Oh yes. Why shouldn't a GC language where the GC has to search through lists regularly instead of you telling the memory management what to clean up by giving it the pointer be faster?
The magic of the buzzwords creates a reality distortion field around the code.
There seem to be people out there who confuse.net with silverlight or things running in your browser.
Yes. that is *one* technology where.net can be, but is not much used. It is like "oh, cryptographic tokens dont run java exclusively", has oracle/sun let us down?
The main amount of.net in my impression is on the server side/native windows applications. As far as i can see microsoft is *not* going to make the windows desktop and html5 browser coupled to some small computing core with ajax.
In the web, silverlight never catched on. If you couldn't interpret the statistics as a company for yourself and did invest more in it than a functional prototype in the alpha stage to figure that out, you deserve to loose the investment; if it wipes you out financially, good for the world. End users may have illusions about technologies which are there to stay. Softwar companies not.
Microsoft always consistently supports very old technologies which were successfully introduced. Things which were not successful are most of the time kept compatible but not evolved. And microsoft never tried to push a technology beyond the point where a vast majority of the customers plainly did not find it useful.
If you want to make ubiquitous computing evaluating sensor data in a way which is trivial enough for beginners in programming easy then use a dataflow language, like labview; I dont like the latter but i things like "LED on if temperature higher than" are really easy to program and modify.
Dataflow language may be not my personal favorite, but they do their job.
(And yes, your child will circumvent it at some point, and if its that far also a "google kids" domain wouldnt help - google cant fix the whole internet)
That never occured before. Employee trys to build sth on an infrastructure not created for it and fails. Instead of positively saying: "ok, thats not the right place to do it", he says "this place is wrong totally".
I mean, i would be a little bit nervous if googles software infrastructure was significantly younger than 10years.
I think for infrastructure its not unusual to use technologies from 20years back, and only introduce new things very slowly.
The logo can be explained: combine the usual logo for wireless lan with the usual logo for synchronize.(since hotsync/palm times). There are not many ways to combine an open circle with something which can be placed inside.
The app itself... Well syncing via network is *not* exactly a new technology (my palm m105 from 2002 could do that). I dont have an iphone, so i cant check what this app does exactly different.
But guessing an obviously missing functionality of an upcoming product of a big company and also guessing the straightforward logo for it is nothing which creates a proof that they have ripped you off.
It should be encrypted for all applications where data leaves, or can leave a safely locked room. Its also ok to have a storage-level encryption against physical stealing of the data. However the keys for this must also be managed correctly, otherwise you could end up with a system which encypts, but does not work (because the keys are unsafe) or an evil admin who, upon being fired, makes all the sensitive data unavailable.
On the other hand, if you have an evil admin, nothing will help.
which involves old/new olives. Funnily the judge does not try to verify by himself but call somebody who is a trade of olives and knows about the topic of old/new olives.
The *only* good thing about MS is that they provided a stable platform where they managed to make it tasty for hw companies to produce for and stable enough to keep developers. whenever MS tried to do more than an occasional mouse or keyboard it sucked.
Dear MS, just try to get your os stable and clean, and provide in a form that it can be easily adapted to different platforms (e.g. partial open source). The others will do the rest (see: Android).
I had the feeling that geek anti-intellectualism usually reflects the personal experiences of people who did not fit in towards certain parts of the academic world.
I am a geek and still hold a phd, but i recommend that anybody who cant stand to sit in lectures and listen to the one to many textbook reading of the professor due to any reason to leave the room and take a book (for example i have a problem focusing on oral presentations). And i recommend to people for whom university does not work to leave it. We need different kinds of talent doing different things, everybody what and how he does best.
This somehow became clear to me when i asked during my phd if some technician could help me with certain things, my professor said: "o, i think you dont need help, it seems you are the only phd student here who can do everything on his own, i need the technician to help the others".
I did measurements using electronics which was not designed to pick up signals in the GHz range. If i turn on my mobile phone, these goes mad.
The fact is simple: if you ask me to design a amplifier, switch, etc, then i will test it against the EMI which was specified. I wont give it a full spectrum test. when most commercial aircrafts where designed, the frequency ranges used for GSM/UMTS/WLAN/Bluetooth where not used. This means that 100s of electronic subsystems of a plane where *not* designed to operate under this kind of emi.
What is AFAIU (i am a physicist not a ee type) bad is that the CMRR of differential circuits breaks down at frequencies beyond the designed one. If you have anything rectifying in a highly sensitive input path of a standard instrumentation amplifier, then no matter what the processed output signal will be, you will see the amplitude of the input signal - even if you used the differential design to be insensitive to EMI (at the time of construction). Filtering out something like pulsed RF spikes, typical for mobile phones, is difficult it you know what to expect, and impossible if you did not even consider it. So, taking into account that an airplane has probably thousands of signal paths and probably hundreds directly relevant to the pilot.
Luckily pilots are highly trained in doing things which go beyond a simple PID controller and can recognize inconsistent inputs, and if a single subsystem fails, pilots can usually react.
Yes. The problem is that google is used to try everything a little and if it works for making money for them right now, they cherry-pick it. If you usea google product still in beta, you can be sure that *if* it is canned they won be interested in making a product where people would pay some money for (e.g. i would have imagined that paid google wave hosting for companies could have worked), but they decide to confine the ecosystem to what they know works already.
Excuse me, you really want to tech the victim that it should move away when bullied? If somebody obviously offends somebody outside school, maybe with knowledge gained during the class, then i thinks its ok to suspend him/her. Gathering the schools fulfills two functions: transferring knowledge and teaching pupils how to use it. Things which get overly in the way of that, or even contradict the second goals should be prevented on the long term.
Sure, ridicule whom you like. Do it at work and you get fired. Do it at the army and you will run a few km extra. Do it as a politician and don't expect these people to vote for you. Do it in a shop and live with it if you are ask never to enter the premises again.
There is no right to be taught by a teacher who you have ridiculed. So do it in school and get suspended, where the problem is.
Before i ask a judge to file a restraining order against a student, with the purpose of keeping him away from school, wouldn't it be more appropriate to first ask him to remove the content and then suspend him? (Alright, the careful reader may figure out that this is exactly what the school did).
Forgive me, but i think what the society needs less are assholes who believe that every conflict can and should be solved by the police and that the only reason to have a definitive standpoint on something is a expensive lawyer in the back to fuck the opponent in front of a court. A society in which everybody believes that in interactions, be it social, educational or professional its should be a dog-eat-dog world where everybody can pull of shit and the other side should either swallow it or sue.
I think a school has the right to suspend a student for bad behavior which affects the ability to teach. They don't lock him in, he gets no monetary fine, no entry in the criminal records, he can just leave. With this facts i can live. Of course, if the suspension was against the rules of the school or the rules of the school are against laws, something needs to be done about it.
The latter points cant be judges, as the whole case, on the information presented, since the information is a) from one side only b) obviously missing pieces and c) even without the missing pieces so short that its impossible to make sense of it.
Was this a personal conflict between the student and some teacher? between a teacher and the director? between a student and another student? between groups of students and teachers? between groups of students with teachers and the director? Was the student motivated by somebody external? Whats his parents standpoint?
Its very likely that this did not happen from the blue sky and that the video was intended to provoke some trouble. Sadly now that the media jumped on the probability of solving that in a constructive way for everybody has been reduced to zero.
The point is: the article contains *nothing* on the original allegations from the side of the school. How can i judge it if it just is not there. This was also not a comment on the article, but on the summary, but not all here are blessed with the skill of reading carefully.
Not necessarily. Giving an interview in a situation where you may enter a legal fight may be seen inappropriate by the court, especially if there is a special student-school relationship involved.
Telling their reasoning behind the suspension may easily do him more damage than the suspension itself. If he for example referred to the video when threatening other students etc..
Also it could easily violate the rights of the teachers involved.
And one important point to state: "Free speech" means you may say what you want. It does not mean that everybody is obliged to like it or continue dealing with you. The other thing to mention is that if somebody feels threatened by something then it is threatening. If the school or pupil feel threatened then a resolution should be sought - and it was sought - and this solution should not necessarily be to press charges.
After all, we don't know about his behavior in respect to this video towards teacher and other pupils, his behavior in general and about the specific reasoning about suspending him (i personally find the video a useless piece of shit, but that holds true as far as i see it for a large fraction of youtube videos); the main thing i understand is that the video is blocked in Germany for copyright violations (thanks to vpn i could watch it), indicating that there is some piece missing in the reports.
I personally think it would have been probably better to take the video down and then set the school a clear deadline to formulate clearly what their problems with this video are, in written form, with a deadline of a week or so when the video will be put online again.
One also has to remark that pieces produced in the context of a course are not necessarily unbound by law. In my university the notes you took during a lecture were formally not completely yours (although most professors appreciated the students publishing this).
The question should not be if he did it in his free time, off campus, but if it was related to the school.
I can imagine a lot of things which one can do "during my free time" and "off campus" which should get you fired from school, even if there is no crime which can be persecuted.
For example: contacting or ridiculing teachers in an inappropriate way (yes, these are employees and they have rights), the same for students (nobody should be forced to sit besides somebody bullying him at facebook, and if school is the primary contact for this person suspension is the right thing to do).
All the news messages like "xzy got... for doing... on facebook" withou specifying what the content of... was are as stupid as saying "he got in jail for swinging a piece of wood through the air", which may be technically correct, but could also be a baseball bat hitting the face of somebody after swinging through the air.
Please dear media: separate means, motivations, tools, and fact of crime more carefully. It really does not matter today if you write somebody an insulting letter which you put up 1000 times in you town to lampposts or post an insulting video.
Slashdot Mirror
they should have included fortran IMHO.
Oh yes. Why shouldn't a GC language where the GC has to search through lists regularly instead of you telling the memory management what to clean up by giving it the pointer be faster?
The magic of the buzzwords creates a reality distortion field around the code.
(I like java, but i know how to profile code.).
under no circumstances *emacs*
(ok, ok it was just an attempt to get a flamewar going)
There seem to be people out there who confuse .net with silverlight or things running in your browser.
Yes. that is *one* technology where .net can be, but is not much used. It is like "oh, cryptographic tokens dont run java exclusively", has oracle/sun let us down?
The main amount of .net in my impression is on the server side/native windows applications. As far as i can see microsoft is *not* going to make the windows desktop and html5 browser coupled to some small computing core with ajax.
In the web, silverlight never catched on. If you couldn't interpret the statistics as a company for yourself and did invest more in it than a functional prototype in the alpha stage to figure that out, you deserve to loose the investment; if it wipes you out financially, good for the world. End users may have illusions about technologies which are there to stay. Softwar companies not.
Microsoft always consistently supports very old technologies which were successfully introduced. Things which were not successful are most of the time kept compatible but not evolved. And microsoft never tried to push a technology beyond the point where a vast majority of the customers plainly did not find it useful.
If you want to make ubiquitous computing evaluating sensor data in a way which is trivial enough for beginners in programming easy then use a dataflow language, like labview; I dont like the latter but i things like "LED on if temperature higher than" are really easy to program and modify.
Dataflow language may be not my personal favorite, but they do their job.
I am not exactly sure what he thinks the safesearch option is for.
googling for it, the right solution turned up after 1 minute:
http://www.corenetworkz.com/2010/12/enable-google-safesearch-for-firerfox.html
Its called locking and was discussed in the google blog.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/locking-safesearch.html
(And yes, your child will circumvent it at some point, and if its that far also a "google kids" domain wouldnt help - google cant fix the whole internet)
Or Today: How do i recommend myself to future employers?
That never occured before. Employee trys to build sth on an infrastructure not created for it and fails. Instead of positively saying: "ok, thats not the right place to do it", he says "this place is wrong totally".
I mean, i would be a little bit nervous if googles software infrastructure was significantly younger than 10years.
I think for infrastructure its not unusual to use technologies from 20years back, and only introduce new things very slowly.
The logo can be explained: combine the usual logo for wireless lan with the usual logo for synchronize.(since hotsync/palm times). There are not many ways to combine an open circle with something which can be placed inside.
The app itself... Well syncing via network is *not* exactly a new technology (my palm m105 from 2002 could do that). I dont have an iphone, so i cant check what this app does exactly different.
But guessing an obviously missing functionality of an upcoming product of a big company and also guessing the straightforward logo for it is nothing which creates a proof that they have ripped you off.
I dont agree necessarily.
It should be encrypted for all applications where data leaves, or can leave a safely locked room. Its also ok to have a storage-level encryption against physical stealing of the data. However the keys for this must also be managed correctly, otherwise you could end up with a system which encypts, but does not work (because the keys are unsafe) or an evil admin who, upon being fired, makes all the sensitive data unavailable.
On the other hand, if you have an evil admin, nothing will help.
which involves old/new olives. Funnily the judge does not try to verify by himself but call somebody who is a trade of olives and knows about the topic of old/new olives.
The *only* good thing about MS is that they provided a stable platform where they managed to make it tasty for hw companies to produce for and stable enough to keep developers. whenever MS tried to do more than an occasional mouse or keyboard it sucked.
Dear MS, just try to get your os stable and clean, and provide in a form that it can be easily adapted to different platforms (e.g. partial open source). The others will do the rest (see: Android).
I had the feeling that geek anti-intellectualism usually reflects the personal experiences of people who did not fit in towards certain parts of the academic world.
I am a geek and still hold a phd, but i recommend that anybody who cant stand to sit in lectures and listen to the one to many textbook reading of the professor due to any reason to leave the room and take a book (for example i have a problem focusing on oral presentations). And i recommend to people for whom university does not work to leave it. We need different kinds of talent doing different things, everybody what and how he does best.
If you insist in keeping your notes (think before how often you will look at them, then the above tools may work for you.
(recoll is based on xapian and works very well if you have big static archives which you don't need to index often.)
i can verify that for research.
This somehow became clear to me when i asked during my phd if some technician could help me with certain things, my professor said: "o, i think you dont need help, it seems you are the only phd student here who can do everything on his own, i need the technician to help the others".
definitly. And also Monkey Island - but only for ten year olds...
The writing style of people never changes between 20 and 35. Its totally constant and als always the same regardless with whom they communicate.
No, i give you "the radio interference crap".
I did measurements using electronics which was not designed to pick up signals in the GHz range. If i turn on my mobile phone, these goes mad.
The fact is simple: if you ask me to design a amplifier, switch, etc, then i will test it against the EMI which was specified. I wont give it a full spectrum test. when most commercial aircrafts where designed, the frequency ranges used for GSM/UMTS/WLAN/Bluetooth where not used. This means that 100s of electronic subsystems of a plane where *not* designed to operate under this kind of emi.
What is AFAIU (i am a physicist not a ee type) bad is that the CMRR of differential circuits breaks down at frequencies beyond the designed one. If you have anything rectifying in a highly sensitive input path of a standard instrumentation amplifier, then no matter what the processed output signal will be, you will see the amplitude of the input signal - even if you used the differential design to be insensitive to EMI (at the time of construction). Filtering out something like pulsed RF spikes, typical for mobile phones, is difficult it you know what to expect, and impossible if you did not even consider it. So, taking into account that an airplane has probably thousands of signal paths and probably hundreds directly relevant to the pilot.
Luckily pilots are highly trained in doing things which go beyond a simple PID controller and can recognize inconsistent inputs, and if a single subsystem fails, pilots can usually react.
Yes. The problem is that google is used to try everything a little and if it works for making money for them right now, they cherry-pick it. If you usea google product still in beta, you can be sure that *if* it is canned they won be interested in making a product where people would pay some money for (e.g. i would have imagined that paid google wave hosting for companies could have worked), but they decide to confine the ecosystem to what they know works already.
Excuse me, you really want to tech the victim that it should move away when bullied? If somebody obviously offends somebody outside school, maybe with knowledge gained during the class, then i thinks its ok to suspend him/her. Gathering the schools fulfills two functions: transferring knowledge and teaching pupils how to use it. Things which get overly in the way of that, or even contradict the second goals should be prevented on the long term.
Sure, ridicule whom you like. Do it at work and you get fired. Do it at the army and you will run a few km extra. Do it as a politician and don't expect these people to vote for you. Do it in a shop and live with it if you are ask never to enter the premises again.
There is no right to be taught by a teacher who you have ridiculed. So do it in school and get suspended, where the problem is.
Before i ask a judge to file a restraining order against a student, with the purpose of keeping him away from school, wouldn't it be more appropriate to first ask him to remove the content and then suspend him? (Alright, the careful reader may figure out that this is exactly what the school did).
Forgive me, but i think what the society needs less are assholes who believe that every conflict can and should be solved by the police and that the only reason to have a definitive standpoint on something is a expensive lawyer in the back to fuck the opponent in front of a court. A society in which everybody believes that in interactions, be it social, educational or professional its should be a dog-eat-dog world where everybody can pull of shit and the other side should either swallow it or sue.
I think a school has the right to suspend a student for bad behavior which affects the ability to teach. They don't lock him in, he gets no monetary fine, no entry in the criminal records, he can just leave. With this facts i can live. Of course, if the suspension was against the rules of the school or the rules of the school are against laws, something needs to be done about it.
The latter points cant be judges, as the whole case, on the information presented, since the information is a) from one side only b) obviously missing pieces and c) even without the missing pieces so short that its impossible to make sense of it.
Was this a personal conflict between the student and some teacher? between a teacher and the director? between a student and another student? between groups of students and teachers? between groups of students with teachers and the director? Was the student motivated by somebody external? Whats his parents standpoint?
Its very likely that this did not happen from the blue sky and that the video was intended to provoke some trouble. Sadly now that the media jumped on the probability of solving that in a constructive way for everybody has been reduced to zero.
The point is: the article contains *nothing* on the original allegations from the side of the school. How can i judge it if it just is not there. This was also not a comment on the article, but on the summary, but not all here are blessed with the skill of reading carefully.
Not necessarily. Giving an interview in a situation where you may enter a legal fight may be seen inappropriate by the court, especially if there is a special student-school relationship involved.
Telling their reasoning behind the suspension may easily do him more damage than the suspension itself. If he for example referred to the video when threatening other students etc..
Also it could easily violate the rights of the teachers involved.
And one important point to state: "Free speech" means you may say what you want. It does not mean that everybody is obliged to like it or continue dealing with you. The other thing to mention is that if somebody feels threatened by something then it is threatening. If the school or pupil feel threatened then a resolution should be sought - and it was sought - and this solution should not necessarily be to press charges.
After all, we don't know about his behavior in respect to this video towards teacher and other pupils, his behavior in general and about the specific reasoning about suspending him (i personally find the video a useless piece of shit, but that holds true as far as i see it for a large fraction of youtube videos); the main thing i understand is that the video is blocked in Germany for copyright violations (thanks to vpn i could watch it), indicating that there is some piece missing in the reports.
I personally think it would have been probably better to take the video down and then set the school a clear deadline to formulate clearly what their problems with this video are, in written form, with a deadline of a week or so when the video will be put online again.
One also has to remark that pieces produced in the context of a course are not necessarily unbound by law. In my university the notes you took during a lecture were formally not completely yours (although most professors appreciated the students publishing this).
The question should not be if he did it in his free time, off campus, but if it was related to the school.
I can imagine a lot of things which one can do "during my free time" and "off campus" which should get you fired from school, even if there is no crime which can be persecuted.
For example: contacting or ridiculing teachers in an inappropriate way (yes, these are employees and they have rights), the same for students (nobody should be forced to sit besides somebody bullying him at facebook, and if school is the primary contact for this person suspension is the right thing to do).
All the news messages like "xzy got ... for doing ... on facebook" withou specifying what the content of ... was are as stupid as saying "he got in jail for swinging a piece of wood through the air", which may be technically correct, but could also be a baseball bat hitting the face of somebody after swinging through the air.
Please dear media: separate means, motivations, tools, and fact of crime more carefully. It really does not matter today if you write somebody an insulting letter which you put up 1000 times in you town to lampposts or post an insulting video.