I dont see the justification when a new console costs just as much as the equivalent graphics card needed for new titles. I'm sure this will be the case for the X-Box 2 (or whatever they call it). Probably even more so if the gfx arch is kick-ass. I can see the desire for having a single appliance that does it all, but those days are rapidly coming to an end...
PC (Mac) games are slowly dying IMO -- There just isn't a compelling reason to buy a game for a home computer when a console can host the same titles with essentially plug and play ease of use and arguably better production values in some cases (which, admittedly, is wierd, since most of them use the same assets for the port.. but I guess it has to do with supporting all the various hw combinations... oh well). Plus the software house can make money on the console version much easier than the PC version for one big reason (that I list below).
I think people usually want home computer games for the following three reasons:
* They want bleeding edge gfx titles. Usually predictable boring FPSs with awesome gfx engines that dont matter for playability. What's most popular FPS of late? Halo on an xbox...now Halo2.. not even a cutting edge engine really... just a good game with great production values. I think Doom3 and the subsequent disappointment post release in indicative for the future of those titles and pretty much the death knell of the gfx card/fps race. I mean, it wasn't even that pretty compared to the last generation.
* Simulation. You need processor and RAM that the consoles dont have. Not many people are truly hardcore about their sims, most want a good game. It's hard to sell a completely hardcore sim. Arguably, Colin McRae and Grand Turismo are the best driving sim games you can get right now.. both are available on consoles -- one is exclusive to a console. But most of the good stuff is home computer only, making this reason really the only real justification IMO for wanting a home computer game.
* Cheap. The unspoken reason -- and I honestly believe the real motivating reason people whine about not having a home computer port of a particular game -- you dont need a modchip to dload the cracked version of the game. Obviously, this alone puts PC's *way* far back in relation to consoles as far as the market is concerned.
See Mac OS X and XCode. It's distributed free with the Panther OS on MaxOSX machines. I thought that was a great change in the current status quo of charging for development tools, frankly. However, I'm not sure whether it's really easy enough to use for a rank beginner or not. Maybe there's AppleScript.. Never seen it tho.. it might be suitable.
I wasn't writing about C vs. LISP, although I guess the two characterize what I was talking about.
I agree, C syntax is confusing to the novice user, but so is LISP or Haskell. So they all are of equal status here. My argument was not specific to C, but applied to the general categories of languages, functional and imperative. While functional languages might be interesting to learn from an academic perspective, I feel they dont translate easily into human understanding when applied to complex problems. My impression is that a primarily imperative language is a more natural way to express concepts, hence the analogy I gave (which you did not address).
I realized after I wrote this, that the catering to the machine part was gratuitous and somewhat misstated. Yes, C is closer to the machine, which is it's weakness (and simultaneously its strength:-)).. but a functional language caters to the machine in a different way. It tries to shoehorn the programmer into a form suitable for automatic verification, not necessarily for abstraction and not necessarily for human understanding.
Yes, of course, algol based languages are horrible abortions.. that's why just about anything that's worth anything is written in them. It's all a result of marketing designed to hold back the progress of computer science and application development.:-)
Excuse me, but sometimes I wonder whether LISP or functional language advocates just fell off the back of a truck.. or maybe they were just born insane. It's like the old Beta vs. VHS, Mac vs. PC vs. Amiga, etc debate. The reason Algol decendents are more popular is simply because they work better given the context in which they operate... the same reason VHS won out over Beta. and PC won out... It's not a huge mystery, nor is it some kind of ignorance of basic facts amongst the users of these languages.
If anything, its the functional advocates who are missing the basic facts. Programming languages are aids to *human* comprehension. All of the functional languages I've ever seen suck dick as general purpose programming languages. The syntax is barely readable, and the semantics are *not* immediately clear to the average programmer who is not necessarily interested in diving into abstract semantics of proving programming languages. Some of the loops you have to jump through to solve simple nonrecursive problems are obscene. Nevermind having to force your recursion to fit within certain parameters so your code performance doesn't suck...
The "spreadsheet" argument for easy of use I see nowadays is bogus, since spreadsheets are not abstract, but concrete. To give an example of the disconnect I'm talking about, take the canonical representations of each type of programming and see which one is easier for a human to understand as we scale upwards in complexity.
a) a recipe b) a mathematical proof
I think the answer, and the conclusion wrt to functional and imperative languages as they exist now is self evident. Note that basic techniques, such as modularization, apply to both. The typical response is that (b) is easier to "verify", since, well, it's already in the required form. However, noone seems to define "verify" WRT to real complex systems with GUIs, DBs, flakey machines and flakey network connections..
and furthermore, we stopped trying to cater to the machine when we stopping flipping switches on the front of the box.. we should *not* be going backwards and catering to it by reorganizing logic so it's easier for the *machine* to process.
The only three potential advantages to a real linker are:
a) You dont have to include code you dont use
b) You can ship "all-in-one" executables that work in any environment (excluding the basic OS interfaces)
c) global optimization
If you have an environment that:
a) Shares library usage between processes, and only pages in parts of the library that are being used.
b) Handles versioning of library interfaces in a reasonably sane way.
c) Uses meta-code which can be globally optimized. (.net may not be doing this yet)
You don't really need a linker. Joel's main complaint appears to be about cross version compatibility (b) and all the cruft you need to install to get.net executables working (uh....Net itself:-)) (a). I understand this in the short term, but over the long term I think it's going to be less of an issue.
And.. if you actually read the requirements, dumbass.. one of them is that the devil no longer be used. What did they say about people with glass brains?:-)
Not really a comment, but more as a question for further debate...
I think most of us have the instinct that democratic gov't should be using "open" software tools because of their transparency. However I wonder how we can distinguish the use of software compared to other "closed" tools such as automobiles. There doesn't seem to be a similar requirement for cars or fax machines that govt may use... is this fair?
Raymond and Graham and...
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Pundits, right? They like to be the focal point of attention. So it might be useful to apply some of the same critical thinking to their regular spew. Namely, we have this gem:
"(Or it could be that, because it's clearer in the sciences whether theories are true or false, you have to be smart to get jobs as a scientist, rather than just a good politician.)"
I omitted the general trashing of "liberal arts" disciplines before that. This is all reminiscent of Paul's high school nerd philosophizing on his intellectual superiority in an earlier article.
Someone else here pointed out the example of Bjorn Lomborg in particular. But we can simply point to Graham himself and his popularity. His writing speaks to most Nerds, but this doesn't not make him accurate or really even insightful. He may know what bayesian classifiers are, but that doesn't really give him any particular insight into the perfect programming language (still waiting...) or philosophical thought or even the most effective way to use these classifiers.
Raymond wrote the cathedral and the bazaar, but this was not a science-based piece. It was entirely political -- all assertions, and all pretty much unproven except by personal anecdote based on a... not very complex.. program. It was well written enough to be used as a political propaganda piece, and potentially correct -- however it alone doesn't make Eric an authority on anything...
So why is graham and raymond mentioned here and on other geek and science oriented sites? Because they write from the perspective of a geek, and write things that geeks agree with. It's not magic, it's competence. It's not competence in science, analysis or critical thought, but competence in political writing and the ability to parlay 15 minutes into some longer lasting form of success and/or influence.
The scientists which get paid the big bucks are good at this, but are not necessarily very good at science in general. This does not mean both aren't possible or don't exist in one person (they do), but it puts the claim that political saavy and science does not mix into perspective. Especially when compared to more "liberal" disciplines.
Perhaps Paul's mastery of archaic french is very good, but somehow I doubt it.. and I think he drastically underestimates the importance of motivation and overestimates the importance of intellegence.
As a geek, I see where he's coming from, but I also see the same negative human/geek tendency to deconstruct the world into simple algorithms based on what, frankly, I beleive is a limited experience. In the end, like most inet essayists, he wants to be profound, but by not framing his observations he ends up being just another netnews poster......like me!:-)
While I actually agree with what you're saying generally, I have to take issue with the relocation bit. Some people actually have families, children, and may not be the only income earner in the house. For those, relocating is not as trivial.
For those who are single, or who are the only ones working, relocation is much, much easier.
Again, I agree generally that if you are truly skilled, you'll be able find to something. I just dont think you should trivialize every aspect of the process because of this.
No. The future is the past... ffs. Which is *still* more stable than any linux filesystem I've ever used and, yes, is designed to actually work well with small, slow disks.
"Concept"-based programming is the only programming people do.. In non-buzzword terms, it's abstraction. Whether you abstract over code, or data, semantic or syntax... it's all basic abstraction. I read the code for the compiler itself, and didn't really see the kind of abstraction I really wanted to see..
I've taken a stab at this kind of mutable language, and I'm sure more than a few others have, but there's always something missing. It's the same problem that occurred in one of the original mutable languages, LISP (+ macros). While you can go ahead and create domain specific abstractions with syntax, the code to implement a nontrivial abstraction with reasonable semantics and syntax is equally or *more* complex than just using either domain specific tools separately, or using basic functional abstraction in the first place. Nevermind the added complexity of trying not to break anything else in the language at the same time.
After a while, I realized the nut that I, and many other people, were trying to crack is slightly different. You can implement every abstraction buzzword ever mentioned with functional decomposition combined with a preprocessing pass. The important part is not the mechanics, since every programming language since lisp has these mechanics. The important part is the interface to the programmer... and that's a tough problem...
Just because you have a lawyer, doesn't mean you have a clue. Perhaps it would behoove you to look at HIPPA law and what they require of doctors before acting like a whiny child. My guess is that you acted like an asshole to the doctor, so he rightfully decided to ignore you.
Time to push your chair *away* from the computer and walk out into the real world. Maybe get a shave and shower once in a while. Get a date, get married... have kids. Then when the feds come knocking on your door and threaten your livelihood, you can just tell them to fuck off.. with the full support of your family... because even though it will possibly cause you hardship, its the "right" thing to do.
Until then, take your hands off your keyboard and dispense the macho condescending crap...
When you finally graduate your reasoning beyond 8th grade, you'll realize that not only is this idiom simplistic, it's also very false when applied generally. I realize that this is a general standard used by most judges, but it really is a load of horseshit when you apply it without any qualification.
In a country run by lawyers, with laws that can only be read by lawyers, there is *substantial* excuse not to know the law when it comes to the details. And this really is a detail for people who don't read slashdot every day, and who, by all accounts, *paid* money for the "service" they were getting. All you can really do is try and do what you feel the "right thing" may be and avoid any obvious run-in's with the law. I can virtually *guarantee*, that unless you're living like a nun, you've violated a local, state or federal statute. Don't think so? Try actually reading the *volumes* of statues that apply just at the state and local level. Then add federal laws to that. There will be a subsection somewhere that applies to you.
So, it's all well and good to be a total prick about someone else's bad situation and share it on slashdot -- I doubt you would have the guts to say that directly to Mrs. Torres.. and, honestly, I doubt you really thought about what you said...
Success will always come quicker to those who drop morality in business or any sphere. Business leaders already know this... it's impossible to run a large corporation without having the ability to justify immoral behavior.. ask IBM, ask Walmart, ask Apple, ask McDonalds....
It's like the school bully.. no, he is not really an insecure confused softy inside... he's just bigger than you are and knows it. This is not something specific to microsoft.. it has to do with power and those who wield it to show how they can wield it.
Note that you don't see microsoft trying to screw IBM or Sony or Coke in any direct fashion other than old fashioned competition. They know full well that they'd get their ass handed to them by an even bigger bully...
This has happened before, and it will happen again. When it happens to you, do what burst has done... try to take them on as best as you can. One of the weaknesses a bully has is that their strenth depends on fear.. show no fear.
Cubes suck. There's no such thing as "open" office environments, but there are such things as cheap management and sweatshops. While it is couched in positive business lingo, the move smacks of management pinheads squeezing the employees against a bad job market...
Your team will be more productive for maybe a month, then it will slowly ramp down to being much less productive in 3 months as the novelty wears off. Especially if this decision was made on-high without regard to the employee's opinions on the matter, expect a rapid morale drop...
Adults need privacy and respect... "open" office environments offer neither.
Since when did "America" become "Seattle"? Try "New York" for population density -- or perhaps "Boston", "Washington D.C." or "Chicago". And the last time I checked, Seattle had a (underutilitized) bus system...
I actually found the implied sentiment against mass transit rather disgusting, as I found the arrogant investment type-guy talking about how he "doesn't really need his SUV". Unless he just had an epiphany of some sort, we all know he's not going to be trading in his SUV for a shitty looking half-sized electric car. He's going to be chatting on his cellphone while clogging my lungs with shit for as long as he can earn money without producing anything using his own sweat...
Just to be clear..:-).. *noone* ever needed an SUV. If you own one, you are a prick. Just like the fucker's in Audis and BMWs who think because they know how to drive a stick shift, they dont have to pay attention to any traffic rule which might "slow them down"... like yeilding to other cars and pedestrians, for example.
An interesting twist to this idea is *pre* associating data with an object. Imagine a central db for scanned objects that people/corporations could register physical objects with.
You place a bottle of coke in front of the scanner, and presto coke.com pops up. Or less annoying, imagine putting an object in front of the scanner and instantly being redirected to the manufacturers support page for that item. Printed copied of magazines or newspapers might jump to the online version of the article you're presenting, perhaps with additional info or audio/video extras.
Even more interesting... you have some wierd part to something you can't identify or can't figure out how to work. Place that part in front of the scanner to instantly jump to a web page of info on that part... maybe fully identifying it. "1/4 inch snubblewart"
Web servers should be able to dlopen a binary object and call an entry point for each cgi call. Similar to the methods used for mod_perl. In fact, I'd venture to say it's easier to do this -- since just about every UNIX OS supports doing this with 2 ld.so calls.
The main reason something like this may not exist in all web servers is that people are used to using scripting languages for web jobs. I think C++ can do just as good a job in many cases, and given the above, yes, it WILL run faster.
Also, because several people have mentioned regex as a perl assert, I must mention that it's super trivial to use regex.h for that. It is, afterall, what many of the current regex implementations are built on.:)
The main asset perl has are the already written modules and libraries such as PHP or various and sundry other things found on CPAN. If C++ had such as extensive set of free classes to use, I dont think there would be any contest.
Sometimes I think if people have nothing important to write about a certain week, they shouldn't write anything. This type of thing has been done, and done better by people who weren't trying to fill a column quota.
Want to make free UNIXen less boring? Write real apps and interfaces someone besides a geek can use (haven't seen a decent one yet, BTW).
Slashdot Mirror
I dont see the justification when a new console costs just as much as the equivalent graphics card needed for new titles. I'm sure this will be the case for the X-Box 2 (or whatever they call it). Probably even more so if the gfx arch is kick-ass. I can see the desire for having a single appliance that does it all, but those days are rapidly coming to an end...
PC (Mac) games are slowly dying IMO -- There just isn't a compelling reason to buy a game for a home computer when a console can host the same titles with essentially plug and play ease of use and arguably better production values in some cases (which, admittedly, is wierd, since most of them use the same assets for the port.. but I guess it has to do with supporting all the various hw combinations... oh well). Plus the software house can make money on the console version much easier than the PC version for one big reason (that I list below).
I think people usually want home computer games for the following three reasons:
* They want bleeding edge gfx titles. Usually predictable boring FPSs with awesome gfx engines that dont matter for playability. What's most popular FPS of late? Halo on an xbox...now Halo2.. not even a cutting edge engine really... just a good game with great production values. I think Doom3 and the subsequent disappointment post release in indicative for the future of those titles and pretty much the death knell of the gfx card/fps race. I mean, it wasn't even that pretty compared to the last generation.
* Simulation. You need processor and RAM that the consoles dont have. Not many people are truly hardcore about their sims, most want a good game. It's hard to sell a completely hardcore sim. Arguably, Colin McRae and Grand Turismo are the best driving sim games you can get right now.. both are available on consoles -- one is exclusive to a console. But most of the good stuff is home computer only, making this reason really the only real justification IMO for wanting a home computer game.
* Cheap. The unspoken reason -- and I honestly believe the real motivating reason people whine about not having a home computer port of a particular game -- you dont need a modchip to dload the cracked version of the game. Obviously, this alone puts PC's *way* far back in relation to consoles as far as the market is concerned.
More than viable. Call Amtrak and get a few train schedules.
I just wanted to say that I wish I could've written this. I've been thinking this for years...
See Mac OS X and XCode. It's distributed free with the Panther OS on MaxOSX machines. I thought that was a great change in the current status quo of charging for development tools, frankly. However, I'm not sure whether it's really easy enough to use for a rank beginner or not. Maybe there's AppleScript.. Never seen it tho.. it might be suitable.
I wasn't writing about C vs. LISP, although I guess the two characterize what I was talking about.
I agree, C syntax is confusing to the novice user, but so is LISP or Haskell. So they all are of equal status here. My argument was not specific to C, but applied to the general categories of languages, functional and imperative. While functional languages might be interesting to learn from an academic perspective, I feel they dont translate easily into human understanding when applied to complex problems. My impression is that a primarily imperative language is a more natural way to express concepts, hence the analogy I gave (which you did not address).
I realized after I wrote this, that the catering to the machine part was gratuitous and somewhat misstated. Yes, C is closer to the machine, which is it's weakness (and simultaneously its strength
Yes, of course, algol based languages are horrible abortions.. that's why just about anything that's worth anything is written in them. It's all a result of marketing designed to hold back the progress of computer science and application development. :-)
Excuse me, but sometimes I wonder whether LISP or functional language advocates just fell off the back of a truck.. or maybe they were just born insane. It's like the old Beta vs. VHS, Mac vs. PC vs. Amiga, etc debate. The reason Algol decendents are more popular is simply because they work better given the context in which they operate... the same reason VHS won out over Beta. and PC won out... It's not a huge mystery, nor is it some kind of ignorance of basic facts amongst the users of these languages.
If anything, its the functional advocates who are missing the basic facts. Programming languages are aids to *human* comprehension. All of the functional languages I've ever seen suck dick as general purpose programming languages. The syntax is barely readable, and the semantics are *not* immediately clear to the average programmer who is not necessarily interested in diving into abstract semantics of proving programming languages. Some of the loops you have to jump through to solve simple nonrecursive problems are obscene. Nevermind having to force your recursion to fit within certain parameters so your code performance doesn't suck...
The "spreadsheet" argument for easy of use I see nowadays is bogus, since spreadsheets are not abstract, but concrete. To give an example of the disconnect I'm talking about, take the canonical representations of each type of programming and see which one is easier for a human to understand as we scale upwards in complexity.
a) a recipe
b) a mathematical proof
I think the answer, and the conclusion wrt to functional and imperative languages as they exist now is self evident. Note that basic techniques, such as modularization, apply to both. The typical response is that (b) is easier to "verify", since, well, it's already in the required form. However, noone seems to define "verify" WRT to real complex systems with GUIs, DBs, flakey machines and flakey network connections..
and furthermore, we stopped trying to cater to the machine when we stopping flipping switches on the front of the box.. we should *not* be going backwards and catering to it by reorganizing logic so it's easier for the *machine* to process.
The only three potential advantages to a real linker are:
.net executables working (uh... .Net itself :-)) (a). I understand this in the short term, but over the long term I think it's going to be less of an issue.
a) You dont have to include code you dont use
b) You can ship "all-in-one" executables that work in any environment (excluding the basic OS interfaces)
c) global optimization
If you have an environment that:
a) Shares library usage between processes, and only pages in parts of the library that are being used.
b) Handles versioning of library interfaces in a reasonably sane way.
c) Uses meta-code which can be globally optimized. (.net may not be doing this yet)
You don't really need a linker. Joel's main complaint appears to be about cross version compatibility (b) and all the cruft you need to install to get
And.. if you actually read the requirements, dumbass.. one of them is that the devil no longer be used. What did they say about people with glass brains?
That's why I asked... I was hoping someone would have better insight than me about it. Thanks!
No, it doesn't, it gives him snob credentials, it does not give him insight.
Not that I did not say he does not have insight! I'm just trying to say his online philosophizing is taken a little too seriously.
Not really a comment, but more as a question for further debate...
I think most of us have the instinct that democratic gov't should be using "open" software tools because of their transparency. However I wonder how we can distinguish the use of software compared to other "closed" tools such as automobiles. There doesn't seem to be a similar requirement for cars or fax machines that govt may use... is this fair?
Pundits, right? They like to be the focal point of attention. So it might be useful to apply some of the same critical thinking to their regular spew. Namely, we have this gem:
...like me! :-)
"(Or it could be that, because it's clearer in the sciences whether theories are true or false, you have to be smart to get jobs as a scientist, rather than just a good politician.)"
I omitted the general trashing of "liberal arts" disciplines before that. This is all reminiscent of Paul's high school nerd philosophizing on his intellectual superiority in an earlier article.
Someone else here pointed out the example of Bjorn Lomborg in particular. But we can simply point to Graham himself and his popularity. His writing speaks to most Nerds, but this doesn't not make him accurate or really even insightful. He may know what bayesian classifiers are, but that doesn't really give him any particular insight into the perfect programming language (still waiting...) or philosophical thought or even the most effective way to use these classifiers.
Raymond wrote the cathedral and the bazaar, but this was not a science-based piece. It was entirely political -- all assertions, and all pretty much unproven except by personal anecdote based on a... not very complex.. program. It was well written enough to be used as a political propaganda piece, and potentially correct -- however it alone doesn't make Eric an authority on anything...
So why is graham and raymond mentioned here and on other geek and science oriented sites? Because they write from the perspective of a geek, and write things that geeks agree with. It's not magic, it's competence. It's not competence in science, analysis or critical thought, but competence in political writing and the ability to parlay 15 minutes into some longer lasting form of success and/or influence.
The scientists which get paid the big bucks are good at this, but are not necessarily very good at science in general. This does not mean both aren't possible or don't exist in one person (they do), but it puts the claim that political saavy and science does not mix into perspective. Especially when compared to more "liberal" disciplines.
Perhaps Paul's mastery of archaic french is very good, but somehow I doubt it.. and I think he drastically underestimates the importance of motivation and overestimates the importance of intellegence.
As a geek, I see where he's coming from, but I also see the same negative human/geek tendency to deconstruct the world into simple algorithms based on what, frankly, I beleive is a limited experience. In the end, like most inet essayists, he wants to be profound, but by not framing his observations he ends up being just another netnews poster...
While I actually agree with what you're saying generally, I have to take issue with the relocation bit. Some people actually have families, children, and may not be the only income earner in the house. For those, relocating is not as trivial.
For those who are single, or who are the only ones working, relocation is much, much easier.
Again, I agree generally that if you are truly skilled, you'll be able find to something. I just dont think you should trivialize every aspect of the process because of this.
No. The future is the past... ffs. Which is *still* more stable than any linux filesystem I've ever used and, yes, is designed to actually work well with small, slow disks.
"Concept"-based programming is the only programming people do.. In non-buzzword terms, it's abstraction. Whether you abstract over code, or data, semantic or syntax... it's all basic abstraction. I read the code for the compiler itself, and didn't really see the kind of abstraction I really wanted to see..
I've taken a stab at this kind of mutable language, and I'm sure more than a few others have, but there's always something missing. It's the same problem that occurred in one of the original mutable languages, LISP (+ macros). While you can go ahead and create domain specific abstractions with syntax, the code to implement a nontrivial abstraction with reasonable semantics and syntax is equally or *more* complex than just using either domain specific tools separately, or using basic functional abstraction in the first place. Nevermind the added complexity of trying not to break anything else in the language at the same time.
After a while, I realized the nut that I, and many other people, were trying to crack is slightly different. You can implement every abstraction buzzword ever mentioned with functional decomposition combined with a preprocessing pass. The important part is not the mechanics, since every programming language since lisp has these mechanics. The important part is the interface to the programmer... and that's a tough problem...
Just because you have a lawyer, doesn't mean you have a clue. Perhaps it would behoove you to look at HIPPA law and what they require of doctors before acting like a whiny child. My guess is that you acted like an asshole to the doctor, so he rightfully decided to ignore you.
Before talking about this as the "future" of linux desktops, you may want to take a look at the license restrictions on SVG itself.
What are you, thirteen?
Time to push your chair *away* from the computer and walk out into the real world. Maybe get a shave and shower once in a while. Get a date, get married... have kids. Then when the feds come knocking on your door and threaten your livelihood, you can just tell them to fuck off.. with the full support of your family... because even though it will possibly cause you hardship, its the "right" thing to do.
Until then, take your hands off your keyboard and dispense the macho condescending crap...
Re: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
When you finally graduate your reasoning beyond 8th grade, you'll realize that not only is this idiom simplistic, it's also very false when applied generally. I realize that this is a general standard used by most judges, but it really is a load of horseshit when you apply it without any qualification.
In a country run by lawyers, with laws that can only be read by lawyers, there is *substantial* excuse not to know the law when it comes to the details. And this really is a detail for people who don't read slashdot every day, and who, by all accounts, *paid* money for the "service" they were getting. All you can really do is try and do what you feel the "right thing" may be and avoid any obvious run-in's with the law. I can virtually *guarantee*, that unless you're living like a nun, you've violated a local, state or federal statute. Don't think so? Try actually reading the *volumes* of statues that apply just at the state and local level. Then add federal laws to that. There will be a subsection somewhere that applies to you.
So, it's all well and good to be a total prick about someone else's bad situation and share it on slashdot -- I doubt you would have the guts to say that directly to Mrs. Torres.. and, honestly, I doubt you really thought about what you said...
...note who said that..and where he is now. :-)
Personally, I dont give a rats ass.
Success will always come quicker to those who drop morality in business or any sphere. Business leaders already know this... it's impossible to run a large corporation without having the ability to justify immoral behavior.. ask IBM, ask Walmart, ask Apple, ask McDonalds....
It's like the school bully.. no, he is not really an insecure confused softy inside... he's just bigger than you are and knows it. This is not something specific to microsoft.. it has to do with power and those who wield it to show how they can wield it.
Note that you don't see microsoft trying to screw IBM or Sony or Coke in any direct fashion other than old fashioned competition. They know full well that they'd get their ass handed to them by an even bigger bully...
This has happened before, and it will happen again. When it happens to you, do what burst has done... try to take them on as best as you can. One of the weaknesses a bully has is that their strenth depends on fear.. show no fear.
Cubes suck. There's no such thing as "open" office environments, but there are such things as cheap management and sweatshops. While it is couched in positive business lingo, the move smacks of management pinheads squeezing the employees against a bad job market...
Your team will be more productive for maybe a month, then it will slowly ramp down to being much less productive in 3 months as the novelty wears off. Especially if this decision was made on-high without regard to the employee's opinions on the matter, expect a rapid morale drop...
Adults need privacy and respect... "open" office environments offer neither.
Since when did "America" become "Seattle"? Try "New York" for population density -- or perhaps "Boston", "Washington D.C." or "Chicago". And the last time I checked, Seattle had a (underutilitized) bus system...
:-) .. *noone* ever needed an SUV. If you own one, you are a prick. Just like the fucker's in Audis and BMWs who think because they know how to drive a stick shift, they dont have to pay attention to any traffic rule which might "slow them down"... like yeilding to other cars and pedestrians, for example.
I actually found the implied sentiment against mass transit rather disgusting, as I found the arrogant investment type-guy talking about how he "doesn't really need his SUV". Unless he just had an epiphany of some sort, we all know he's not going to be trading in his SUV for a shitty looking half-sized electric car. He's going to be chatting on his cellphone while clogging my lungs with shit for as long as he can earn money without producing anything using his own sweat...
Just to be clear..
An interesting twist to this idea is *pre* associating data with an object. Imagine a central db for scanned objects that people/corporations could register physical objects with.
You place a bottle of coke in front of the scanner, and presto coke.com pops up. Or less annoying, imagine putting an object in front of the scanner and instantly being redirected to the manufacturers support page for that item. Printed copied of magazines or newspapers might jump to the online version of the article you're presenting, perhaps with additional info or audio/video extras.
Even more interesting... you have some wierd part to something you can't identify or can't figure out how to work. Place that part in front of the scanner to instantly jump to a web page of info on that part... maybe fully identifying it. "1/4 inch snubblewart"
The main reason something like this may not exist in all web servers is that people are used to using scripting languages for web jobs. I think C++ can do just as good a job in many cases, and given the above, yes, it WILL run faster.
Also, because several people have mentioned regex as a perl assert, I must mention that it's super trivial to use regex.h for that. It is, afterall, what many of the current regex implementations are built on. :)
The main asset perl has are the already written modules and libraries such as PHP or various and sundry other things found on CPAN. If C++ had such as extensive set of free classes to use, I dont think there would be any contest.
Sometimes I think if people have nothing important
to write about a certain week, they shouldn't write anything. This type of thing has been done,
and done better by people who weren't trying to
fill a column quota.
Want to make free UNIXen less boring? Write real apps and interfaces someone besides a geek can use (haven't seen a decent one yet, BTW).