending to be an American company and all the benefits of allowing it to operate in America as an American company. The pretense should be dropped in fairness to others if fairness can be attributed to a libertarian, and to allow the status of being an American company reserved for those that really are American. I don't think McNealy (despite his complaints of taxes, employee benefits...etc) would consider the idea either profitable or plausible. I wonder why? I don't mean to single out Sun. I consider McNealy's attitude inimical towards American citizens, but not a dangerous one when acting alone. It is when many companies as a whole start considering themselves as "international", but behave in unfair self-interest that specifically hurts American citizens, that I co
I remember a 3D file/document-manager from Xerox called Visual Recall. Here's a description of it:
"PARC develops a unique approach to the visualization of information that uses people's perceptual and cognitive capacities to help them deal with large amounts of information. The approach is used in 3-D Rooms and is an integral technique used in the Xerox product Visual Recall. It results in the invention of the hyperbolic browser and other focus-plus-context visualization techniques that give the user three-dimensional views of text databases. These visualization techniques offer a revolutionary way for people to access information on the Internet and will later result in the formation of a PARC spin out, Inxight Software, Inc."
And, another description:
"Xerox spins out Microlytics to commercialize PARC's early compression technology research by bringing artificial intelligence spell-checking software, linguistic and data compression technologies to market. Based on an understanding of the deep structure and mathematical properties of language, linguistic compression technology is used for visual recall, intelligent retrieval and data compression. This work has a major impact on the automatic processing of language structures and is one of the key research areas underpinning Xerox's multilingual suite of products."
#1 on the list is particularly disturbing. We've become so spoon-fed from the oversimplified (to the point of being misleading) television news, that even when people know that the truth is out there, no one cares to read it. Time is the unfortunate casualty in the race for the almighty buck. It isn't that the public is stupid (they can slip at times, but there is wisdom in the herd), it's that corporate media treats us as if we were. Then, armed with half-truths, we make uninformed decisions because our source of daily information is so seriously flawed.
As computer animation production becomes more accessible and easy to use, I hope that one of the implementations will be homemade movies based on things found on this and future lists. A short 5 minute movie about each subject matter on these types of lists, showing animated simulations with decent electronica music scores(must keep the plot moving), would serve the public well and outsell the bland, oversimplified, corporate news we see now from the rich and influential.
For those who complain that these subjects aren't censored, only unpopular; I would suggest that accusation to be shortsighted. The general public is spoon-fed via television news and their interests are highly influenced by that media. If the subject requires more than a few steps to put together complex, yet related facts, the news is unlikely to air it. That is a form of censorship. Imagine what else the rich and powerful who own the news companies keep out of the spotlight when "friends" of corporate media are involved in embarrassing and potentially explosive situations due to their past behaviors. Corporate media that claims to present unbiased news is not fulfilling its role as a news entity. And, if corporate media makes promises to the public that they don't keep, is that not a lie?
Corporate media decides what is aired based on market requirements (in this case the attention span of the overworked, underpaid and about to lose overtime), not based on facts that impact the population (this is one definition of "news"). Occasionally, the two will happily coincide and corporate media as a small herd (not much diversity in this market) will generously spoon-feed the populous with facts that impact their lives and are factual from a very limited perspective. For instance, the events that occurred in New York, Afghanistan, and Iraq are covered from a single perspective and can technically be described as factual (if superficial). For instance, there was an attack on the U.S., there was a war in Afghanistan, and there was a war in Iraq. All are facts. However, the connections between these places and the events that occurred before them as a cause are "uncoupled" by corporate media to assist digestion when the consumer does what consumers do. It is as if events spring out of nothingness in a reality where cause and effect are unrelated. Unfortunately, this results in a distorted message, as it is only half the truth or less. Then, when the misinformed public makes a decision not to act and stop those in power from abusing their offices and responsibilities as Public Servants, we look foolish. Is it then unreasonable to think that the other populations in the world would look at us as potentially the greatest threat in the world, in fear and hurt? To blame us, the public, for not reigning in those we've so irresponsibly allowed to slip their leash? Are these not our Public Servants, our responsibility?
I don't mean to say that other governments aren't involved in the nasty business of exploitation and divisiveness, or that foreign news services are any better than ours. Often, the governments and news media are worse. It is simply that other than Great Britain, most scoundrels in power are out of their league when compared to our servants. That includes amateurs like Saddam and bin Laden. Both were created and used to the end by our servants.
At some point we'll rouse ourselves (we always do) from our short attention span and focus our scat
You'll have to face the fact that no single book contains the knowledge you wish your students to learn. So, you do what any great teacher does and take the best from various sources.
A short answer to your request would be to get Learn to Program with Java by John Smiley to teach the Java language and program construction in the easiest manner ever written. The method taught is very accessible for those who've never written a line of code. Have your students follow the instructions in Don't Fear The OOP! for fun and insight. Then, make the brilliant Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days by Anthony Sintes the real goal of your course. The first 7 days covers OOP as you won't find in other books, then the following 7 days covers how to design/structure/test applications in OOP. The last 7 days is a fun project building an application using the OOP principles already taught. These two books should cover what your students need. If by chance you run out of time and they don't finish the OOP book, you should still be able to get them through the first 7 days of the material and still finish the Smiley book (which is necessary for the fundamentals). Your students can then continue to finish the Sintes book if they find Java/OOP is something they wish to pursue further.
For students who require more instruction in programming fundamentals, you'll have to be more considerate. More consideration requires a longer answer to your request. You know that OOP is the most important aspect of learning this discipline, but you're stuck with a chicken and egg situation. How can one learn how to build solutions (algorithms/applications) to problems without knowing how to express those ideas first in a language's syntax and semantics? As you've said, your students are assumed to have no programming experience. Well, as a child, before you learned how to speak your mind, you first had to learn HOW to say things.
I would first recommend giving your students a crash course in syntax and semantics. Don't worry if they don't know what to DO with the syntax yet. They first need to become familiar with the alphabet and sentence structures of the language before they can learn how to express their ideas in that language. I'm going to diverge from the rest of the slashdot crowd here by recommending that you use a CBT (Computer Based Training) for this step. It's the quickest way to your goal (about 8-20 hours of computer time) and the interactivity will keep their attention even though the material is very dry (in contrast to the Smiley book). They can run the CBT over and over again until the message of language's rules sink in. This will be most effective with your guidance in filling in the missing information (CBT text is purposely kept terse in order to maximize retention and in order not to lose the user's attention). Use CBTs as homework, or in conjunction with other homework. There are various worthwhile CBTs out there, Smartforce/Smartcertify's or Netg's first module on Java should suffice. Or, Joe Grip's whole set of Java instruction (about 10 hours of computer time, though they claim 5).
If your students really are beginners, I'd even encourage getting a CBT on not just syntax, but on basic programming concepts (iteration, selection, sequence, algorithms...etc). Smartforce/Smartcertify has something on that called Programming Fundamentals or you can get a copy of COMPTONS PROGRAMMING MADE EASY (though you'll need to ignore some minor bugs, not that textb
I'm not familiar with Norden. But, unless there's an economic benefit I don't see the point of grouping more countries under another common name. I mean, you're already European. So, no point in wasting euros on changing map designations.
By the dictionary and encyclopedia. Study sections on German pre-Christian religions (Older and Younger Eddas) and languages (Teutonic), and you'll see that Germans or those who speak a Germanic language are catagorized as Nordic.
However, Scandinavia is identified as a regional collection of states/countries that share similarities in culture (or at least recent roots of culture) that are specifically not German(in the modern sense), but still Germanic and speak a Germanic language.
You'll also find that Germans are Nordic, but not Scandinavian. They are part of Northern Europe, speak a Germanic language(s), but are only linguistically, not regionally or culturually, associated with the peninsula of Sweden and Norway. Scandinavians speak a Germanic language, but are not German (again, in the modern sense that the English are not German, but speak a Germanic language). The Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes are more closely related culturally and geographically to each other than they are to Germany.
At some time in the past, many of the Nordic countries may have shared similar cultures (and similar religions) as they did root languages, but the drift in similarities are now pronounced. This is why the German distinction from Scandinavia exists, though both are Nordic.
Germans are also considered "Nordic", so this is probably a misnomer. Scandinavian indicates non-German Nordic peoples who speak northern/western germanic languages with the exception of the Brittish Isles.
Yet another example of sacrificing accuracy for the sake of brevity.
Half the cost you just listed would also apply to contractors. So, basically there is a "cost" associated in hiring a living body. Putting those "living body" costs aside, it looks like hiring an employee (as opposed to a contractor) is significantly less than 2 times their salary.
I think you can hire more than 2 people for $350K.
The North Pole will be iceless in the summers, but that won't make ocean levels rise because the polar ice is already in the ocean.
Makes sense. However, doesn't water expand when in becomes ice? If so, then the ice is actually taking up more volume in the water. Assuming that most of the ice is under the waterline (we only see the "tip of the iceberg"), would that mean that the ocean levels may actually drop due to the contraction of volume when the ice melts?
You hit the mark. I almost never start up a conversation when mixing with people, but still friends and family consider me combatative or a "know it all". Whereas they look for some pleasant smalltalk, I'm so desperate at some point for mental stimulation that I forget who I'm with and treat them as I would MYSELF. Essentially, I use them as co-processors in an attempt to explore issues from various sides to attempt to reach some truth. However, I have little sympathy for my own delusions, and may make the mistake of being brusque as I treat others as I would treat myself in the unrelenting dive for some nugget of truth.
I find an argument (I don't mean a fight, but the classical meaning for it) one of the most enjoyable activities. The satisfaction of coming to a conclusion (even if it's by myself) or even reaching a concensus that the conclusion is currently unattainable (due to whatever factors) is addicting.
However, if the person(s) I am with are not prepared for the experience or are not inclined to that form of communication, I appear quite combatative. I feel somewhat embarrassed immediately afterwards, realizing I should know better. If possible, I might apologize for boring them, and most people are gracious about it. Unfortunately, if I'm at a party, I may then spend the rest of the evening fighting off extreme drowsiness brought on by moving from one aimless smalltalk-driven conversation to another, with only the small hope of running into an actual discussion. Drinking hard liquor helps. Beer is reserved for actual conversation.
This is why I believe most introverts tend to have very few, but cherished close friends. Usually, the make up of this small group will have a high percentage of introverts in them, and some very tolerant extroverts. The extroverts are needed, because without them to help glue the introverts together, there's always the danger of drifting apart due to a lack of consistant interaction.
I say, why not? Beer was essential in BUILDING the pyramids!
As beer was part of their salary, you might even say the pyramid builders worked for beer.
In fact, the workers who built the pyramids took their love of beer to their graves.
"Many workers were also buried with jars of beer, Hawass adds, picking up one such rough red-clay pot lying on top of a nearby grave. 'They made a beer from barley, and that was their daily drink. They didn't want to be without it even in the afterlife, so they often put in one of these jars.'"
Naturally, that rule would also apply to those who don't sign up for organ replacement, right? Can't accept a part unless you're also willing to give a part.
In essence, that rule would make it an incentive to sign-up for organ donation. Otherwise, when you need a body part, you don't qualify.
This program rewards those who share with a higher chance of gaining organs in the statistically unlikely event for the need arising. It's not that much of a stretch in comparing this with the Free Software movement.
If you intend on keeping your parts proprietary (not sharing when someone needs it, and you no longer do since you've passed on), you aren't allowed to take from this source.
If the rule about receiving parts only if you're also on a donor list is made mandatory, the shortage may not be that severe or even exist. The more people who join the better this works.
For years, the entertainment and publishing industry have been plundered works of art whose copyrights have expired. Take The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen for instance. Or, Sinbad from Dreamworks, or just about anything Disney comes out with that isn't computer generated.
However, when others want to plunder their hoard, it's not kosher. So, they buy our politicians and lock us out from doing what they themselves have done to become bazillionaires(steal ideas from others) by extending copyrights past your lifetime (I would consider that as "indefinitely"). And, by convincing the public with propaganda that practicing fair use is immoral if not illegal.
Someone posted an entertaining article regarding copyrights not too long ago:
Every time a cached link is clicked, pay sites like the New York Times can receive notice from Google (easy to automate this) that one of their pages (which is cached in Google) has been accessed, and all advertisements in the cache have been displayed (Google caches Ads in the page as well as the contents). This allows the website to "offload" traffic and at the same time keeping the books on the number of times their Ads have been viewed so that they can send the accounting record to their paid Advertisers.
Google would find this very simple to implement, and paid sites would find this very beneficial (borrowing Google's enormous bandwidth and server capabilities for free) and at the same time should solve most of their concerns. After all, Google's cache isn't sufficient for proper access to ALL the paid-content at the New York Times as the cache is temporary in nature. Also, its too spotty in coverage to be considered reliable enough for really digging into a paid-sites entire content.
Using Google like this is akin to using Google as a window into the pay-site's house of content. You can part of a room, but not the whole interior. Now, every time someone peeks, the House gets notified and can get paid for it. The more windows Google adds to the House, the more chances the House gets paid.
I don't know if the original poster is correct in claiming your text to be wrong on the subject of OOP. However, the idea (not sure whether he claims it to be yours) that inheritance is the most important aspect of OOP is misleading. Without the two other pillars, proper OOP simply cannot stand.
I haven't read your text. Although, I plan to. I can understand how someone reading something out of context (especially when a subject is only fully explained across several chapters) may make a claim of confusion.
If you decide to rename the chapter to more clearly describe its intent, I would also encourage a full coverage of the subject of OO if you haven't done so. You need encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism to claim fully explain OOP.
Please see Anthony Sintes' "Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days". Possibly the best practical introduction to that paradigm in the past 10 years.
His discussion on ADTs is quite enlightening, and his coverage of the three pillars has yet to be matched. The explanation of the non-OOP nature of switches in the Polymorphism chapter is also not found in most texts. But, the particularly strong emphasis on object responsibility is a welcome viewpoint to someone who's had to support sphaghetti code.
Use the following ISBN to locate the text. You won't be disappointed:
A Perfect example for corporations. And, they call the GPL a virus. M$ is the carrier of the freakin' black death, and its proprietary software should be avoided like the plague it is.
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Disney, as a corporation (even one with rights and lifespan that surpass the average citizen's) is neither the "Author" nor "Inventor" of their "Writings" and "Discoveries". They are the commissioners of those works that are then written and invented by authors and inventors. As far as I know, only an officer of the company can legally be held to "represent" the company, not a lowly non-officer employee/artist.
If that's the case, then the rights that this Constitutional clause protects are only those of the writer/inventor[originator?] and not of his employer/commissioner.
There is a problematic situation where some corporations force employees to sign forms which state that everything they create while employed belong to the employer. But, haven't there been cases where those contracts have been nullified by the courts?
Re:Practical Applications
on
Effective Java
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Don't learn Java. Learn OOP, and implement what you learn, as you learn, in Java. That is the best advice no one ever gave me. When you learn OOP, it doesn't matter what Java-like language you learn, as the real skill will be portable to other languages, like C#, SmallTalk, Python and Ruby. Let me explain.
I recently decided to go into the field of programming, and probably don't have 1/10th your development experience. However, my research skills are equal to anyone that I know, and they've certainly helped me in getting a grasp on the fundamentals of software engineering (or problem solving as I've learned to call it).
I chose Java because of its touted strengths, and because I wasn't sure of my target platform yet. I soon understood that as an introductory language, it has some conceptual hurdles that may get in the way when first learning to program. After a while, I began to understand the basics of programming by supplementing my self-study with older languages like BASIC. Essentially, diving straight into Java without first learning the standard structures of programming (sequence, selection, and repetition) was a handicap. However, for someone who already knows Visual Basic, such as yourself, the biggest hurdle will be the concepts of Object Oriented Programming.
If you think you "know" Object Oriented Programming but have only implemented it in VB, then I would suggest that you may not know everything that you need to program in OOP properly. There are plenty of Java programmers out there, but looking at some of their code, I see a definite lack of understanding in how to implement OOP. I see procedural programming techniques being applied to a language that will allow for it, but the developers lose the real advantages of using OOP.
I would recommend that you get a "beginners" book on Java (John Smiley is an excellent resource with his Learn To Program Java) to become familiar with the mechanics. If you prefer, you can try a Java in 21 Days/24 Hours type book. It doesn't matter, because if you follow my advice, you will actually learn to program OOP which is by far the largest hurdle, not syntax/grammar/classes. The most beneficial book I've found on the subject is from a master on the subject:
This book will not only teach you how to program OOP, it will teach you to do it the right way. This is done by showing you how not to program OOP, and immediately showing you an alternative.
The author has some serious credentials:
"Tony Sintes has worked with Object-Oriented Technologies since 1995. In that time, Tony has been part of many object-oriented development efforts. Currently, he works for BroadVision where his main responsibility as team mentor, building the skills of less-experienced developers. He brings his years of experience and ability to teach to different projects in order to guarantee their success.
Tony Sintes has written for JavaWorld, Dr. Dobb's Journal, LinuxWorld, JavaOne Today, and Silicon Prairie, where he produced a highly-regarded monthly column on Object-Oriented Programming. Tony currently writes JavaWorld's monthly Q&A column."
About the book:
"Sams Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days differs from other OOP books in two main ways. Many classic OOP books are designed for software engineers and teach at an academic level. Sams Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days presents accessible, user-friendly lessons designed with the beginning programmer in mind. Other OOP books work to present both OOP and to teach a programming language (for example: Object-Oriented Programming in C++). Although Sams Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days uses Java to present the examples, the book is designed to present concepts that apply to any OOP environment."
Days 1-7 cover the core OOP concepts with every other chapter covering the implementation of the concepts in the previous chapter and a boatload of do's and don'ts. For instance, in Chapter 2 you learn about Encapsulation theory (more importantly, what NOT to do). Chapter 3 you write code implementing Encapsulation...and so on.
Days 8-14 covers how to apply the OOP you've learned using design patterns like MVC.
Days 15-21 take the things you learned in the past 14 days, and make a GUI-based application. You apply the MVC pattern in making the app. Very cool.
"...after all, you cannot appreciate Shakespeare until you have heard it in the original Klingon."
http://www.scifi.com/scifi.con/word/kli/liter.ht ml
Apple treats BSD like the weak whore she is.
on
The NetBSD Organization
·
· Score: -1, Troll
When corporations misuse the public trust, and they do whenever they take things from the public and spit in the public's eye as thanks, they no longer deserve a free ride.
I wouldn't bother wasting time supporting something that doesn't WANT to be protected. Use Linux, and be happy. In a couple more years BSD will be an footnote in OS history, and largely forgotten by what little of the public even know about it now.
Academics who will remember it will say that it all came down to the license. BSD's was weak and flacid, while the GPL was strong and vigorous. To the victor go the spoils, and the prize it turned out was mindshare.
Slashdot Mirror
An example, is GNOME, a GPL'd product that others built, allowing Sun to expend its resources to improving and optimizing its configuration. If Sun had to build it from scratch AND spend resources to find just the right configuration, they would've probably have failed (they have in the past). But, now everyone can benefit from Sun's configuration and optimized changes because the products they altered were GPL'd. Sun benefited from the work of others and all other Linux distros benefit from Sun's work.
= 9J =
There's a Slashdot article that talks about SAP-DB. And, there's a decent article by someone who installed it.
= 9J =
Yes, it is. I believe he meant Access, Approach or Paradox, dBase, or FoxPro. = 9J =
= 9J =
Maybe, it's time for an alternative?
= 9J =
If nothing is done to stem the bleeding of America's IT, it's probably true that American tech will not disappear entirely, but it will be reduced to that of other countries. While those countries we've chosen over others, to gain hard-earned tech experience in our place, will rise and surpass their teacher. This may very well result in an economical reversal of roles. Corporations will move labor (IT/management/research/scientists) from cheap country to cheaper country (causing economic crises is less stable economies as jobs leave) until corporations find themselves hiring IT in an economically unrecognizable United States; an America probably still significant in IT (otherwise the IT jobs wouldn't come back), but as a country no more the super power than Canada is now. This may take anywhere from a few short years to decades, but companies will manage to get cheap labor that by happenstance also speaks English (assuming that English is still the language of business).
If there was a person of middle-eastern ethnicity who could at the flip of a switch cause America to lose its IT workers, we (knowing all the benefits of even HAVING an IT capability) would've called it an act of terrorism and gone to war. If an American citizen were able to intentionally cause a massive disruption that resulted in the loss of the American IT to a foreign power, we (understanding the economic and security capabilities one gains from having IT capability at home) would declare the citizen a traitor. When an American company does this to America, what do we call it? Sun's Scott McNealy calls it an "international company". If the Chief Executive Officer of Sun no longer considers Sun an American company, it should be treated as such. Otherwise, it is given an unfair advantage over other foreign companies that don't have the luxury of pretending to be an American company and all the benefits of allowing it to operate in America as an American company. The pretense should be dropped in fairness to others if fairness can be attributed to a libertarian, and to allow the status of being an American company reserved for those that really are American. I don't think McNealy (despite his complaints of taxes, employee benefits...etc) would consider the idea either profitable or plausible. I wonder why? I don't mean to single out Sun. I consider McNealy's attitude inimical towards American citizens, but not a dangerous one when acting alone. It is when many companies as a whole start considering themselves as "international", but behave in unfair self-interest that specifically hurts American citizens, that I co
"PARC develops a unique approach to the visualization of information that uses people's perceptual and cognitive capacities to help them deal with large amounts of information. The approach is used in 3-D Rooms and is an integral technique used in the Xerox product Visual Recall. It results in the invention of the hyperbolic browser and other focus-plus-context visualization techniques that give the user three-dimensional views of text databases. These visualization techniques offer a revolutionary way for people to access information on the Internet and will later result in the formation of a PARC spin out, Inxight Software, Inc."
And, another description:
"Xerox spins out Microlytics to commercialize PARC's early compression technology research by bringing artificial intelligence spell-checking software, linguistic and data compression technologies to market. Based on an understanding of the deep structure and mathematical properties of language, linguistic compression technology is used for visual recall, intelligent retrieval and data compression. This work has a major impact on the automatic processing of language structures and is one of the key research areas underpinning Xerox's multilingual suite of products."
You can find the history here.
Here's a brochure
= 9J =
As computer animation production becomes more accessible and easy to use, I hope that one of the implementations will be homemade movies based on things found on this and future lists. A short 5 minute movie about each subject matter on these types of lists, showing animated simulations with decent electronica music scores(must keep the plot moving), would serve the public well and outsell the bland, oversimplified, corporate news we see now from the rich and influential.
For those who complain that these subjects aren't censored, only unpopular; I would suggest that accusation to be shortsighted. The general public is spoon-fed via television news and their interests are highly influenced by that media. If the subject requires more than a few steps to put together complex, yet related facts, the news is unlikely to air it. That is a form of censorship. Imagine what else the rich and powerful who own the news companies keep out of the spotlight when "friends" of corporate media are involved in embarrassing and potentially explosive situations due to their past behaviors. Corporate media that claims to present unbiased news is not fulfilling its role as a news entity. And, if corporate media makes promises to the public that they don't keep, is that not a lie?
Corporate media decides what is aired based on market requirements (in this case the attention span of the overworked, underpaid and about to lose overtime), not based on facts that impact the population (this is one definition of "news"). Occasionally, the two will happily coincide and corporate media as a small herd (not much diversity in this market) will generously spoon-feed the populous with facts that impact their lives and are factual from a very limited perspective. For instance, the events that occurred in New York, Afghanistan, and Iraq are covered from a single perspective and can technically be described as factual (if superficial). For instance, there was an attack on the U.S., there was a war in Afghanistan, and there was a war in Iraq. All are facts. However, the connections between these places and the events that occurred before them as a cause are "uncoupled" by corporate media to assist digestion when the consumer does what consumers do. It is as if events spring out of nothingness in a reality where cause and effect are unrelated. Unfortunately, this results in a distorted message, as it is only half the truth or less. Then, when the misinformed public makes a decision not to act and stop those in power from abusing their offices and responsibilities as Public Servants, we look foolish. Is it then unreasonable to think that the other populations in the world would look at us as potentially the greatest threat in the world, in fear and hurt? To blame us, the public, for not reigning in those we've so irresponsibly allowed to slip their leash? Are these not our Public Servants, our responsibility?
I don't mean to say that other governments aren't involved in the nasty business of exploitation and divisiveness, or that foreign news services are any better than ours. Often, the governments and news media are worse. It is simply that other than Great Britain, most scoundrels in power are out of their league when compared to our servants. That includes amateurs like Saddam and bin Laden. Both were created and used to the end by our servants.
At some point we'll rouse ourselves (we always do) from our short attention span and focus our scat
A short answer to your request would be to get Learn to Program with Java by John Smiley to teach the Java language and program construction in the easiest manner ever written. The method taught is very accessible for those who've never written a line of code. Have your students follow the instructions in Don't Fear The OOP! for fun and insight. Then, make the brilliant Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days by Anthony Sintes the real goal of your course. The first 7 days covers OOP as you won't find in other books, then the following 7 days covers how to design/structure/test applications in OOP. The last 7 days is a fun project building an application using the OOP principles already taught. These two books should cover what your students need. If by chance you run out of time and they don't finish the OOP book, you should still be able to get them through the first 7 days of the material and still finish the Smiley book (which is necessary for the fundamentals). Your students can then continue to finish the Sintes book if they find Java/OOP is something they wish to pursue further.
For students who require more instruction in programming fundamentals, you'll have to be more considerate. More consideration requires a longer answer to your request. You know that OOP is the most important aspect of learning this discipline, but you're stuck with a chicken and egg situation. How can one learn how to build solutions (algorithms/applications) to problems without knowing how to express those ideas first in a language's syntax and semantics? As you've said, your students are assumed to have no programming experience. Well, as a child, before you learned how to speak your mind, you first had to learn HOW to say things.
I would first recommend giving your students a crash course in syntax and semantics. Don't worry if they don't know what to DO with the syntax yet. They first need to become familiar with the alphabet and sentence structures of the language before they can learn how to express their ideas in that language. I'm going to diverge from the rest of the slashdot crowd here by recommending that you use a CBT (Computer Based Training) for this step. It's the quickest way to your goal (about 8-20 hours of computer time) and the interactivity will keep their attention even though the material is very dry (in contrast to the Smiley book). They can run the CBT over and over again until the message of language's rules sink in. This will be most effective with your guidance in filling in the missing information (CBT text is purposely kept terse in order to maximize retention and in order not to lose the user's attention). Use CBTs as homework, or in conjunction with other homework. There are various worthwhile CBTs out there, Smartforce/Smartcertify's or Netg's first module on Java should suffice. Or, Joe Grip's whole set of Java instruction (about 10 hours of computer time, though they claim 5).
If your students really are beginners, I'd even encourage getting a CBT on not just syntax, but on basic programming concepts (iteration, selection, sequence, algorithms...etc). Smartforce/Smartcertify has something on that called Programming Fundamentals or you can get a copy of COMPTONS PROGRAMMING MADE EASY (though you'll need to ignore some minor bugs, not that textb
I'm not familiar with Norden. But, unless there's an economic benefit I don't see the point of grouping more countries under another common name. I mean, you're already European. So, no point in wasting euros on changing map designations.
= 9J =
By the dictionary and encyclopedia. Study sections on German pre-Christian religions (Older and Younger Eddas) and languages (Teutonic), and you'll see that Germans or those who speak a Germanic language are catagorized as Nordic.
However, Scandinavia is identified as a regional collection of states/countries that share similarities in culture (or at least recent roots of culture) that are specifically not German(in the modern sense), but still Germanic and speak a Germanic language.
You'll also find that Germans are Nordic, but not Scandinavian. They are part of Northern Europe, speak a Germanic language(s), but are only linguistically, not regionally or culturually, associated with the peninsula of Sweden and Norway. Scandinavians speak a Germanic language, but are not German (again, in the modern sense that the English are not German, but speak a Germanic language). The Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes are more closely related culturally and geographically to each other than they are to Germany.
At some time in the past, many of the Nordic countries may have shared similar cultures (and similar religions) as they did root languages, but the drift in similarities are now pronounced. This is why the German distinction from Scandinavia exists, though both are Nordic.
= 9J =
to say Nordic rather than Scandinavian.
Germans are also considered "Nordic", so this is probably a misnomer. Scandinavian indicates non-German Nordic peoples who speak northern/western germanic languages with the exception of the Brittish Isles.
Yet another example of sacrificing accuracy for the sake of brevity.
Now the Italians will want to be called Romans.
I think you can hire more than 2 people for $350K.
Makes sense. However, doesn't water expand when in becomes ice? If so, then the ice is actually taking up more volume in the water. Assuming that most of the ice is under the waterline (we only see the "tip of the iceberg"), would that mean that the ocean levels may actually drop due to the contraction of volume when the ice melts?
= 9J =
I find an argument (I don't mean a fight, but the classical meaning for it) one of the most enjoyable activities. The satisfaction of coming to a conclusion (even if it's by myself) or even reaching a concensus that the conclusion is currently unattainable (due to whatever factors) is addicting.
However, if the person(s) I am with are not prepared for the experience or are not inclined to that form of communication, I appear quite combatative. I feel somewhat embarrassed immediately afterwards, realizing I should know better. If possible, I might apologize for boring them, and most people are gracious about it. Unfortunately, if I'm at a party, I may then spend the rest of the evening fighting off extreme drowsiness brought on by moving from one aimless smalltalk-driven conversation to another, with only the small hope of running into an actual discussion. Drinking hard liquor helps. Beer is reserved for actual conversation.
This is why I believe most introverts tend to have very few, but cherished close friends. Usually, the make up of this small group will have a high percentage of introverts in them, and some very tolerant extroverts. The extroverts are needed, because without them to help glue the introverts together, there's always the danger of drifting apart due to a lack of consistant interaction.
As beer was part of their salary, you might even say the pyramid builders worked for beer.
In fact, the workers who built the pyramids took their love of beer to their graves.
"Many workers were also buried with jars of beer, Hawass adds, picking up one such rough red-clay pot lying on top of a nearby grave. 'They made a beer from barley, and that was their daily drink. They didn't want to be without it even in the afterlife, so they often put in one of these jars.'"
/ 11/01/html/ft_20011101.5.html
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001
= 9J =
Naturally, that rule would also apply to those who don't sign up for organ replacement, right? Can't accept a part unless you're also willing to give a part.
In essence, that rule would make it an incentive to sign-up for organ donation. Otherwise, when you need a body part, you don't qualify.
This program rewards those who share with a higher chance of gaining organs in the statistically unlikely event for the need arising. It's not that much of a stretch in comparing this with the Free Software movement.
If you intend on keeping your parts proprietary (not sharing when someone needs it, and you no longer do since you've passed on), you aren't allowed to take from this source.
If the rule about receiving parts only if you're also on a donor list is made mandatory, the shortage may not be that severe or even exist. The more people who join the better this works.
= 9J =
However, when others want to plunder their hoard, it's not kosher. So, they buy our politicians and lock us out from doing what they themselves have done to become bazillionaires(steal ideas from others) by extending copyrights past your lifetime (I would consider that as "indefinitely"). And, by convincing the public with propaganda that practicing fair use is immoral if not illegal.
Someone posted an entertaining article regarding copyrights not too long ago:
The Double Edge of Copyright Extensions
= 9J =
Every time a cached link is clicked, pay sites like the New York Times can receive notice from Google (easy to automate this) that one of their pages (which is cached in Google) has been accessed, and all advertisements in the cache have been displayed (Google caches Ads in the page as well as the contents). This allows the website to "offload" traffic and at the same time keeping the books on the number of times their Ads have been viewed so that they can send the accounting record to their paid Advertisers.
Google would find this very simple to implement, and paid sites would find this very beneficial (borrowing Google's enormous bandwidth and server capabilities for free) and at the same time should solve most of their concerns. After all, Google's cache isn't sufficient for proper access to ALL the paid-content at the New York Times as the cache is temporary in nature. Also, its too spotty in coverage to be considered reliable enough for really digging into a paid-sites entire content.
Using Google like this is akin to using Google as a window into the pay-site's house of content. You can part of a room, but not the whole interior. Now, every time someone peeks, the House gets notified and can get paid for it. The more windows Google adds to the House, the more chances the House gets paid.
I don't know if the original poster is correct in claiming your text to be wrong on the subject of OOP. However, the idea (not sure whether he claims it to be yours) that inheritance is the most important aspect of OOP is misleading. Without the two other pillars, proper OOP simply cannot stand.
I haven't read your text. Although, I plan to. I can understand how someone reading something out of context (especially when a subject is only fully explained across several chapters) may make a claim of confusion.
If you decide to rename the chapter to more clearly describe its intent, I would also encourage a full coverage of the subject of OO if you haven't done so. You need encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism to claim fully explain OOP.
Please see Anthony Sintes' "Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days". Possibly the best practical introduction to that paradigm in the past 10 years.
His discussion on ADTs is quite enlightening, and his coverage of the three pillars has yet to be matched. The explanation of the non-OOP nature of switches in the Polymorphism chapter is also not found in most texts. But, the particularly strong emphasis on object responsibility is a welcome viewpoint to someone who's had to support sphaghetti code.
Use the following ISBN to locate the text. You won't be disappointed:
ISBN: 0-672-32109-9
A Perfect example for corporations. And, they call the GPL a virus. M$ is the carrier of the freakin' black death, and its proprietary software should be avoided like the plague it is.
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Disney, as a corporation (even one with rights and lifespan that surpass the average citizen's) is neither the "Author" nor "Inventor" of their "Writings" and "Discoveries". They are the commissioners of those works that are then written and invented by authors and inventors. As far as I know, only an officer of the company can legally be held to "represent" the company, not a lowly non-officer employee/artist.
If that's the case, then the rights that this Constitutional clause protects are only those of the writer/inventor[originator?] and not of his employer/commissioner.
There is a problematic situation where some corporations force employees to sign forms which state that everything they create while employed belong to the employer. But, haven't there been cases where those contracts have been nullified by the courts?
Don't learn Java. Learn OOP, and implement what you learn, as you learn, in Java. That is the best advice no one ever gave me. When you learn OOP, it doesn't matter what Java-like language you learn, as the real skill will be portable to other languages, like C#, SmallTalk, Python and Ruby. Let me explain.
I recently decided to go into the field of programming, and probably don't have 1/10th your development experience. However, my research skills are equal to anyone that I know, and they've certainly helped me in getting a grasp on the fundamentals of software engineering (or problem solving as I've learned to call it).
I chose Java because of its touted strengths, and because I wasn't sure of my target platform yet. I soon understood that as an introductory language, it has some conceptual hurdles that may get in the way when first learning to program. After a while, I began to understand the basics of programming by supplementing my self-study with older languages like BASIC. Essentially, diving straight into Java without first learning the standard structures of programming (sequence, selection, and repetition) was a handicap. However, for someone who already knows Visual Basic, such as yourself, the biggest hurdle will be the concepts of Object Oriented Programming.
If you think you "know" Object Oriented Programming but have only implemented it in VB, then I would suggest that you may not know everything that you need to program in OOP properly. There are plenty of Java programmers out there, but looking at some of their code, I see a definite lack of understanding in how to implement OOP. I see procedural programming techniques being applied to a language that will allow for it, but the developers lose the real advantages of using OOP.
I would recommend that you get a "beginners" book on Java (John Smiley is an excellent resource with his Learn To Program Java) to become familiar with the mechanics. If you prefer, you can try a Java in 21 Days/24 Hours type book. It doesn't matter, because if you follow my advice, you will actually learn to program OOP which is by far the largest hurdle, not syntax/grammar/classes. The most beneficial book I've found on the subject is from a master on the subject:
Sams Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days
by Anthony Sintes
ISBN: 0672321092
This book will not only teach you how to program OOP, it will teach you to do it the right way. This is done by showing you how not to program OOP, and immediately showing you an alternative.
The author has some serious credentials: "Tony Sintes has worked with Object-Oriented Technologies since 1995. In that time, Tony has been part of many object-oriented development efforts. Currently, he works for BroadVision where his main responsibility as team mentor, building the skills of less-experienced developers. He brings his years of experience and ability to teach to different projects in order to guarantee their success.
Tony Sintes has written for JavaWorld, Dr. Dobb's Journal, LinuxWorld, JavaOne Today, and Silicon Prairie, where he produced a highly-regarded monthly column on Object-Oriented Programming. Tony currently writes JavaWorld's monthly Q&A column."
About the book: "Sams Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days differs from other OOP books in two main ways. Many classic OOP books are designed for software engineers and teach at an academic level. Sams Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days presents accessible, user-friendly lessons designed with the beginning programmer in mind. Other OOP books work to present both OOP and to teach a programming language (for example: Object-Oriented Programming in C++). Although Sams Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days uses Java to present the examples, the book is designed to present concepts that apply to any OOP environment."
Days 1-7 cover the core OOP concepts with every other chapter covering the implementation of the concepts in the previous chapter and a boatload of do's and don'ts. For instance, in Chapter 2 you learn about Encapsulation theory (more importantly, what NOT to do). Chapter 3 you write code implementing Encapsulation...and so on.
Days 8-14 covers how to apply the OOP you've learned using design patterns like MVC.
Days 15-21 take the things you learned in the past 14 days, and make a GUI-based application. You apply the MVC pattern in making the app. Very cool.
What about this:
t ml
"...after all, you cannot appreciate Shakespeare until you have heard it in the original Klingon."
http://www.scifi.com/scifi.con/word/kli/liter.h
When corporations misuse the public trust, and they do whenever they take things from the public and spit in the public's eye as thanks, they no longer deserve a free ride.
I wouldn't bother wasting time supporting something that doesn't WANT to be protected. Use Linux, and be happy. In a couple more years BSD will be an footnote in OS history, and largely forgotten by what little of the public even know about it now.
Academics who will remember it will say that it all came down to the license. BSD's was weak and flacid, while the GPL was strong and vigorous. To the victor go the spoils, and the prize it turned out was mindshare.
= 9J =