Re:Impressive but can you do this?
on
Lego Segway
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Buffer the optical sensor readings, then use the buffer as a look ahead for detecting the crossing. Presumably a processor and some memory was also part of your robot materials list...
For more information on the Microsoft license that exludes open source development and specifically GPL and LGPL open source, see this article by Bruce Perens.
As one part of the marketing campaign for Absolut Vodka, Peter Ekelund travelled across the USA to "every bar worth the name between New York and San Fransisco". "He sat down at the bar, looked around among stockbrokers, small time crooks and marketing people and with a loud voice ordered a whole bottle of Absolut Vodka and started. He drank himself down 42nd Street towards East River, across Wall Street, along Broadway and further [...]. He got drunk on duty more times than any liquor salesman ever before had."
Above quotes from Carl Hamilton's interesting and witty book on the planning of the marketing campaign of Absolut Vodka. The quotes are my translation from the original swedish book: Absolut Historien om Flaskan [p. 221]. Also available in english: "Absolut: Biography of a Bottle".
Once a to-be previous employer was concerned that I might go write an even better application for a competitor (I was lead developer on a project that blew the competition of some 10 other products out of the water -- maybe thanks to that we got a number of military and navy contracts for it as well:-).
There wasn't a problem, as I became a software egnineering consultant and stayed away from that very specialized market segment we were in. I learned the lesson, however. Ever since, I have a clause such as this entered into any new contracts (of course, IANAL):
The non-disclosure agreement remains in effect after the termination of this contract,
but does not apply to knowledge, skills, methods and choices of technology that were acquired under this contract.
It's usually not difficult to get in. You can motivate it by simply pointing out that the reason they want to hire you is exactly because of this: you can apply your full register of skills and experience in your new position. The following employer would expect no less.
Never work with a project manager who hasn't been a developer himself.
I've got 20+ years in the biz too, and I have to STRONGLY disagree with this! The WORST project managers I've worked with have all been former (or even current) developers. The best have been about half-and-half.
I agree with you that the best ones are often about half-and-half project managers and developers, hence my original statement. I didn't mean to imply that a PM need to have been at the cutting edge of software engineering.
Of course, there are indivudal exceptions to any rule of thumb. Depending on a number of non-stated factors people will arrive at different conclusions on the requirements for a good PM. For example, one of the best project managers I have had was non-technical. Why was he good? He didn't try to hide uncomfortable thruths about the project, his peers, supervisors or himself. He adapted immediately to new challenges. He asked when he didn't understand or didn't know. He preferred hearing the thruth, however challenging and disturbing, rather than the comforting social skills lie we all use from time to time and would tell us so.
Mentioning "social skills" and "lie" in the same sentence may require further comments. There's some interesting research on socials skills, managers and lying. I couldn't find the reference I wanted right now, but see
This means one thing to me; you are completely incapable of explaining technical things to people in a non-technical manner. If you knew how to communicate a bit better then your project manager needn't be a programmer.
As you gain more experience, you will recognice that some non-technical managers respond to explanations, I've been happy with the ones I've seen. Many less experienced non-technical managers do not respond well to technical reasoning, however.
Experienced developers and managers understand that in order to succeed, one must continously adapt to new circumstances, and yes, that involves changing the project plan, changing equipment, changing tools, changing platform, etc. Less experienced non-technical project managers resist any change, apparently afraid of loosing control. But in resisting necessary change, they loose control without exception.
Starting when you were 8 right?
I founded my first own software business at 17, already doing consulting, writing software development tools and doing systems programming. I'm now 37. I started with computers in 1979, at first sight. I should probably tell a lot more about myself and what I've done on my home page.;-)
You're on what's called a death march project. (See AntiPatterns, chapter 7, Software Project Management AntiPatterns).
Never work with a project manager who hasn't been a developer himself. Find a better employer - there's no way you can really succeed where you are now. Your projects will fail, be late, overrun budget, be of sub-standard quality, all of which are things that will ultimately reflect on your CV's. Naturally, any smart people in your projects all know this and work morale will erode.
Suggested reading
AntiPatterns. Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis. William J Brown et al. Wiley 1998. ISBN 0-471-19713-0.
The Mythical Man-Month. Anniverary edition with four new chapters. Frederick P Brooks, Jr. Addison-Wesley 1995. ISBN 0-201-83595-9.
Software Project Survival Guide. Steve McConnell. Microsoft Press 1998. ISBN 1-57231-621-7
Me? Got 20 years in this business. Lot's of projects.
If you can't find a better employer, become a project manager yourself, it's not rocket science. Read up, take a PM course, do it the way it should be done.
A ThinkPad Linux portable was on my purchase list up until about a minute ago. Now I happen to think they should have strengthened the marketing and sales for Linux on the ThinkPad rather than sacked the key people. There must have been some interesting internal politics behind this one. So, thanks for the warning.
But what other line of portables can measure up to the ThinkPad? I've been using those for the last several years, and kept buying them, although with Windows NT & 2k, always looking forward to the day I could make the switch to Linux.
[...]
"In any way, our future looks secured and we are able to continue servicing our [Finnish] customers as in the past.
The national network and the services of our customers works normally during the process. In addition, we have secured internation IP connections, in case there are disturbances in our Eurorings network."
[...]
Hmmm... check your memory, and check that your BIOS is the latest - including all of your motherboard chipset drivers.
Did all that, several times over. SuSE Linux runs fine on the same system. Memtest86 runs fine. System stability has increased with the updates that have become available from MS, I count to 20 "Windows XP Hotfixes" installed right now plus another three "Windows XP Application Compatibility Update", but it's still not there. (These can be seen in Add or Remove Programs in the control panel).
I should also point out that the system has been "strip searched";-) for error sources. Even swapped the power supply and installed an UPS with surge protection (summer's coming up here, so a good idea anyway) in desparation... I suppose there's some bad interaction with the BIOS - but all one can do is send in those crash dumps (I always do) and wait for them to get it right - if Windows was Open Source, I could at least find out what the cause is on this system. (I have some 20 years experience now of software engineering, so yes, I could do that).
if CPU_ID != "Friendly x86 company" then GPF else GPF
I should know, on one system I've been running Windows XP on AMD Athlon XP for six months, and it crashes often. This is supposed to be Microsofts most reliable operating system... yeah right. At least you could start using Windows 3.1 before it crashed, at least most of the time.:-)
"Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said Kempin's memo was "irrelevant" because the company never acted on his ideas."
Not entirely true, it turns out. See what AMD has to say about this (source at bottom):
"
Tailored for Compatibility with Microsoft® Windows® XP
The AMD Athlon(TM) XP processor offers compelling performance for running Microsoft® Windows® XP operating system, as well as outstanding performance on previous versions of Windows. The raw power and robust features of the AMD Athlon XP processor help enable users to make the most of multitasking and user switching capabilities offered in Windows XP. Microsoft optimized the DirectX 8.0 interface for Windows XP specifically for the AMD Athlon XP processor.
AMD processors were used for the design, development, and testing of Windows XP. AMD processors are designed to deliver high levels of performance with this latest version of the Microsoft Windows operating system.
The AMD Athlon XP processor allows you to take full advantage of the power of Windows XP in multiple ways.
High quality digital media, such as audio, video, and photos from digital devices benefit from the advanced capabilities of AMD processors and the integrated features of Windows XP.
The AMD/Windows combination provides an enhanced Internet experience with smoother streaming audio and video.
Communication with family and friends via video, voice, and instant messaging is quick and easy when powered by the next-generation features found in AMD processors.
AMD processor-based Windows XP workstations running financial. modeling, scientific, engineering, or graphic design applications have the sheer computing power to handle highly demanding applications.
AMD processors are designed for the multi-threaded and mission-critical applications of cutting-edge Windows XP Professional software applications.
Through this collaboration, AMD can offer you excellent integration and compatibility in your computer's functioning, resulting in outstanding computing performance across a broad spectrum of applications."
Isn't it strange how Microsoft management say they can not ship Internet Explorer as a separate module or product, when it apparently is possible for them to ship a much more complicate module such as MS Office as a separate module?
Proves that someone who doesn't even have the source code can make a modular version of Windows. Now then, shouldn't Microsoft be able to, who has the source code and $40bn in liquid assets to finance the rewrite?
My favourite Microsoft quote in that article: "But the software giant says it would be technically impossible to offer multiple versions of Windows and would create havoc for consumers and the computer industry."
Let's see, there's about umpteen Windows versions available today (server versions, modular embedded versions, a number of desktop versions) and yes they're creating havoc (due to poor quality control). But then, MS Windows has always created havoc, ever since there was only one or two versions of MS Windows around.
You seem to be totally unaware that the experiments have been replicated, that the predicted amounts of helium are produced etc. Yet you don't even try to find out, and worse still, you propagate your ignorance to others.
What is going on here? If you want to be a scientist, you must at least make an effort to find current papers on the subject you talk about. Robert Park didn't do that when he wrote his book, if he ever has on this subject. Mallove shows this very clearly in his review of this book. So who's at fault? Who's doing the hard science?
If you actually read Mallove's review of Park's Voodoo Science, you'll find that the party guilty of poor science is Robert Park himself. I'd say it's even rather embarassing for Park.
And how come Robert Park doesn't mention the tokamak hot fusion fiasco? Could it be it's too close to home? Could it be it's competing for research funding?
Making fun of scientists on the cutting edge is nothing new, let's take just one example:
"A Severe Strain on the Credulity
As a method of sending a missile to the higher, and even to the highest parts of the earth's atmospheric envelope, Professor Goddard's rocket is a practicable and therefore promising device. It is when one considers the multiple-charge rocket as a traveler to the moon that one begins to doubt... for after the rocket quits our air and really starts on its journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left.
Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react... Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
-- New York Times Editorial, 1920
There are of course countless more examples. Go read some history of science.
$29.95 Paperback / $39.95 Hardcover - Canada, USA, Mexico.
$34.95 Paperback / $46.95 Hardcover - all other countries.
Foreword by Sir Arthur C. Clarke and Introduction by David J. Nagel
"Charles Beaudette has done a remarkable job in untangling and documenting the whole story of cold fusion. Excess Heat is not only a superb record of an extraordinary episode, but is also highly entertaining." --Sir Arthur C. Clarke
... and...
Celebrate Ten Years of Cold Fusion!
Issue 24 [of Infinite Energy], released in March/April 1999, celebrated the tenth anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion claims by Pons and Fleischmann on March 23, 1989 at the University of Utah.
Cold Fusion: Looking Back and to the Future
Commentary by the following scientists in the field:
Scott Chubb, Naval Research Laboratory
Michael McKubre, SRI International
George Miley, University of Illinois
Keith Johnson, Quantum Energy Technologies
Francesco Celani, Instituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare
John Dash, Portland State University
Peter Gluck, Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology
Bart Simon, Queens University
Harold Aspden, Energy Science Ltd.
Hal Fox, Trenergy Inc.
Edmund Storms, Los Alamos National Laboratory (Ret.)
Tadayoshi Ohmori, Hokkaido University
R.A. Oriani, University of Minnesota
John Bockris, Texas A&M University (Ret.)
Fred Jaeger, ENECO
Dennis Cravens
Akira Kawasaki
Mahadeva Srinivasan
Robert Bass
ORDER THIS ISSUE!
Featuring
MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report
by Eugene Mallove
Nuclear Reactions in the Pd/D System: The Pre-History and History of Our Early Research
by Martin Fleischmann
My Life with Cold Fusion as a Reluctant Mistress
by Edmund Storms
Including Valuable Research Tools
Key Experiments That Substantiate Cold Fusion Phenomena
A Chronology of Cold Fusion
Note: I'm in no way connected with the cold fusion research -- but scientists doesn't dismiss research on hearsay, as Robert Park has been shown to do in his book (see Dr Eugene Mallove's review of Parks book).
Slashdot Mirror
Buffer the optical sensor readings, then use the buffer as a look ahead for detecting the crossing. Presumably a processor and some memory was also part of your robot materials list...
For more information on the Microsoft license that exludes open source development and specifically GPL and LGPL open source, see this article by Bruce Perens.
Above quotes from Carl Hamilton's interesting and witty book on the planning of the marketing campaign of Absolut Vodka. The quotes are my translation from the original swedish book: Absolut Historien om Flaskan [p. 221]. Also available in english: "Absolut: Biography of a Bottle".
Not only is it a good idea, it's the law since 1988.
Heard about ESA yet, Anonymous Coward?
Well, at least your spacecraft could have avoided this little $125 million accident: Units Blunder Sent Craft Into Martian Atmosphere: NASA ;-)
Once a to-be previous employer was concerned that I might go write an even better application for a competitor (I was lead developer on a project that blew the competition of some 10 other products out of the water -- maybe thanks to that we got a number of military and navy contracts for it as well :-).
There wasn't a problem, as I became a software egnineering consultant and stayed away from that very specialized market segment we were in. I learned the lesson, however. Ever since, I have a clause such as this entered into any new contracts (of course, IANAL):
It's usually not difficult to get in. You can motivate it by simply pointing out that the reason they want to hire you is exactly because of this: you can apply your full register of skills and experience in your new position. The following employer would expect no less.
I agree with you that the best ones are often about half-and-half project managers and developers, hence my original statement. I didn't mean to imply that a PM need to have been at the cutting edge of software engineering.
Of course, there are indivudal exceptions to any rule of thumb. Depending on a number of non-stated factors people will arrive at different conclusions on the requirements for a good PM. For example, one of the best project managers I have had was non-technical. Why was he good? He didn't try to hide uncomfortable thruths about the project, his peers, supervisors or himself. He adapted immediately to new challenges. He asked when he didn't understand or didn't know. He preferred hearing the thruth, however challenging and disturbing, rather than the comforting social skills lie we all use from time to time and would tell us so.
Mentioning "social skills" and "lie" in the same sentence may require further comments. There's some interesting research on socials skills, managers and lying. I couldn't find the reference I wanted right now, but see
for a related discussion.As you gain more experience, you will recognice that some non-technical managers respond to explanations, I've been happy with the ones I've seen. Many less experienced non-technical managers do not respond well to technical reasoning, however.
Experienced developers and managers understand that in order to succeed, one must continously adapt to new circumstances, and yes, that involves changing the project plan, changing equipment, changing tools, changing platform, etc. Less experienced non-technical project managers resist any change, apparently afraid of loosing control. But in resisting necessary change, they loose control without exception.
I founded my first own software business at 17, already doing consulting, writing software development tools and doing systems programming. I'm now 37. I started with computers in 1979, at first sight. I should probably tell a lot more about myself and what I've done on my home page.You're on what's called a death march project. (See AntiPatterns, chapter 7, Software Project Management AntiPatterns).
Never work with a project manager who hasn't been a developer himself. Find a better employer - there's no way you can really succeed where you are now. Your projects will fail, be late, overrun budget, be of sub-standard quality, all of which are things that will ultimately reflect on your CV's. Naturally, any smart people in your projects all know this and work morale will erode.
Suggested reading
Me? Got 20 years in this business. Lot's of projects.
If you can't find a better employer, become a project manager yourself, it's not rocket science. Read up, take a PM course, do it the way it should be done.
You've got to be a troll! You can't grab the ThinkPad from an IBM employee, even if you're armed and dangerous! :-)
But what other line of portables can measure up to the ThinkPad? I've been using those for the last several years, and kept buying them, although with Windows NT & 2k, always looking forward to the day I could make the switch to Linux.
Recommendations for Linux portables?
Did all that, several times over. SuSE Linux runs fine on the same system. Memtest86 runs fine. System stability has increased with the updates that have become available from MS, I count to 20 "Windows XP Hotfixes" installed right now plus another three "Windows XP Application Compatibility Update", but it's still not there. (These can be seen in Add or Remove Programs in the control panel).
BTW, for testing memory modules, I recommend Memtest86 (GPL:ed) from http://www.teresaudio.com/memtest86/.
I should also point out that the system has been "strip searched" ;-) for error sources. Even swapped the power supply and installed an UPS with surge protection (summer's coming up here, so a good idea anyway) in desparation... I suppose there's some bad interaction with the BIOS - but all one can do is send in those crash dumps (I always do) and wait for them to get it right - if Windows was Open Source, I could at least find out what the cause is on this system. (I have some 20 years experience now of software engineering, so yes, I could do that).
if CPU_ID != "Friendly x86 company" then GPF else GPF
I should know, on one system I've been running Windows XP on AMD Athlon XP for six months, and it crashes often. This is supposed to be Microsofts most reliable operating system... yeah right. At least you could start using Windows 3.1 before it crashed, at least most of the time. :-)
For anything crucial, I run it on SuSE Linux.
Not entirely true, it turns out. See what AMD has to say about this (source at bottom):
Source:X P.jspa
http://athlonxp.amd.com/overview/microsoftWindows
Isn't it strange how Microsoft management say they can not ship Internet Explorer as a separate module or product, when it apparently is possible for them to ship a much more complicate module such as MS Office as a separate module?
Complete file specs == complete source code to MS Office. Spec documents never tell the accurate truth in the computer software business.
Proves that someone who doesn't even have the source code can make a modular version of Windows. Now then, shouldn't Microsoft be able to, who has the source code and $40bn in liquid assets to finance the rewrite?
My favourite Microsoft quote in that article: "But the software giant says it would be technically impossible to offer multiple versions of Windows and would create havoc for consumers and the computer industry." Let's see, there's about umpteen Windows versions available today (server versions, modular embedded versions, a number of desktop versions) and yes they're creating havoc (due to poor quality control). But then, MS Windows has always created havoc, ever since there was only one or two versions of MS Windows around.
What is going on here? If you want to be a scientist, you must at least make an effort to find current papers on the subject you talk about. Robert Park didn't do that when he wrote his book, if he ever has on this subject. Mallove shows this very clearly in his review of this book. So who's at fault? Who's doing the hard science?
And how come Robert Park doesn't mention the tokamak hot fusion fiasco? Could it be it's too close to home? Could it be it's competing for research funding?
Making fun of scientists on the cutting edge is nothing new, let's take just one example:
"A Severe Strain on the Credulity
As a method of sending a missile to the higher, and even to the highest parts of the earth's atmospheric envelope, Professor Goddard's rocket is a practicable and therefore promising device. It is when one considers the multiple-charge rocket as a traveler to the moon that one begins to doubt ... for after the rocket quits our air and really starts on its journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left.
Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react ... Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
There are of course countless more examples. Go read some history of science.
Note: I'm in no way connected with the cold fusion research -- but scientists doesn't dismiss research on hearsay, as Robert Park has been shown to do in his book (see Dr Eugene Mallove's review of Parks book).
A nine years old book? A lot of things has happened since then, even in cold fusion :-)