The feds created the internet, and now they have to deal with the implications. They aren't happy about it. Sure, they could use wiretapping on known VOIP services, but what's to stop someone from programming their own, using strong encryption. Sending sound packets over a network isn't that hard, encrypting them is also easy. Maybe you wouldn't have a super robust network, but so long as the person on the other end is getting the message, then that should be OK. Why aren't more criminals using PGP encrypted email? It seems like at this point it would be pretty obvious to them that they get caught when stuff isn't encrypted.
The problem is, is that this guy is blaming the IDE, because his friend used the IDE and now, he can't program. I know lots of really smart people that for some reason just can't program. It sounds like the kid isn't even that interested in programming. Maybe if the kid is really smart, he should get into something that he is more interested in. His talents might serve him better this way. I don't think that IDEs make you dumb. There's a lot of useful tools in IDE that help you to get the job done faster, but I think that part of the brain shuts off when using them. For a semester in high school, I did math with a pen, and without a calculator. I learned how to do math pretty well in my head, and also stopped writing the wrong thing before I was sure of the answer. I think that advanced IDEs do the same thing. They tell you the function parameters so you don't have to memorize them, and they tell you when you forget a semicolon, or a closing brace. Maybe it's good we can shut off little parts of our brains, so the rest of our brains can work harder.
Great. All I need is a paperclip popping ever 10 minutes with sayings like, "Looks like you are trying to declare a variable" and "Looks like you want to print some text to the console". I'd be happy if VB could warn me about unused variables. To that note, I think that most other IDEs do a much better job of helping you program. In VS when you start a class, it gives you the class definition. In IDEs like Netbeans, it gives you a starting constructor, some comments about who created it, the date, and some other nifty things. You can even go into some advanced stuff so it can stub out some initial functions and variables.
The problem is that visual studio lets you create something, that to the end user, ends up looking and behaving exactly like a program. The problem is, once a programmer looks at the internals, it looks and behaves nothing like a real program should.
Our first year courses started out programming C with borland, and Java. By 4th year, most professors were saying do it in whichever language you want, as long as you can run it in the lab. The lab had windows, unix, and most languages you'd expect to find on either. There was one guy who insisted on doing every possible project in prolog. I think it was a good thing that they let us choose. I usually picked different languages depending on what I thought would be best for the project.
I use visual studio every day. Although it does provide the ability to program the way you describe, it doesn't have to be done that way. There's no reason you can't start up a windows console application and do the programming straight from the text file. There's a lot of people out there using visual studio for apps that don't even have a GUI..Net made it really annoying to try to make a web app, because the code that generates the HTML has to be separated from the page which outputs the HTML. Which isn't a bad way if you use the drag and drop method of generating your HTML, but becomes a real pain if you start writing your own code which outputs HTML.
obviously when you're dealing with human life, over engineering is a good thing, as the cost of losing a human being has to be calculated. When you're dealing with robots, the only thing you lose on a failure is time, money and materials. But I think for NASA, time is a big issue. If it takes 2 years to get to mars, it better succeed the first time, or it may take another 4 years (engineering time plus travel) to get another shot at it. If you send up 10 at the same time, then it is likely that if 1 fails, they may all fail.
essentially they represent the same program. Most OCR programs can analyze any image for text, whether you scanned them, got them from a camera, or drew them with you mouse in mspaint. It's essentially the same problem. When you write on the screen, it creates an image, and analyzes the image to see if it can recognize anything as text. Most OCR programs only do typed text well. Recognizing hand writing is much too hard to do reliably.
That's probably because the private schools get some level of government funding. I know the catholic schools do in ontario. You check a box on your city taxes, to let them know which school system you want your taxes going to. If your school is 100% private, then I'm not sure if this is case. Although to recieve backing from the govenment to be a legitimate school, you probably have some rules that you have to follow. They wouldn't let you start a school, and call it a real school, if you were training the kids to be suicide bombers, or if you were teaching them to hate all the people that aren't white.
Exactly. There is definitely some downsides to this. If you can telecommute 100% of the time, then you can be replaced by anyone who can do the same job as you, anywhere in the world. If you can't telecommute 100% of the time, and maybe only 40%, then they probably can't replace you any easier than usual, except, that there might be more people applying for a job, if they knew they didn't have to go to work 2 days of the week.
plus, the pupil is generally not pitch black. I've tried this before. and in general, it looks pretty bad. Even if you fake the colors to look less black. I think this guy is describing turning the red channel into a black channel, and therefore giving the same shades you see in red, only in black. The problem is, this is still much harder than the digikam method of, drag box around area containing both eyes. Click on remove red eye. All this talk about color channels and layers would confuse 98% of digital camera owners.
But just because they can do something, it doesn't mean that I can't patent it. If I find a better way of doing it, then I can patent it. If I have no idea of how they did it, and they won't tell me, then how am I supposed to know if i'm infringing. They can claim a patent on a method to break encryption, and hold a patent. When all their really doing is brute forcing. Then, if I figure out a way to factor large primes to break encryption, they can just say that they already had a patent on a method for breaking encryption. If the way in which their idea is implemented is secret, then they can't prove you are infringing without revealing the way it is implemented from the beginning.
What is the point of a secret patent? If you want to enforce your patent, then you must tell other people what's in it. Otherwise they don't what part of it they are infringing on. Also, other people seeking patents would not know of the existence of the patent, and would not be able to check if any of these secret patents apply.
I think the problem would be that it is completely voluntary for sites that contain porn to use an xxx domain. Also, all (i would assume) xxx sites would contain porn. This means people would have an easy way of knowing where to find porn. Blocking the xxx domains would be useless, because there would still be a lot of porn with.com domain names. Also, it removes the use of the excuse that you visited some site by accident.
yes, but if you turn up the DPI, your text appears bigger, and therefore you can't put as much on the screen. I don't understand how people think turning up the resolution on your screen allows you to put more text, and other things, on your screen, and expect objects to maintain the same physical size. There are a few things, like icons that you can save a bit of space on, when using higher resolutions, but for the most part, having a higher resolution screen of the same size won't give you that much more usable space. However, having a larger screen with a higher resolution screen will give you much more space. I have 19 inch set to 1280x1024 and a 17 inch set to the same resolution. Because of the dpi changes, I find the 17 inch is the same as a 1024x768 monitor, while the 19 inch gives me much more usable space.
resolution says nothing about how much you can fit on the screen. It really gets me mad, when people set their tiny monitors to some really small resolution. Either you can't see anything, or the fonts are so big, that you get no advantage of actually having a higher resolution. If you want you fonts to be x mm accross, then a bigger monitor will always be able to fit more letters on them.
I have a 19 inch monitor at home. At work, I was using a 17 inch for a while. I didn't really notice much difference. I've also used 15 inch monitors that are set to 800x600 at the university. In the end, I don't really feel like it makes that much of a difference. If I was going for a laptop, i'd get a 12 inch or 15 inch, since portability is really what you want in a laptop. The only time I found that having more screen space was an asset was with multiple monitors. I find its the only way to have more than 1 program at a usable size. 1 monitor, no matter the resolution, doesn't really work too well with multiple programs opened. Maybe its just the way the window managers are designed.
Yeah, digikam has some pretty good tools for photo management and touch ups. I saw a tutorial for removing red eye in gimp, And it was way too complicated. Complaining about how difficult it is to use a high level professional tool is a little short sighted. Most people couldn't start up autocad and start drawing out a house. Most people couldn't start up visual studio, and program their own operating system. Why would anybody expect to be able to start up photoshop and instantly be transformed into a graphical genius.
Telecommuting doesn't work as well as many people think it does. No matter how much technology you throw at it, there's a lot of times when you just need people to be at work. Telecommuting 1 or 2 days a week may help a bit to reduce pollution, but anymore than that, and your job performance is probably going to suffer. There's are some jobs in which telecommuting would work, but for the other 99% of of jobs, it will never work.
There's many reasons why you may want the stored procedures lumped in with your other code. One of those reasons is to be able to provide source control to those stored procedures. It would be nice if you could go back to a previous version of a stored procedure when it got changed. This would be possible without this feature, but would require your stored procedures to be copy and pasted into some text file so that they could be put in the source control system. Also, your stored procedure names may not always be fully indicative of what they are doing. Being able to see the query, without going to the database could make your code a little more understandable. It really depends on your particular database. If you need to provide the stored procedures to a wide array of program across many different systems, then it would probably be better to write your stored procedures on the database. However if you want to access the stored procedure from only 1 program, then this method might be nice. Also, if you were to use stored procedures for every select, update, insert and delete in your entire application (as some have pointed out), then you would have a ton of stored procedures. There would be no structure to them. Having a way to organize the stored procedures into a class like format would provide a means of letting you know which queries are relevent ot what you are trying to do, instead of having to search through 1000 different queries to find the one you want.
You know, you bring up a good point. There's going to be a lot of people who disagree with you, but I think that what you say has a lot of fact. What they really need, is a way to include stored procedures in your code, so that queries can be run with the speed of a stored procedure, but still keeping the code for the stored procedure with the rest of your code. There's no reason why you couldn't have a language construct that says, i'm starting a stored procedure here, and then process that part to create a stored procedure.
A shell is nice but, can you change all the settings from the command line? The fact that most of your settings are stored in the registry, makes things a lot harder to do from the command line. Sure you could probably change a key or two if you needed to. But you'd probably have to know the exact location. Browsing the settings, to find the key you want, would be a lot harder. Can you install most programs from the command line, and manage all your installed software from the command line. I like the fact that in Linux, most base system stuff is designed so that it can be done by the command line, first and foremost, I like the fact that Linux stores all the settings in text files. This means that you can change the setting with any text editor of your choice. Also, there is a huge library of tools available at the command line. Not just stuff that was thought up by the people who made your command line (bash, csh, zsh), but also anybody else who made just about any other utility.
Slashdot Mirror
The feds created the internet, and now they have to deal with the implications. They aren't happy about it. Sure, they could use wiretapping on known VOIP services, but what's to stop someone from programming their own, using strong encryption. Sending sound packets over a network isn't that hard, encrypting them is also easy. Maybe you wouldn't have a super robust network, but so long as the person on the other end is getting the message, then that should be OK. Why aren't more criminals using PGP encrypted email? It seems like at this point it would be pretty obvious to them that they get caught when stuff isn't encrypted.
The problem is, is that this guy is blaming the IDE, because his friend used the IDE and now, he can't program. I know lots of really smart people that for some reason just can't program. It sounds like the kid isn't even that interested in programming. Maybe if the kid is really smart, he should get into something that he is more interested in. His talents might serve him better this way. I don't think that IDEs make you dumb. There's a lot of useful tools in IDE that help you to get the job done faster, but I think that part of the brain shuts off when using them. For a semester in high school, I did math with a pen, and without a calculator. I learned how to do math pretty well in my head, and also stopped writing the wrong thing before I was sure of the answer. I think that advanced IDEs do the same thing. They tell you the function parameters so you don't have to memorize them, and they tell you when you forget a semicolon, or a closing brace. Maybe it's good we can shut off little parts of our brains, so the rest of our brains can work harder.
Great. All I need is a paperclip popping ever 10 minutes with sayings like, "Looks like you are trying to declare a variable" and "Looks like you want to print some text to the console". I'd be happy if VB could warn me about unused variables. To that note, I think that most other IDEs do a much better job of helping you program. In VS when you start a class, it gives you the class definition. In IDEs like Netbeans, it gives you a starting constructor, some comments about who created it, the date, and some other nifty things. You can even go into some advanced stuff so it can stub out some initial functions and variables.
The problem is that visual studio lets you create something, that to the end user, ends up looking and behaving exactly like a program. The problem is, once a programmer looks at the internals, it looks and behaves nothing like a real program should.
Our first year courses started out programming C with borland, and Java. By 4th year, most professors were saying do it in whichever language you want, as long as you can run it in the lab. The lab had windows, unix, and most languages you'd expect to find on either. There was one guy who insisted on doing every possible project in prolog. I think it was a good thing that they let us choose. I usually picked different languages depending on what I thought would be best for the project.
I use visual studio every day. Although it does provide the ability to program the way you describe, it doesn't have to be done that way. There's no reason you can't start up a windows console application and do the programming straight from the text file. There's a lot of people out there using visual studio for apps that don't even have a GUI. .Net made it really annoying to try to make a web app, because the code that generates the HTML has to be separated from the page which outputs the HTML. Which isn't a bad way if you use the drag and drop method of generating your HTML, but becomes a real pain if you start writing your own code which outputs HTML.
The article is about unmanned mars rovers, it's kind of implied that we are talking about unmanned missions, otherwise, we'd be a little offtopic.
obviously when you're dealing with human life, over engineering is a good thing, as the cost of losing a human being has to be calculated. When you're dealing with robots, the only thing you lose on a failure is time, money and materials. But I think for NASA, time is a big issue. If it takes 2 years to get to mars, it better succeed the first time, or it may take another 4 years (engineering time plus travel) to get another shot at it. If you send up 10 at the same time, then it is likely that if 1 fails, they may all fail.
essentially they represent the same program. Most OCR programs can analyze any image for text, whether you scanned them, got them from a camera, or drew them with you mouse in mspaint. It's essentially the same problem. When you write on the screen, it creates an image, and analyzes the image to see if it can recognize anything as text. Most OCR programs only do typed text well. Recognizing hand writing is much too hard to do reliably.
Seems like nobody got my joke. It was about all the smog in certain parts of california, which stops you from being able to see the sky.
That's probably because the private schools get some level of government funding. I know the catholic schools do in ontario. You check a box on your city taxes, to let them know which school system you want your taxes going to. If your school is 100% private, then I'm not sure if this is case. Although to recieve backing from the govenment to be a legitimate school, you probably have some rules that you have to follow. They wouldn't let you start a school, and call it a real school, if you were training the kids to be suicide bombers, or if you were teaching them to hate all the people that aren't white.
Exactly. There is definitely some downsides to this. If you can telecommute 100% of the time, then you can be replaced by anyone who can do the same job as you, anywhere in the world. If you can't telecommute 100% of the time, and maybe only 40%, then they probably can't replace you any easier than usual, except, that there might be more people applying for a job, if they knew they didn't have to go to work 2 days of the week.
plus, the pupil is generally not pitch black. I've tried this before. and in general, it looks pretty bad. Even if you fake the colors to look less black. I think this guy is describing turning the red channel into a black channel, and therefore giving the same shades you see in red, only in black. The problem is, this is still much harder than the digikam method of, drag box around area containing both eyes. Click on remove red eye. All this talk about color channels and layers would confuse 98% of digital camera owners.
But just because they can do something, it doesn't mean that I can't patent it. If I find a better way of doing it, then I can patent it. If I have no idea of how they did it, and they won't tell me, then how am I supposed to know if i'm infringing. They can claim a patent on a method to break encryption, and hold a patent. When all their really doing is brute forcing. Then, if I figure out a way to factor large primes to break encryption, they can just say that they already had a patent on a method for breaking encryption. If the way in which their idea is implemented is secret, then they can't prove you are infringing without revealing the way it is implemented from the beginning.
the sky is blue
In California, this probably is news to a lot of people.
What is the point of a secret patent? If you want to enforce your patent, then you must tell other people what's in it. Otherwise they don't what part of it they are infringing on. Also, other people seeking patents would not know of the existence of the patent, and would not be able to check if any of these secret patents apply.
I think the problem would be that it is completely voluntary for sites that contain porn to use an xxx domain. Also, all (i would assume) xxx sites would contain porn. This means people would have an easy way of knowing where to find porn. Blocking the xxx domains would be useless, because there would still be a lot of porn with .com domain names. Also, it removes the use of the excuse that you visited some site by accident.
yes, but if you turn up the DPI, your text appears bigger, and therefore you can't put as much on the screen. I don't understand how people think turning up the resolution on your screen allows you to put more text, and other things, on your screen, and expect objects to maintain the same physical size. There are a few things, like icons that you can save a bit of space on, when using higher resolutions, but for the most part, having a higher resolution screen of the same size won't give you that much more usable space. However, having a larger screen with a higher resolution screen will give you much more space. I have 19 inch set to 1280x1024 and a 17 inch set to the same resolution. Because of the dpi changes, I find the 17 inch is the same as a 1024x768 monitor, while the 19 inch gives me much more usable space.
resolution says nothing about how much you can fit on the screen. It really gets me mad, when people set their tiny monitors to some really small resolution. Either you can't see anything, or the fonts are so big, that you get no advantage of actually having a higher resolution. If you want you fonts to be x mm accross, then a bigger monitor will always be able to fit more letters on them.
I have a 19 inch monitor at home. At work, I was using a 17 inch for a while. I didn't really notice much difference. I've also used 15 inch monitors that are set to 800x600 at the university. In the end, I don't really feel like it makes that much of a difference. If I was going for a laptop, i'd get a 12 inch or 15 inch, since portability is really what you want in a laptop. The only time I found that having more screen space was an asset was with multiple monitors. I find its the only way to have more than 1 program at a usable size. 1 monitor, no matter the resolution, doesn't really work too well with multiple programs opened. Maybe its just the way the window managers are designed.
Yeah, digikam has some pretty good tools for photo management and touch ups. I saw a tutorial for removing red eye in gimp, And it was way too complicated. Complaining about how difficult it is to use a high level professional tool is a little short sighted. Most people couldn't start up autocad and start drawing out a house. Most people couldn't start up visual studio, and program their own operating system. Why would anybody expect to be able to start up photoshop and instantly be transformed into a graphical genius.
Telecommuting doesn't work as well as many people think it does. No matter how much technology you throw at it, there's a lot of times when you just need people to be at work. Telecommuting 1 or 2 days a week may help a bit to reduce pollution, but anymore than that, and your job performance is probably going to suffer. There's are some jobs in which telecommuting would work, but for the other 99% of of jobs, it will never work.
There's many reasons why you may want the stored procedures lumped in with your other code. One of those reasons is to be able to provide source control to those stored procedures. It would be nice if you could go back to a previous version of a stored procedure when it got changed. This would be possible without this feature, but would require your stored procedures to be copy and pasted into some text file so that they could be put in the source control system. Also, your stored procedure names may not always be fully indicative of what they are doing. Being able to see the query, without going to the database could make your code a little more understandable. It really depends on your particular database. If you need to provide the stored procedures to a wide array of program across many different systems, then it would probably be better to write your stored procedures on the database. However if you want to access the stored procedure from only 1 program, then this method might be nice. Also, if you were to use stored procedures for every select, update, insert and delete in your entire application (as some have pointed out), then you would have a ton of stored procedures. There would be no structure to them. Having a way to organize the stored procedures into a class like format would provide a means of letting you know which queries are relevent ot what you are trying to do, instead of having to search through 1000 different queries to find the one you want.
You know, you bring up a good point. There's going to be a lot of people who disagree with you, but I think that what you say has a lot of fact. What they really need, is a way to include stored procedures in your code, so that queries can be run with the speed of a stored procedure, but still keeping the code for the stored procedure with the rest of your code. There's no reason why you couldn't have a language construct that says, i'm starting a stored procedure here, and then process that part to create a stored procedure.
A shell is nice but, can you change all the settings from the command line? The fact that most of your settings are stored in the registry, makes things a lot harder to do from the command line. Sure you could probably change a key or two if you needed to. But you'd probably have to know the exact location. Browsing the settings, to find the key you want, would be a lot harder. Can you install most programs from the command line, and manage all your installed software from the command line. I like the fact that in Linux, most base system stuff is designed so that it can be done by the command line, first and foremost, I like the fact that Linux stores all the settings in text files. This means that you can change the setting with any text editor of your choice. Also, there is a huge library of tools available at the command line. Not just stuff that was thought up by the people who made your command line (bash, csh, zsh), but also anybody else who made just about any other utility.