"Notifications are only for things which you can safely ignore or miss out on." Fred explains well -- do not display anything that nobody needs to see.
The best portion of this proposal is everything using Mark's API can be safely disabled completely. The bad is wasting effort on something completely useless. The worst result is splitting the interface for applications communicating with people. This interface does not allow actions, therefore any communications requiring actions must use a different interface so using this project requires multiple interfaces for communicating with people.
Programmers were (and most are still) not trained about usability. A good interface for a messaging system would have been easy if dialog boxes with standardized buttons had not become common. Windowing systems also kept the modal model from the single-thread paradigm. Multi-threading has been used for performance rather than interfacing with people.
Specifications: Only the front-end application can force message window to front. Applications can check whether a message was answered and receive the answer, preferably asynchronously, but people can switch applications freezing the current application if the response was mandatory and urgent. System may limit frequency of additions and checks by applications to prevent overloading. Every message appears in list interface and log(s). Reactivating a message moves to the top of list. List remembers first time, last time, and number of appearances. People can remove messages from list without using application-defined actions (to prevent fear that application dialog box's close action has other consequences.)
The new API is simple. Only the first string is required in each function. Answers are the text of the parameter (so changing the order has no other effect.) Synchronous (application waits for answer, gaining focus automatically reopens message): action = ask_wait("Question", "Action1", "Action2", "Action3"); Asynchronous (application can continue): ask_log("Question"); - Add to list without move messaging to front, and continue. id = ask_new("Question", "Action1", "Action2", "Action3"); - Add question, move to front, and continue. ask_again(id); - Move question to top of list and move messaging to front. action = ask_get(id); - Empty string if no answer.
Should be easy to create library for use with Gnome, KDE, and Win32. Simplification includes: - Window title cannot be specified. - One standard font without decorations. This avoids Gnome's practice of using bold for the first line so the critical question at the end is less visible. - No images. Some systems add icons to indicate type of dialog. These types are unnecessary. People only care if they need to choose an answer. - Text is required for actions, hopefully ending the reign of OK|Yes|No|Cancel dialogs.
Future possibilities include: - Filter/sort list by application and whether actions exist. - Incorporate the messaging system as a status bar in applications.
An early version of this text was posted on the original article. The comment either will not appear until moderated or failed moderation. My website contains an expanded version.
I support five PCs with 512MB RAM and ~2Ghz CPU built 1999-2002 running Windows 98SE. These PCs will be used until the hardware fails. Windows XP is very slow on this hardware and still has critical security holes seven years after release. The users have not been happy with my attempts to convert them to Linux. The users are happy with the current (old) software so the lack of upgrades is not a problem.
The default Internet Explorer 6 was designed to ease virus distribution; alternate browsers such as Firefox 2 are critical to keeping these PCs secure. Firefox 3 refuses to install on Windows 98, probably more to reduce support than any technical requirement. Vendors encouraging upgrades by disabling features or refusing to install just causes these users to stop updating software. These users already abjure iTunes, Vonage, and ZoneAlarm.
Background: Playing with computers since very young. Started an information publishing business before the Internet was ready (wrong partner.) Used the experience to consult buiding database applications. Almost took a job programming C++, but returned to college (wrong move.) Dropped out for finances (poor loans and grants advice and policies.)
No degree; want job in IT.
1995: Joined cattle call for Windows 95 call center. Over 200 people; very few with computer experience. I bothered the best technician with questions. The current best technician would leave for a non-support job about every two weeks. Repeated until I was the best technician.
1996: Used that reputation to land job as "Lotus Notes Administrator" answering support calls. Learned administration. Also learned LotusScript and the rest of Lotus Notes. The development group would call me for help when they could not read their own code. Several of the developers were consultants from one company.
1997: Joined the consulting company. Would try me as a developer, but threatened a long-term administration position if I did not produce. I produced. Became certified as both administrator and developer. Built reputation for completing the impossible in very little time.
2000: A large consulting company recruited me for contract work. That company has provided about half my work since. Also working for other consulting companies and on my own startup.
2006: Decided to try being an employee. Gained position that required Masters degree; I was the only applicant with the required experience. Need a degree to be promoted and a B.S. before a Masters so college while working full-time. 2007: Left company just before completing B.S. Management. Returned to consulting.
The first goal is to enter the field. Support centers always need people. Do not work phone support more than one year. Use the experience to learn everything and make friends to land the next job. Since the OP's goal is to be an administrator, the next job will likely be a junior administrator. Get promoted if possible, otherwise wait a year and move to an administrator position.
Learn everything you can in each position. In the last two years, I have completed projects using Java, Lotus Notes/Domino, Microsoft, and SAP on MSWindows and Unix/Linux, also programming in other languages: Bash, C#, CSS, HTML, JavaScript, PHP, SQL (MS SQL Server, Oracle, and PostgreSQL), and XSL/XPath. (I am certainly forgetting some.) As an administrator, you will not need quite as much variety, but the more you know, the more jobs you can handle. A good administrator should know Bash, MSDOS, Perl, and VBS.
Actually, the trick is knowing that you _aren't_ a great programmer (honestly what are the odds that you are a great programmer?), and thus choosing to reuse code from better (and hopefully great) programmers.
There's no such thing as a "great programmer" in the sense that one individual excels in every aspect of software development.
1. Being a great programmer is overrated. Producing more than 10 times faster does not result in earning 10 times faster. The pay rate for the great programmer is rarely double the rate for the normal programmer. The benefits of using a great programmer are reluctantly taken by customers. Projects budgeted for one year costing over $100,000 are completed in one month for $20,000, are better aligned with the business, provide more functionality, and are easier to maintain; customers still complain about the higher rate.
2. Great programmers could excel in every aspect of software development. That stated, we are humans with personalities including individual preferences. In the late 1980s, I thought about creating a Unix-like OS, but decided I would dislike creating and maintaining the project. Luckily, others with different preferences had similar plans resulting in Linux and the BSDs. My preference is application platforms, one level below building applications. My chosen specialty requires being expert at building applications and integrating with many systems (operating systems, databases, and clients e.g. browsers.) Does anybody think that RMS or Torvalds would have difficulty programming games? Their specialties derive from personal preferences, not abilities.
3. Great programmers will join existing projects. Using a popular project removes the work of creating and marketing early versions. A great programmer focuses on fixing problems with the software, including redesigning and rewriting whatever is needed to make the project do what the great programmer wants.
4. The OP has discovered that new specifications are difficult with the chosen framework. A normal programmer starts looking for a new framework. A great programmer has more choices: - Work around the problems without discarding the current framework. - Fix the current framework to handle the new requirements. The former is possible because the great programmer does not accept the limitations of the framework. The latter is possible because the great programmer can quickly rewrite the framework without adding much to the project's budget. Normal programmers are more accepting of limitations, less likely to design workarounds, and cannot rewrite the framework in a reasonable timeframe.
5. Almost nobody builds "from scratch." Even if the OP discards the current framework, he will still use existing Java Web servers and operating systems. The choice is not whether to use others' code, just how much.
6. Solutions include: - Building a new framework. CONS: High maintenance, less expertise, future requirements may still exceed the capabilities. - Switching frameworks. CONS: Future requirements may still exceed current capabilities. - Fixing the current framework. CONS: Need to have improvements accepted by framework project to avoid upgrade issues. - Redesign application to workaround framework. CONS: Project is less maintainable as different functions use different methods.
No good recommendation is possible without knowing more about the OP's resources and problems. - Can Hibernate be fixed to handle the new requirements? - Is the Hibernate team already working to add these abilities? - Can new functionality use JDBC directly without interfering with the existing code? I would not discard the proven working code until the new methods have been proven stable and maintaining two systems requires more effort than replacing one.
Yes, I know a number of people who get this sort of mileage on the highway from their LS1 F-bodies and Corvettes. It's not that much of a mystery, it's called gearing. 6th gear in the T-56 is.50:1 at 60mph the engine is only turning 1400rpm. A friend commented that my shifting was smooth; I was surprised because I keep planning to have someone who knows cars to teach me.
Who said anything about 30mph? He was going 60mph, reread the message. Thanks. I noticed that mistake after I posted.
Actually, you're wrong about window sticker numbers. Those are averages. Take a closer look at your window sticker; usually under the city mpg rating (on GM window stickers anyways) you'll see "Actual mileage" listed and it will be a range of something like 15-21 city, 23-33 highway (not the numbers for my Formula as I can't find the window sticker for it:/ ) The small print on the sticker states:
Actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits an vehicle condition. Results reported to EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 16 and 22 mpg in the city and between 23 and 33 mpg on the highway.
This does not state that this car will achieve the range, just a disclaimer that the variance is typical for a car rated 19/28. I assumed manufacturers marketed the best numbers possible without getting sued.
You'd max out the car in 5th gear, not 4th and the limiter is at 162 mph;) Good to know. I have never attempted such speeds in these cars. At legal speeds, I use fifth and sixth as overdrives; difficult not to accelerate in the first four gears. At what speed does fifth become more for acceleration than coasting?
The TA does have a better suspension [than the Formula] though. Good to know that the $3000 was not just for the spoiler.
If your car an automatic or something? 2nd doesn't redline at 50mph. I used to downshift into 2nd at 60mph and it'd only be at ~4000rpm (rough estimate, but I know I rpm's were low enough to make it worth doing it to accelerate quickly.) If you have a 6 speed you should also have 3.42 gears, unless your TA is a convertible? My "experiments" were flooring the accelerator in each gear until the car hiccuped from red-lining. More controlled acceleration should give better results. I did drop into second at 70mph once (missed fourth -- I stated I was not good with manual shifting) and the car handled it well.
Neither of mine was an automatic or a convertible. I tested the automatic before buying the first. About a quarter mile flat and up a ramp. Flooring the automatic was straining past 50 mph. Without trying, the manual was at 90mph at the same place.
A female friend bought a '99 automatic TransAm and special-ordered the WS6 because she liked the hood. Any performance benefits would be lost to the automatic transmission. The car is probably extremely rare; who else would pay just for the look?
30mpg in a 5.7l V8 Firebird!? Highway driving at 30mph is not normal. I would have pulled over for a nap or to read. The truck driver could call about any problems.
My window sticker stated 19/28mpg. Those numbers are optimal and assumed unrealistic in the real world.
-- The Formula was a good deal. The extra $3000 for the TransAm added 50lbs for the rear spoiler and different nametags. No Formulas were available locally when I was searching. I have never seen a '99-'02 Formula; I check every time I see a Firebird without a spoiler. AutoTrader lists an '02 Formula just over 100 miles from here, and two '99 Formulas over 230 miles away (compare with 47 Firebirds and TransAms within 50 miles; 80 within 100 miles.)
My car is stock. Still has the skip-shift. I learned to skip second and third gears, only using them when I need to accelerate really fast. Tapping the gas pedal in first gear is enough for 20mph, then fourth can reach any legal speed in reasonable time. I learned second gear red-lines at ~50mph and third gear at ~80mph (both experiences were emergency manuevering to avoid accidents.) I cannot imagine maxing fourth gear -- probably hit the 167mph limiter first.
What causes the difference in our fuel efficiency? The hills around my home? Your customizations? Attitude?
I was going to post almost the same information. I was surprised another car also receives the best fuel economy at 85mph; most cars seem to like less than 60mph. Then I found your post mentioning you have a '00 TransAm WS6. My numbers are from a '99 TransAm and an '02 TransAm WS6; both 6-speed manuals. (I upgraded because they were being discontinued.) Like yours, 85mph is best; over 90mph starts eating fuel, and under 80mph loses at least 2mpg. My WS6 has never beaten 24mpg. The '99 reached 26mpg going downhill south from Harrisburg, PA to Charlotte, NC for over 400 miles without refilling -- cruise control and standing on the clutch to slow entering town areas with lower speed limits.
It is because our cars are cooler. The low drag is because we are not driving a block on wheels. The V8 engine and 6-speed transmission allow us to accelerate well and coast without going over 2000rpm.
Do you get better mpg because the West Coast is flatter? In the Philadelphia area, we rarely see a half-mile of road because a hill blocks the view.
In 2007, I did little highway driving and averaged 16mpg, never 280 miles between refills. In 2006, I almost reached 23mpg for a few tanks, but still only averaged 17.5mpg for the year. TransAms are not good if you care about fuel economy. [I don't. The '99 was traded after 3.5 years with 54K miles -- much driving for well-paid consulting work. The '02 is 6.5 years old and just passed 50K miles -- much working from home. I still enjoy all-day pleasure drives.]
His need was basically an issue tracking system that was half database and half spreadsheet. They wanted the rigor of a database but also the flexibility of a spreadsheet so that anybody can add a column willy-nilly and highlight stuff with colors, bold, etc.. There is a huge need in general for something that is half-spreadsheet and half-database and I've not found anything that does the job yet.
Have you researched IBM's Lotus Domino?
Domino uses document-based databases. While relational databases require every record in a table to have the same fields, Domino can have different fields in each document. Fields are easily added "willy-nilly", and non-programmers quickly learn to develop simple applications. "Views" display multiple documents meeting specified criteria with sorting, totals, and formatting. Domino 6 added the ability to edit documents in Views so an application can act very much like a spreadsheet. (The current version 8 added integration with Eclipse, but the functionality you need has been stable since 2002's version 6.)
Domino receives little respect on Slashdot because the software is proprietary and application development is too easy to satisfy most programmers. Domino is the perfect solution for businesses replacing spreadsheet "applications". A company of less than 1000 employees can buy an unlimited-user never-expiring application server license for $2650. Most functionality can be created by normal users using the Notes client, including adding columns and formatting to Views. Advanced programming requires a developer license for another $800, probably unnecessary for the simple application you describe.
Thank you. This may be the first time someone asked before using my material. The first of my writing to appear on the Web was instructions for fixing Windows 95 on Compaq's website attributed to a Compaq employee, then on Microsoft's website attributed to a Microsoft employee; both copies contained my very lame joke. I often find references to my writing from the "referer" when pages link to my website. Most of my writing eventually appears on my website. A backlog of over 100 articles exists because I was extremely busy writing without posting last year and the website will be changing technology later this year. This list is now posted at: http://solprovider.com/articles/20080709
I appreciate being credited for my work. Please include a link to my version in your blog.
In this case, the "work" was wandering around my library looking for authors suitable for young boys. About a dozen good authors were excluded because their books are targeted at girls. Some good authors may have been excluded because I did not move furniture -- a couch blocks some of the B-E authors (just peeked and added David Brin and Ben Bova), much of N-Q is in stacks waiting for more bookshelves, and many new books are still in boxes. I am glad people are enjoying the list and mostly confirming it.
Feist's "Magician" is awesome, but I stopped reading after a dozen books. I deliberately excluded long-winded fantasy: David Eddings, Raymond Feist, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, and Terry Brooks' Shannara. I assumed that the boys would be forced to read Tolkein -- that's enough of that genre unless the children really like it. If they did, they could easily find similar material. This list was designed to encourage reading with more action and less descriptive passages. I probably should have excluded Terry Goodkind as part of this genre, but while the plots slow as the series progresses, the writing never gets quite boring enough to qualify (IMO).
"Stephen R. Donaldson - Mordant's Need (fantasy), then Gap series (SF). Covenant series for late teens."
Most people only remember Donaldson for the Convenant series. I suggested saving that series for much later. The two books of Mordant's Need and most of his short stories are much lighter and would be suitable for just-become-teenagers (13yo) after reading Rosenberg killing main characters. The Gap series is darker and probably suitable around 15; the style and plot twists are good writing. The Covenant series is for 17+; Donaldson would have been much later in the list without the comment. I dislike dry longwinded writing and would not have mentioned Covenant if the series was not almost mandatory for Fantasy creds.
Over 50 authors sorted by chronological age of readers. Some (e.g. Heinlein) have books for younger readers, but continuing with the author leads to adult books. All (except the Acorna series) are accessible to older readers.
L. Frank Baum - classic Oz for the very young Lloyd Alexander - Prydain John Christopher (Samuel Youd) - Tripods series. Susan Cooper - Dark Is Rising series Robin McKinley Robert Asprin - Myth Adventures and Phule series. Other series should wait until mid-teens. Just bought Dragon's Wild -- not read yet, but seems more adult. Jody Lynn Nye - Mythology Terry Pratchet - Discworld Christopher Stasheff - Warlock series, earliest books will need to be reread when older; middle of series is great for children; latest are romances for late teens. Craig Shaw Gardner Piers Anthony - Xanth Brian Jacques - Redwall Lyndon Hardy - Only one fantasy trilogy. Harry Harrison - Stainless Steel Rat series. Many other books for different age groups. Marion Zimmer Bradley - Darkover Katherine Kurtz - Deryni Barbara Hambly Anne McCaffrey - Acorna series is for young children, painful for adults. Talents, Brainships, and Crystal Singer are for any age. Dragonriders vary starting late teens. Joel Rosenberg - Guardians of the Flame series; warning: main characters die! Stephen R. Donaldson - Mordant's Need (fantasy), then Gap series (SF). Covenant series for late teens. Alan Dean Foster - pulp writer great for children but too many clichés for adults. Edgar Rice Burroughs - classic Tarzan, Mars, and Pellucidar are mandatory. C. S. Lewis - Narnia Gordon Dickson - Dorsai (especially appealing to boys), many others. Terry Brooks (Magic Kingdom for Sale series) J. K. Rowling - Harry Potter, mandatory for this decade Fritz Leiber - Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser series is great for boys John DeChancie - Castle series Fred Saberhagen - Empire of the East and Swords series Frederick Pohl James P. Hogan - SF Laura Resnick - Fantasy Orson Scott Card - Ender's Game, Shadow series, Enchantment, Songmaster, Magic Street. Spider Robinson - Deathkiller trilogy and short stories. Callahan's Series for late teens (fun but adult-themed jokes would be missed when very young.) L. E. Modesitt, Jr. - Ecolitan and Recluse series. W. Michael Gear - Now writing long-winded pulp with his wife, but his Spider trilogy (and "The Artifact" prequel) is incredible (warning: main characters die!) Philip José Farmer - World of Tiers Terry Goodkind - Sword of Truth series starts well Roger Zelazny - Amber David Farland (Dave Wolverton) - Runelords Jules Verne - classic H. G. Wells - classic Harry Turtledove - alternate histories, often fantasy. Douglas Adams - mandatory for potential nerds. Arthur C. Clarke Charles Ingrid - SF Robert L. Forward Isaac Asimov Robert Heinlein - mandatory for sci-fi discussions. Poul Anderson Larry Niven - Ringworld, etc. Jerry Pournelle Greg Bear Ray Bradbury Mike Resnick C. S. Friedman - often requires rereading to understand (even for adults)
Your post was good, but failed to mention how unending domain-tasting works. You also mention squatters; this charge will not affect "squatters" since squatters buy domains.
The current system allows a domain to be used (tasted) for up to 5 days without charge. The purpose of this policy was to allow free reversal of mistaken registrations. ICANN currently charges $0.20 per domain registration (changed in 2007 from $0.25.) The policy change is the charge will not be refunded if the domain is released within five days.
Current Problem #1: Somebody noticed the ability to check expired domains for traffic that could become profitable by advertising on previously used domains. If enough (maybe one visit?) traffic reaches a domain in the first five days, the domain is bought in the expectation that the advertising revenue from the domain will more than offset the cost of buying the domain. This is one variant of the "squatter". [Other variants are buying domains that may become valuable e.g. names of potential celebrities, and buying domains similar to popular domains e.g. slashdit.org.]
Current Problem #2: A few companies doing #1 can keep a domain from ever returning to the public. A company tastes all expiring domains. If the first company releases a domain at five days, another company tastes the repeatedly-expired domain. The domain would eventually be released to the public if the companies excluded recently tasted domains, but no reason existed to encourage this practice since no cost is incurred for tasting a domain once or multiple times. Currently, most expired ".com" domains enter this "constantly tasted, never bought" state.
[From memory of previously research on this issue] Three companies in Florida at least connected by sharing legal representation are "tasting" 20 million domains. A domain can pass amongst these companies indefinitely without incurring any costs.
The new policy is designed to stop this practice. Indefinitely tasting those 20 million domains would incur the $0.20 charge every 5 days: $4 million every 5 days = $292 million per year. The cost to a registrar for buying a domain is ~$7. With the new charge, buying a domain for one year has the same cost as tasting a domain for only half of a year.
One of two possible outcomes can be expected: 1. The cost of buying the domains is more than the domain-tasting companies are willing to pay so the domains are released to the public. 2. The domains generate more than $7 per year so the domain-tasting companies buy the domains and become domain-squatting companies. Tasting a domain will cost $14 per year. Buying a domain costs $7 per year and simplifies the system by removing the need to change DNS settings every 5 days (although that system must have been automated long ago.)
Every article about the policy change assumes the first outcome -- more than 20 million domains will become available during the week after this policy is effected. I do not know if the profitability of these companies depends on free domain-tasting. The companies may still be profitable with a new $140 million per year expense -- owning 20 million domains at $7 each per year. If so, nothing would change except ICANN "earns" more (and those three companies could merge since the benefit of being separate entities would be lost.)
For 3-4 years [IBM] has been selling express versions of Domino/Notes. Basically, you can install as many servers as you want with this licensing (which is very cost-effective with geographically distributed companies).
This statement is only accurate for the Collaboration Express licensing plan. I just convinced a client to use Domino Utility Express for a Web application project. The original plans were for MS IIS + MS SQL Express + a physically separate Active Directory + MS Visual Studio + one of the ever-changing versions of.Net. The good is application development will be easier and faster; the bad is I am paid by the hour. The information below is from last week's discussions with IBM about Domino pricing.
The standard licensing plan for Enterprise Domino has per-user and per-server costs. Both Web user licenses and the higher-priced Notes client user licenses are >$100 so 100 users is more than $10,000. Every user and server in the Domino Directory must have a license. The user licenses are good for both applications and messaging.
The Utility and Messaging "Express" servers are only available to companies with less than 1,000 employees, counting every employee -- not just computer users. The company may only have up to 4 Domino "Utility" or "Messaging" Express servers with a total up to 8 CPU cores = 4 single or dual core servers, 2 quad-core servers, or 2 + 1. This plan includes unlimited Web and Notes user licenses. "Express" has some limitations on functionality -- each server is either "Utility" (applications) or "Messaging" (email). The "Utility" server is missing some applications (Domino.doc and Workflow) and cannot be clustered. The good is one single- or dual-core Utility Express server license is only $2650 (double for quad-core.) The server can max memory and processor speed without changing the license price. Domino Designer clients are not included; add one Domino Designer license for $805.
Also for less-than-1,000-employee companies, "Collaboration Express" licensing includes unlimited servers with per-user costs >$100. This option includes applications and messaging. Applications servers have the limitations of the Utility Express servers. Server licenses are free, but the per-user licenses are only slightly ($7) less expensive than the Enterprise plan.
The Domino Enterprise Utility (applications-only) server allowing unlimited user licenses for companies with more than 1,000 employees is >$20,000 -- a bargain when an application allows Web registrations and the >1,000-employee company does not want to buy licenses for every user registering. (Small companies should choose the much less expensive Express server.) This option may also be good for companies needing only one application server without Domino messaging for more than 200 users.
"CEO" licensing plans are for companies buying much IBM software. I do not have information about high-volume pricing; IBM probably negotiates prices with each customer.
All licenses include one year of support and upgrades with no obligation to purchase additional maintenance -- the licenses never expire for the supported versions. Additional years of support/upgrades may be purchased as renewals extending current support for 20% initial cost (25% for Express) or after support lapses for 60% initial price. If you upgrade less often than every 3 years, the second option is less expensive.
From the article: Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99 (October 2004): $0.17 Musicians' unions $0.80 Packaging/manufacturing $0.82 Publishing royalties $0.80 Retail profit $0.90 Distribution $1.60 Artists' royalties $1.70 Label profit $2.40 Marketing/promotion $2.91 Label overhead $3.89 Retail overhead
CNN's breakdown according to Billboard Magazine for $16.98 CD (no date found): $0.59 Profit to label $0.75 Pressing album and printing booklet $0.85 Co-op advertising and discounts to retailers $1.08 Signing act and producing record $1.99 Royalties to artist and songwriter $2.15 Marketing and promotion $3.34 Company overhead, distribution, and shipping $6.23 Retail Markup
Costs should be distiguished amongst fixed costs (the overhead of releasing a new album and maintaining a store), variable costs (per-unit costs such as the media, case, packaging, selling one item), and contractual costs based on the selling price.
The royalties, profits, and union fees may be based on the unit or the price. Does the artist receive $1.60 whether the album is sold for $5 or $25? (The royalties are lower on the second list.)
Retail overhead seems high. The $0.90 for distribution includes similar expenses (truck driver vs. cashier/stocker, product tracking); why is the retail overhead so much higher?
Does anybody know which of these costs change with the price? How would the costs be allocated if the retail price was $9.72?
"I think that you are being way too simplistic with your car analogy in terms of the items you change on the car."
Did you read the list of drivers that stop Vista SP1 from installing?
Intel display drivers (Probably came with the computer. Equivalent to floor mats or the dealer's license plate holder -- standard equipment from the retailer.)
Many sound drivers, including Creative Audigy (May have come with the computer, but also common add-on. Equivalent to a CD changer in the trunk.)
Logitech QuickCam (Equivalent to the wiper blades or air freshener -- something anybody would expect not to cause problems.)
More exotic items are on the list, but some are standard. Some shallow research found the Intel driver is used for the 945 and 965 chipsets used in laptops (Asus Z62F, Lenovo T60, Samsung Q35 XIC-5500), by many motherboard manufacturers (Intel, ASRock, Asus, Biostar, FixConn, Gigabyte, MSI), and Dell used the chipset in the Lattitude and XPS lines.
-- I am surprised by the reports of the BSOD. I had believed Microsoft had eliminated the BSOD in XP by forcing an immediate reboot rather than display the BSOD. Was the BSOD reverted for XP? Or is the BSOD one of Vista's new features?
-- Slashdot Bug Alert: Previewing a post reverts the Subject. The submitted subject shows in the Preview section, but the Subject field contains the auto-generated text. My last post and this one should have the subject "Vista Service Pack".
"Ford also expects money for their products. If you never change the oil and the engine blows up, that's ford's problem? That's pretty sad if that is the best reasoning you can come up with."
The problem is more like having the dealership's mechanics change the oil using oil and parts supplied by Ford, then having the car blow up while still in the dealer's parking lot. Microsoft's Service Packs are designed for Microsoft products by Microsoft programmers and installed using Microsoft's preferred delivery mechanism. Consumers have the reasonable expectation that the computer will still boot after completing the process. The company cannot blame the consumer for having changed the windshield wiper blades, adding an air freshener, and plugging a cell phone charger into the lighter socket. The car should still move under its own power.
I have made three minor contributions to Wikipedia. The first rewrote one paragraph for clarity and added a paragraph. The third replaced incorrect information.
My second contribution added three-sentences as the 27th bullet of a list. The entire section was deleted 32 minutes later with the comment "Removed trivia section". The "User Contributions" list of the "Administrator" is almost completely filled with entries like "Reverted edit by ???" and a few "Removed ???". Administrators are a group of trusted users with access to certain things not available to other users, for example the ability to delete pages and block users. Should Administrators only have negative contributions?
I believe the information should have been moved to a new article. The list is verifiable facts -- appearances of a car in popular media. Many people put effort into making that list. As a user, I want Wikipedia to contain everything relevant to the subject. How does removing this information improve anything?
"Know the author Ed Tufte." I like Tufte for his arguments against using PowerPoint. His own works are mostly about using images to display information well. While some important HCI topics are covered, finding the few critical points would be much work for someone with an immediate need to create a guide for interfaces.
"Know what HCI stands for." Much good information can be found with much less work by reading the free materials from the organization that certifies HCI professionals: http://www.humanfactors.com/ The only other certification requires a Masters degree in the subject, at which point another certification is pointless.
"Know your audience and let them evaluate Throwaway Prototypes." Your audience is human beings. Dividing any further is an excuse for allowing poor interface design.
"If all goes well, this thread will serve as a good starting point for getting ideas/content to populate your new Wiki with."
I have two rules for good UI on my website (which needs better organization and will be fixed later this year): 1. Make every function as obvious as possible. 2. Require the least action for every function. Many interfaces hide functions with menus, tabs, and dialog boxes. The functions are hidden, and activation requires more than one click. Some programs even show functions that cannot be used. (Photoshop has so many options that hiding some is almost necessary, yet still shows actions that cannot be used at the moment.)
The third rule should be to minimize the probability of mistakes. Many environments have dialog boxes with "OK" and "Cancel" buttons very close. Buttons should be explicit. Damaging actions should be separated. All options should be allowed.
Firefox is better than most programs and still violates these rules. If you attempt to close a window with multiple tabs open, the buttons are "Close all tabs and this window" and "Cancel - Do not close any tabs" (italics added for missing text). No option is presented for the most likely desired option to "Close the current tab".
These three rules cover every situation. More guidelines are useful for consistency, such as - The expected action is always first and has a green background. - Other actions may follow with yellow backgrounds. - Cancel and other destructive actions are always in the bottom-left at least 20 pixels from other controls and have a red background.
I make businesses better. My personal interests are for my personal projects. Paid work results from companies realizing a great programmer is needed, usually after trying several "good" programmers. I arrive, learn about the business and the current needs, and complete projects so everybody is smiling. Programs are fast. Interfaces are easy to use and teach the job rather than requiring training. Designs are easily understood, options allow for changes in business, and the code is maintainable by normal programmers.
Most companies need me for weeks. The largest projects only need my skills for months. With good plans and any difficult code written, projects succeed without my continuing involvement. The result is more of my time is spent waiting for work than working.
I have been actively seeking work for a few weeks. The last effort was two years ago. Finding work is difficult. I have been involved with over 200 successful projects for over 70 companies; none of my projects were over financial or time budgets. I cannot sell myself since listing achievements sounds like bragging, focusing on teamwork makes me just a project manager, and focusing on code makes me just a programmer. Once contact is made with a customer, we focus on their needs; my breadth and depth of experience is obvious from my questions and solutions.
Companies expect consulting firms to rave about the skills of consultants. My method is to contact several consulting firms. Consulting firms wait for a request for the best while giving most projects to less-expensive programmers. Contact is eventually made with a potential client, and I start work a few days later.
I have met thousands of programmers. Most were good. Several were terrible. A few were great within their specialties. I have no idea how a company could locate those few. I doubt any company needs more than a few great programmers since a great programmer can handle the work of hundreds of good programmers. One project started as assisting with an almost-two-years-of-work backlog for a 20-programmer department. I focused on program design, code reuse, and mentoring the permanent teams so the work was completed quickly and the organization was more efficient. The backlog was eliminated in two months.
I once had expectations that previous clients would contact me when attempting another urgent mission-critical project or discovering the IT department is not delivering well. Management turnover has eliminated that hope. Successful projects lead to promotions so my bosses rarely need me again. Bean counters look at immediate cost rather than ROI. Better development methods mean clients rarely have problems until most of the people aware of me have left. Few companies have used me more than once; the assignments were usually years apart, involved different skills and sometimes different consulting firms (e.g. DuPont and GM each used me for an architecture project and a programming project with no overlap of required skills.)
Consulting firms usually prefer to offer good programmers with higher profitability than a great programmer. Web job boards seem useless; I have received only one position due to my resume being found on the Internet. (I have not posted to Joel's job board). Referrals work when management truly cares; about half my positions come from previous colleagues recommending me when a project's success seems hopeless. The rest of my jobs come from a consulting company caring more for a client's happiness than immediate profitability -- either about to lose a major contract because a project failed, or as the loss-leader suggesting that hiring more consultants from this firm will give similar results. At least one currently empty position is in that last category -- the diverse skills required are rarely found in one person and a consulting firm wants the "win" so I may be working soon.
I am listed as two people with the same pseudonym; my real name is not found. I am listed for two related projects belonging to the same organization. Both of me have the same score albeit for different skills. Ohloh obviously only checks commits to the main branches; my commits and LOCs to an experimental branch of one project would drown my official commits. I won commit status due to my assistance on the mailing lists and a lengthy complicated patch for critical functionality; my name is in the credits, but the commit is credited to someone else. I cured a critical bug in a third project (a component affecting many FOSS projects), but my patch was included as text in the bug tracking system and committed by and credited to someone else. The system measures lines of code, but great programming often reduces LOCs (as happened in the patch to the third project.) I am about to post code in a bug-tracking system that will not be integrated into the project due to management's objections ("This function has been broken for 8 years and we are afraid to fix it"); this will not be credited. Contributions to official documentation are ignored, as is useful information on personal websites.
Another committer has a much higher score. He is involved in more products and has committed tons of code to the official branches. He has kudos from other developers. From researching several developers whose work I know, I agree with the scores (except mine. My fame is in the corporate world for completing critical, urgent IT projects. I am a very minor player in the FOSS world. I am surprised my score is so high based on the limited contributions considered.)
Some suggestions: 1. List one person as one person. The organization requires a unique pseudonym for all projects. Start with the page translating the pseudonyms to real names. 2. Look at mailing list activity and distinguish between questions and answers. The first post in a user thread is a question; additional posts are often requests for information; the final post not from the original poster is usually the solution. The first post in a dev thread is often a new idea; additional posts are clarifications so give credit for length to avoid "+1" posts but avoid crediting lengthy log listings. 3. Look at bug-tracking systems. Many official commits are patches provided by non-committers through the bug-tracking system. 4. Counting LOCs is usually a poor determination of the quality of contributions. One of my official commits added code. My commit was reverted and replaced with half the LOCs of the original code. While I would accept credit for the concept that was implemented, those LOCs should not contribute positively to my score. Did the committer writing the excellent replacement code lose points for reducing LOC?
Ohloh ignores many important types of contributions and poorly assigns credit for much work to the committer rather than the contributor. Ohloh does not distinguish between types of commits; many commits are correcting bugs introduced by the same committer. Assigning importance ratings to commits requires integration with bug-tracking systems; CVS and SVN do not have scoring mechanisms.
Ohloh cannot score personality. Much of my career has been accomplishing the "impossible" (whether functional or due to deadlines) as my focus is on business usefulness rather than technical limitations. One person (scored 9 by Ohloh) is an incredible programmer once someone proves something can and should be done, but is extremely resistant to new ideas. Creativity is not reflected in the scores.
Ohloh has a good idea. I like the kudos system (and hope merit wins over popularity.) The system still needs work to be accepted as a reliable source of useful information.
"the parent had intended to say open NAT/Wireless AP, not router"
- Network Address Translation (NAT) requires a router. by definition, NAT functionality is not possible with switches or hubs. - A Wireless Access Point device is not technically required to include a router, but all consumer WAP devices are routers. (I will research later if enterprise WAPs are available without routing capabilities. Anybody know?) - Man-in-the-Middle is easier than brute force. Why crack something when you can access the original text?
I could have stated "open wireless router" or "wireless access point". My non-technical friend has learned that modems and routers are needed for Internet access. Computers talk to the "router". The "router" talks to the "modem". The "modem" talks to the Internet. His desktops and wireless laptop talk to a "router". He knows Internet problems are solved by powering off everything, then booting each device starting closest to the Internet and waiting for the green lights before starting the next device. I am careful not to mention that his DSL modems include routers. Adding "access points" to the terminology adds no value.
Is there a single reader of Slashdot that did not understand "open router" in the context of wireless Internet in NYC to mean an "open wireless access point?"
Start by explaining a real-world current personal problem. (I do not crack so showing his bank balance is not possible.)
A friend loves his wireless laptop. We encrypted router communication at both homes. Explaining why encryption is needed led to an explanation of the dangers of handling financial transactions while wandering NYC -- that any open router could record everything including passwords and perform man-in-the-middle attacks to bypass SSL. Anybody willing to capture his information could; expecting those people not to use the information maliciously seems silly.
Once those dangers were understood, my friend was eager to hear about more insidious problems such as government policies (telecommunication recording), other insecure devices (iPhone), and deliberately open websites (Facebook).
Google is preventing money to be made from AdSense while domain-tasting. The problem is domain-tasting tests whether a domain receives traffic. If a domain receives one visit during a five-day period, the domain is likely to receive enough traffic to offset the registration cost. Whether income is earned on that first visit does not change the domain-tasting business. This policy only affects companies that taste and never buy. No company spending money on equipment to handle tasting (automating registration, DNS, virtual host, cancellation) will balk at buying domains expected to be profitable.
The problem is that every expiring domain is domain-tasted. A once-registered, but unused domain bounces from domain-taster to domain-taster forever. If someone has an interest in the domain, the current taster notices, then buys and parks the domain. This guarantees that every domain that was ever registered will never become available to the general public. (Yes, a very small chance exists that a person could register the domain just as a domain-taster released the domain, but domain-tasters have faster equipment, more bandwidth, and better relationships with registrars.)
The best method to slow domain-tasting is to declare one week* each year that domains may not be registered. All domains must be bought or released. The defect is the Internet might crash as the domain-tasters attempt to recover as many domains as possible. Limiting the number of registrations from each account would help, but domain-tasters are usually registrars able to avoid such limits.
* One week = 7 days = 5-day "Add Grace Period" + 24 hours to avoid time zone issues + 24 hours padding.
Five responses: - rrkap asked a joke question. (The area is strange -- superstars live 1/2 mile from slums. The neighborhood borders three towns with neighborhoods varying from upper class to lower class. My street has nice houses with large backyards. Most of the people living on our street were old, but some had sold/rented to poor people. My father chose that house; I live in a different State.)
- AC claims Category 2. (Score:0 as I write this, but a well-written humorous response.) - Azuma Hazuki joins Category 4. Many of the posts define the category of the authors. Most posts demonstrating Category 1 traits are modded down. Slashdot is elitist.
- An AC and Dripdry are upset about my elitist attitude.
I do not "pass the buck." I do not state, "My friends and I are not smart." Your inability to use proper grammar excuses you from worrying that you and your friends are in the smart group. Do not fear people more intelligent than you. With great intelligence comes great responsibility. Many smart people care for the less fortunate.
I am prejudiced. I am elitist. I am intelligent. I like being around smart people. I choose smart people as my friends. Smart people understand me. I do not need to filter my vocabulary or ideas to converse with smart people. I prefer discussions not concerning television or the weather. My friends are smart because I choose smart people to be my friends.
The "education" system tries to neutralize the effects of varying intelligence. Being around people with poor or limited vocabulary affects your speech patterns. Everybody chooses their friends based on their own personality and intelligence. (See LunaticTippy's response.)
Slashdot Mirror
"Notifications are only for things which you can safely ignore or miss out on." Fred explains well -- do not display anything that nobody needs to see.
The best portion of this proposal is everything using Mark's API can be safely disabled completely. The bad is wasting effort on something completely useless. The worst result is splitting the interface for applications communicating with people. This interface does not allow actions, therefore any communications requiring actions must use a different interface so using this project requires multiple interfaces for communicating with people.
Programmers were (and most are still) not trained about usability. A good interface for a messaging system would have been easy if dialog boxes with standardized buttons had not become common. Windowing systems also kept the modal model from the single-thread paradigm. Multi-threading has been used for performance rather than interfacing with people.
Specifications: Only the front-end application can force message window to front. Applications can check whether a message was answered and receive the answer, preferably asynchronously, but people can switch applications freezing the current application if the response was mandatory and urgent. System may limit frequency of additions and checks by applications to prevent overloading. Every message appears in list interface and log(s). Reactivating a message moves to the top of list. List remembers first time, last time, and number of appearances. People can remove messages from list without using application-defined actions (to prevent fear that application dialog box's close action has other consequences.)
The new API is simple. Only the first string is required in each function. Answers are the text of the parameter (so changing the order has no other effect.)
Synchronous (application waits for answer, gaining focus automatically reopens message):
action = ask_wait("Question", "Action1", "Action2", "Action3");
Asynchronous (application can continue):
ask_log("Question"); - Add to list without move messaging to front, and continue.
id = ask_new("Question", "Action1", "Action2", "Action3"); - Add question, move to front, and continue.
ask_again(id); - Move question to top of list and move messaging to front.
action = ask_get(id); - Empty string if no answer.
Should be easy to create library for use with Gnome, KDE, and Win32. Simplification includes:
- Window title cannot be specified.
- One standard font without decorations. This avoids Gnome's practice of using bold for the first line so the critical question at the end is less visible.
- No images. Some systems add icons to indicate type of dialog. These types are unnecessary. People only care if they need to choose an answer.
- Text is required for actions, hopefully ending the reign of OK|Yes|No|Cancel dialogs.
Future possibilities include:
- Filter/sort list by application and whether actions exist.
- Incorporate the messaging system as a status bar in applications.
An early version of this text was posted on the original article. The comment either will not appear until moderated or failed moderation. My website contains an expanded version.
People do not change until a reason exists.
I support five PCs with 512MB RAM and ~2Ghz CPU built 1999-2002 running Windows 98SE. These PCs will be used until the hardware fails. Windows XP is very slow on this hardware and still has critical security holes seven years after release. The users have not been happy with my attempts to convert them to Linux. The users are happy with the current (old) software so the lack of upgrades is not a problem.
The default Internet Explorer 6 was designed to ease virus distribution; alternate browsers such as Firefox 2 are critical to keeping these PCs secure. Firefox 3 refuses to install on Windows 98, probably more to reduce support than any technical requirement. Vendors encouraging upgrades by disabling features or refusing to install just causes these users to stop updating software. These users already abjure iTunes, Vonage, and ZoneAlarm.
My story might help the OP.
Background: Playing with computers since very young. Started an information publishing business before the Internet was ready (wrong partner.) Used the experience to consult buiding database applications. Almost took a job programming C++, but returned to college (wrong move.) Dropped out for finances (poor loans and grants advice and policies.)
No degree; want job in IT.
1995: Joined cattle call for Windows 95 call center. Over 200 people; very few with computer experience. I bothered the best technician with questions. The current best technician would leave for a non-support job about every two weeks. Repeated until I was the best technician.
1996: Used that reputation to land job as "Lotus Notes Administrator" answering support calls. Learned administration. Also learned LotusScript and the rest of Lotus Notes. The development group would call me for help when they could not read their own code. Several of the developers were consultants from one company.
1997: Joined the consulting company. Would try me as a developer, but threatened a long-term administration position if I did not produce. I produced. Became certified as both administrator and developer. Built reputation for completing the impossible in very little time.
2000: A large consulting company recruited me for contract work. That company has provided about half my work since. Also working for other consulting companies and on my own startup.
2006: Decided to try being an employee. Gained position that required Masters degree; I was the only applicant with the required experience. Need a degree to be promoted and a B.S. before a Masters so college while working full-time.
2007: Left company just before completing B.S. Management. Returned to consulting.
The first goal is to enter the field. Support centers always need people. Do not work phone support more than one year. Use the experience to learn everything and make friends to land the next job. Since the OP's goal is to be an administrator, the next job will likely be a junior administrator. Get promoted if possible, otherwise wait a year and move to an administrator position.
Learn everything you can in each position. In the last two years, I have completed projects using Java, Lotus Notes/Domino, Microsoft, and SAP on MSWindows and Unix/Linux, also programming in other languages: Bash, C#, CSS, HTML, JavaScript, PHP, SQL (MS SQL Server, Oracle, and PostgreSQL), and XSL/XPath. (I am certainly forgetting some.) As an administrator, you will not need quite as much variety, but the more you know, the more jobs you can handle. A good administrator should know Bash, MSDOS, Perl, and VBS.
Actually, the trick is knowing that you _aren't_ a great programmer (honestly what are the odds that you are a great programmer?), and thus choosing to reuse code from better (and hopefully great) programmers.
There's no such thing as a "great programmer" in the sense that one individual excels in every aspect of software development.
1. Being a great programmer is overrated. Producing more than 10 times faster does not result in earning 10 times faster. The pay rate for the great programmer is rarely double the rate for the normal programmer. The benefits of using a great programmer are reluctantly taken by customers. Projects budgeted for one year costing over $100,000 are completed in one month for $20,000, are better aligned with the business, provide more functionality, and are easier to maintain; customers still complain about the higher rate.
2. Great programmers could excel in every aspect of software development. That stated, we are humans with personalities including individual preferences. In the late 1980s, I thought about creating a Unix-like OS, but decided I would dislike creating and maintaining the project. Luckily, others with different preferences had similar plans resulting in Linux and the BSDs. My preference is application platforms, one level below building applications. My chosen specialty requires being expert at building applications and integrating with many systems (operating systems, databases, and clients e.g. browsers.) Does anybody think that RMS or Torvalds would have difficulty programming games? Their specialties derive from personal preferences, not abilities.
3. Great programmers will join existing projects. Using a popular project removes the work of creating and marketing early versions. A great programmer focuses on fixing problems with the software, including redesigning and rewriting whatever is needed to make the project do what the great programmer wants.
4. The OP has discovered that new specifications are difficult with the chosen framework. A normal programmer starts looking for a new framework. A great programmer has more choices:
- Work around the problems without discarding the current framework.
- Fix the current framework to handle the new requirements.
The former is possible because the great programmer does not accept the limitations of the framework. The latter is possible because the great programmer can quickly rewrite the framework without adding much to the project's budget. Normal programmers are more accepting of limitations, less likely to design workarounds, and cannot rewrite the framework in a reasonable timeframe.
5. Almost nobody builds "from scratch." Even if the OP discards the current framework, he will still use existing Java Web servers and operating systems. The choice is not whether to use others' code, just how much.
6. Solutions include:
- Building a new framework.
CONS: High maintenance, less expertise, future requirements may still exceed the capabilities.
- Switching frameworks.
CONS: Future requirements may still exceed current capabilities.
- Fixing the current framework.
CONS: Need to have improvements accepted by framework project to avoid upgrade issues.
- Redesign application to workaround framework.
CONS: Project is less maintainable as different functions use different methods.
No good recommendation is possible without knowing more about the OP's resources and problems.
- Can Hibernate be fixed to handle the new requirements?
- Is the Hibernate team already working to add these abilities?
- Can new functionality use JDBC directly without interfering with the existing code?
I would not discard the proven working code until the new methods have been proven stable and maintaining two systems requires more effort than replacing one.
Yes, I know a number of people who get this sort of mileage on the highway from their LS1 F-bodies and Corvettes. It's not that much of a mystery, it's called gearing. 6th gear in the T-56 is .50:1 at 60mph the engine is only turning 1400rpm.
A friend commented that my shifting was smooth; I was surprised because I keep planning to have someone who knows cars to teach me.
Who said anything about 30mph? He was going 60mph, reread the message.
Thanks. I noticed that mistake after I posted.
Actually, you're wrong about window sticker numbers. Those are averages. Take a closer look at your window sticker; usually under the city mpg rating (on GM window stickers anyways) you'll see "Actual mileage" listed and it will be a range of something like 15-21 city, 23-33 highway (not the numbers for my Formula as I can't find the window sticker for it :/ )
The small print on the sticker states:
This does not state that this car will achieve the range, just a disclaimer that the variance is typical for a car rated 19/28. I assumed manufacturers marketed the best numbers possible without getting sued.
You'd max out the car in 5th gear, not 4th and the limiter is at 162 mph ;)
Good to know. I have never attempted such speeds in these cars. At legal speeds, I use fifth and sixth as overdrives; difficult not to accelerate in the first four gears. At what speed does fifth become more for acceleration than coasting?
The TA does have a better suspension [than the Formula] though.
Good to know that the $3000 was not just for the spoiler.
If your car an automatic or something? 2nd doesn't redline at 50mph. I used to downshift into 2nd at 60mph and it'd only be at ~4000rpm (rough estimate, but I know I rpm's were low enough to make it worth doing it to accelerate quickly.) If you have a 6 speed you should also have 3.42 gears, unless your TA is a convertible?
My "experiments" were flooring the accelerator in each gear until the car hiccuped from red-lining. More controlled acceleration should give better results. I did drop into second at 70mph once (missed fourth -- I stated I was not good with manual shifting) and the car handled it well.
Neither of mine was an automatic or a convertible. I tested the automatic before buying the first. About a quarter mile flat and up a ramp. Flooring the automatic was straining past 50 mph. Without trying, the manual was at 90mph at the same place.
A female friend bought a '99 automatic TransAm and special-ordered the WS6 because she liked the hood. Any performance benefits would be lost to the automatic transmission. The car is probably extremely rare; who else would pay just for the look?
30mpg in a 5.7l V8 Firebird!? Highway driving at 30mph is not normal. I would have pulled over for a nap or to read. The truck driver could call about any problems.
My window sticker stated 19/28mpg. Those numbers are optimal and assumed unrealistic in the real world.
Edmunds specs the cars at 16/23 (very close to my numbers.)
Formula: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002308/specs.html
TransAm: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002310/specs.html
Consumer Guide observed ~16mpg:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1993-to-2002-pontiac-firebird-4.htm
--
The Formula was a good deal. The extra $3000 for the TransAm added 50lbs for the rear spoiler and different nametags. No Formulas were available locally when I was searching. I have never seen a '99-'02 Formula; I check every time I see a Firebird without a spoiler. AutoTrader lists an '02 Formula just over 100 miles from here, and two '99 Formulas over 230 miles away (compare with 47 Firebirds and TransAms within 50 miles; 80 within 100 miles.)
My car is stock. Still has the skip-shift. I learned to skip second and third gears, only using them when I need to accelerate really fast. Tapping the gas pedal in first gear is enough for 20mph, then fourth can reach any legal speed in reasonable time. I learned second gear red-lines at ~50mph and third gear at ~80mph (both experiences were emergency manuevering to avoid accidents.) I cannot imagine maxing fourth gear -- probably hit the 167mph limiter first.
What causes the difference in our fuel efficiency? The hills around my home? Your customizations? Attitude?
I was going to post almost the same information. I was surprised another car also receives the best fuel economy at 85mph; most cars seem to like less than 60mph. Then I found your post mentioning you have a '00 TransAm WS6. My numbers are from a '99 TransAm and an '02 TransAm WS6; both 6-speed manuals. (I upgraded because they were being discontinued.) Like yours, 85mph is best; over 90mph starts eating fuel, and under 80mph loses at least 2mpg. My WS6 has never beaten 24mpg. The '99 reached 26mpg going downhill south from Harrisburg, PA to Charlotte, NC for over 400 miles without refilling -- cruise control and standing on the clutch to slow entering town areas with lower speed limits.
It is because our cars are cooler. The low drag is because we are not driving a block on wheels. The V8 engine and 6-speed transmission allow us to accelerate well and coast without going over 2000rpm.
Do you get better mpg because the West Coast is flatter? In the Philadelphia area, we rarely see a half-mile of road because a hill blocks the view.
In 2007, I did little highway driving and averaged 16mpg, never 280 miles between refills. In 2006, I almost reached 23mpg for a few tanks, but still only averaged 17.5mpg for the year. TransAms are not good if you care about fuel economy. [I don't. The '99 was traded after 3.5 years with 54K miles -- much driving for well-paid consulting work. The '02 is 6.5 years old and just passed 50K miles -- much working from home. I still enjoy all-day pleasure drives.]
His need was basically an issue tracking system that was half database and half spreadsheet. They wanted the rigor of a database but also the flexibility of a spreadsheet so that anybody can add a column willy-nilly and highlight stuff with colors, bold, etc.. There is a huge need in general for something that is half-spreadsheet and half-database and I've not found anything that does the job yet.
Have you researched IBM's Lotus Domino?
Domino uses document-based databases. While relational databases require every record in a table to have the same fields, Domino can have different fields in each document. Fields are easily added "willy-nilly", and non-programmers quickly learn to develop simple applications. "Views" display multiple documents meeting specified criteria with sorting, totals, and formatting. Domino 6 added the ability to edit documents in Views so an application can act very much like a spreadsheet. (The current version 8 added integration with Eclipse, but the functionality you need has been stable since 2002's version 6.)
Domino receives little respect on Slashdot because the software is proprietary and application development is too easy to satisfy most programmers. Domino is the perfect solution for businesses replacing spreadsheet "applications". A company of less than 1000 employees can buy an unlimited-user never-expiring application server license for $2650. Most functionality can be created by normal users using the Notes client, including adding columns and formatting to Views. Advanced programming requires a developer license for another $800, probably unnecessary for the simple application you describe.
Thank you. This may be the first time someone asked before using my material. The first of my writing to appear on the Web was instructions for fixing Windows 95 on Compaq's website attributed to a Compaq employee, then on Microsoft's website attributed to a Microsoft employee; both copies contained my very lame joke. I often find references to my writing from the "referer" when pages link to my website. Most of my writing eventually appears on my website. A backlog of over 100 articles exists because I was extremely busy writing without posting last year and the website will be changing technology later this year. This list is now posted at:
http://solprovider.com/articles/20080709
I appreciate being credited for my work. Please include a link to my version in your blog.
In this case, the "work" was wandering around my library looking for authors suitable for young boys. About a dozen good authors were excluded because their books are targeted at girls. Some good authors may have been excluded because I did not move furniture -- a couch blocks some of the B-E authors (just peeked and added David Brin and Ben Bova), much of N-Q is in stacks waiting for more bookshelves, and many new books are still in boxes. I am glad people are enjoying the list and mostly confirming it.
"I find the absence of Raymond Feist puzzling"
Feist's "Magician" is awesome, but I stopped reading after a dozen books. I deliberately excluded long-winded fantasy: David Eddings, Raymond Feist, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, and Terry Brooks' Shannara. I assumed that the boys would be forced to read Tolkein -- that's enough of that genre unless the children really like it. If they did, they could easily find similar material. This list was designed to encourage reading with more action and less descriptive passages. I probably should have excluded Terry Goodkind as part of this genre, but while the plots slow as the series progresses, the writing never gets quite boring enough to qualify (IMO).
"Stephen R. Donaldson - Mordant's Need (fantasy), then Gap series (SF). Covenant series for late teens."
Most people only remember Donaldson for the Convenant series. I suggested saving that series for much later. The two books of Mordant's Need and most of his short stories are much lighter and would be suitable for just-become-teenagers (13yo) after reading Rosenberg killing main characters. The Gap series is darker and probably suitable around 15; the style and plot twists are good writing. The Covenant series is for 17+; Donaldson would have been much later in the list without the comment. I dislike dry longwinded writing and would not have mentioned Covenant if the series was not almost mandatory for Fantasy creds.
Over 50 authors sorted by chronological age of readers. Some (e.g. Heinlein) have books for younger readers, but continuing with the author leads to adult books. All (except the Acorna series) are accessible to older readers.
L. Frank Baum - classic Oz for the very young
Lloyd Alexander - Prydain
John Christopher (Samuel Youd) - Tripods series.
Susan Cooper - Dark Is Rising series
Robin McKinley
Robert Asprin - Myth Adventures and Phule series. Other series should wait until mid-teens. Just bought Dragon's Wild -- not read yet, but seems more adult.
Jody Lynn Nye - Mythology
Terry Pratchet - Discworld
Christopher Stasheff - Warlock series, earliest books will need to be reread when older; middle of series is great for children; latest are romances for late teens.
Craig Shaw Gardner
Piers Anthony - Xanth
Brian Jacques - Redwall
Lyndon Hardy - Only one fantasy trilogy.
Harry Harrison - Stainless Steel Rat series. Many other books for different age groups.
Marion Zimmer Bradley - Darkover
Katherine Kurtz - Deryni
Barbara Hambly
Anne McCaffrey - Acorna series is for young children, painful for adults. Talents, Brainships, and Crystal Singer are for any age. Dragonriders vary starting late teens.
Joel Rosenberg - Guardians of the Flame series; warning: main characters die!
Stephen R. Donaldson - Mordant's Need (fantasy), then Gap series (SF). Covenant series for late teens.
Alan Dean Foster - pulp writer great for children but too many clichés for adults.
Edgar Rice Burroughs - classic Tarzan, Mars, and Pellucidar are mandatory.
C. S. Lewis - Narnia
Gordon Dickson - Dorsai (especially appealing to boys), many others.
Terry Brooks (Magic Kingdom for Sale series)
J. K. Rowling - Harry Potter, mandatory for this decade
Fritz Leiber - Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser series is great for boys
John DeChancie - Castle series
Fred Saberhagen - Empire of the East and Swords series
Frederick Pohl
James P. Hogan - SF
Laura Resnick - Fantasy
Orson Scott Card - Ender's Game, Shadow series, Enchantment, Songmaster, Magic Street.
Spider Robinson - Deathkiller trilogy and short stories. Callahan's Series for late teens (fun but adult-themed jokes would be missed when very young.)
L. E. Modesitt, Jr. - Ecolitan and Recluse series.
W. Michael Gear - Now writing long-winded pulp with his wife, but his Spider trilogy (and "The Artifact" prequel) is incredible (warning: main characters die!)
Philip José Farmer - World of Tiers
Terry Goodkind - Sword of Truth series starts well
Roger Zelazny - Amber
David Farland (Dave Wolverton) - Runelords
Jules Verne - classic
H. G. Wells - classic
Harry Turtledove - alternate histories, often fantasy.
Douglas Adams - mandatory for potential nerds.
Arthur C. Clarke
Charles Ingrid - SF
Robert L. Forward
Isaac Asimov
Robert Heinlein - mandatory for sci-fi discussions.
Poul Anderson
Larry Niven - Ringworld, etc.
Jerry Pournelle
Greg Bear
Ray Bradbury
Mike Resnick
C. S. Friedman - often requires rereading to understand (even for adults)
Your post was good, but failed to mention how unending domain-tasting works. You also mention squatters; this charge will not affect "squatters" since squatters buy domains.
The current system allows a domain to be used (tasted) for up to 5 days without charge. The purpose of this policy was to allow free reversal of mistaken registrations. ICANN currently charges $0.20 per domain registration (changed in 2007 from $0.25.) The policy change is the charge will not be refunded if the domain is released within five days.
Current Problem #1: Somebody noticed the ability to check expired domains for traffic that could become profitable by advertising on previously used domains. If enough (maybe one visit?) traffic reaches a domain in the first five days, the domain is bought in the expectation that the advertising revenue from the domain will more than offset the cost of buying the domain. This is one variant of the "squatter". [Other variants are buying domains that may become valuable e.g. names of potential celebrities, and buying domains similar to popular domains e.g. slashdit.org.]
Current Problem #2: A few companies doing #1 can keep a domain from ever returning to the public. A company tastes all expiring domains. If the first company releases a domain at five days, another company tastes the repeatedly-expired domain. The domain would eventually be released to the public if the companies excluded recently tasted domains, but no reason existed to encourage this practice since no cost is incurred for tasting a domain once or multiple times. Currently, most expired ".com" domains enter this "constantly tasted, never bought" state.
[From memory of previously research on this issue] Three companies in Florida at least connected by sharing legal representation are "tasting" 20 million domains. A domain can pass amongst these companies indefinitely without incurring any costs.
The new policy is designed to stop this practice. Indefinitely tasting those 20 million domains would incur the $0.20 charge every 5 days: $4 million every 5 days = $292 million per year. The cost to a registrar for buying a domain is ~$7. With the new charge, buying a domain for one year has the same cost as tasting a domain for only half of a year.
One of two possible outcomes can be expected:
1. The cost of buying the domains is more than the domain-tasting companies are willing to pay so the domains are released to the public.
2. The domains generate more than $7 per year so the domain-tasting companies buy the domains and become domain-squatting companies. Tasting a domain will cost $14 per year. Buying a domain costs $7 per year and simplifies the system by removing the need to change DNS settings every 5 days (although that system must have been automated long ago.)
Every article about the policy change assumes the first outcome -- more than 20 million domains will become available during the week after this policy is effected. I do not know if the profitability of these companies depends on free domain-tasting. The companies may still be profitable with a new $140 million per year expense -- owning 20 million domains at $7 each per year. If so, nothing would change except ICANN "earns" more (and those three companies could merge since the benefit of being separate entities would be lost.)
For 3-4 years [IBM] has been selling express versions of Domino/Notes. Basically, you can install as many servers as you want with this licensing (which is very cost-effective with geographically distributed companies).
.Net. The good is application development will be easier and faster; the bad is I am paid by the hour. The information below is from last week's discussions with IBM about Domino pricing.
This statement is only accurate for the Collaboration Express licensing plan. I just convinced a client to use Domino Utility Express for a Web application project. The original plans were for MS IIS + MS SQL Express + a physically separate Active Directory + MS Visual Studio + one of the ever-changing versions of
The standard licensing plan for Enterprise Domino has per-user and per-server costs. Both Web user licenses and the higher-priced Notes client user licenses are >$100 so 100 users is more than $10,000. Every user and server in the Domino Directory must have a license. The user licenses are good for both applications and messaging.
The Utility and Messaging "Express" servers are only available to companies with less than 1,000 employees, counting every employee -- not just computer users. The company may only have up to 4 Domino "Utility" or "Messaging" Express servers with a total up to 8 CPU cores = 4 single or dual core servers, 2 quad-core servers, or 2 + 1. This plan includes unlimited Web and Notes user licenses. "Express" has some limitations on functionality -- each server is either "Utility" (applications) or "Messaging" (email). The "Utility" server is missing some applications (Domino.doc and Workflow) and cannot be clustered. The good is one single- or dual-core Utility Express server license is only $2650 (double for quad-core.) The server can max memory and processor speed without changing the license price. Domino Designer clients are not included; add one Domino Designer license for $805.
Also for less-than-1,000-employee companies, "Collaboration Express" licensing includes unlimited servers with per-user costs >$100. This option includes applications and messaging. Applications servers have the limitations of the Utility Express servers. Server licenses are free, but the per-user licenses are only slightly ($7) less expensive than the Enterprise plan.
The Domino Enterprise Utility (applications-only) server allowing unlimited user licenses for companies with more than 1,000 employees is >$20,000 -- a bargain when an application allows Web registrations and the >1,000-employee company does not want to buy licenses for every user registering. (Small companies should choose the much less expensive Express server.) This option may also be good for companies needing only one application server without Domino messaging for more than 200 users.
"CEO" licensing plans are for companies buying much IBM software. I do not have information about high-volume pricing; IBM probably negotiates prices with each customer.
All licenses include one year of support and upgrades with no obligation to purchase additional maintenance -- the licenses never expire for the supported versions. Additional years of support/upgrades may be purchased as renewals extending current support for 20% initial cost (25% for Express) or after support lapses for 60% initial price. If you upgrade less often than every 3 years, the second option is less expensive.
From the article:
Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99 (October 2004):
$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead
CNN's breakdown according to Billboard Magazine for $16.98 CD (no date found):
$0.59 Profit to label
$0.75 Pressing album and printing booklet
$0.85 Co-op advertising and discounts to retailers
$1.08 Signing act and producing record
$1.99 Royalties to artist and songwriter
$2.15 Marketing and promotion
$3.34 Company overhead, distribution, and shipping
$6.23 Retail Markup
Costs should be distiguished amongst fixed costs (the overhead of releasing a new album and maintaining a store), variable costs (per-unit costs such as the media, case, packaging, selling one item), and contractual costs based on the selling price.
The royalties, profits, and union fees may be based on the unit or the price. Does the artist receive $1.60 whether the album is sold for $5 or $25? (The royalties are lower on the second list.)
Retail overhead seems high. The $0.90 for distribution includes similar expenses (truck driver vs. cashier/stocker, product tracking); why is the retail overhead so much higher?
Does anybody know which of these costs change with the price?
How would the costs be allocated if the retail price was $9.72?
Did you read the list of drivers that stop Vista SP1 from installing?
More exotic items are on the list, but some are standard. Some shallow research found the Intel driver is used for the 945 and 965 chipsets used in laptops (Asus Z62F, Lenovo T60, Samsung Q35 XIC-5500), by many motherboard manufacturers (Intel, ASRock, Asus, Biostar, FixConn, Gigabyte, MSI), and Dell used the chipset in the Lattitude and XPS lines.
--
I am surprised by the reports of the BSOD. I had believed Microsoft had eliminated the BSOD in XP by forcing an immediate reboot rather than display the BSOD. Was the BSOD reverted for XP? Or is the BSOD one of Vista's new features?
--
Slashdot Bug Alert: Previewing a post reverts the Subject. The submitted subject shows in the Preview section, but the Subject field contains the auto-generated text. My last post and this one should have the subject "Vista Service Pack".
"Ford also expects money for their products. If you never change the oil and the engine blows up, that's ford's problem? That's pretty sad if that is the best reasoning you can come up with."
The problem is more like having the dealership's mechanics change the oil using oil and parts supplied by Ford, then having the car blow up while still in the dealer's parking lot. Microsoft's Service Packs are designed for Microsoft products by Microsoft programmers and installed using Microsoft's preferred delivery mechanism. Consumers have the reasonable expectation that the computer will still boot after completing the process. The company cannot blame the consumer for having changed the windshield wiper blades, adding an air freshener, and plugging a cell phone charger into the lighter socket. The car should still move under its own power.
I have made three minor contributions to Wikipedia. The first rewrote one paragraph for clarity and added a paragraph. The third replaced incorrect information.
My second contribution added three-sentences as the 27th bullet of a list. The entire section was deleted 32 minutes later with the comment "Removed trivia section". The "User Contributions" list of the "Administrator" is almost completely filled with entries like "Reverted edit by ???" and a few "Removed ???". Administrators are a group of trusted users with access to certain things not available to other users, for example the ability to delete pages and block users. Should Administrators only have negative contributions?
I believe the information should have been moved to a new article. The list is verifiable facts -- appearances of a car in popular media. Many people put effort into making that list. As a user, I want Wikipedia to contain everything relevant to the subject. How does removing this information improve anything?
"Know the author Ed Tufte."
I like Tufte for his arguments against using PowerPoint. His own works are mostly about using images to display information well. While some important HCI topics are covered, finding the few critical points would be much work for someone with an immediate need to create a guide for interfaces.
"Know what HCI stands for."
Much good information can be found with much less work by reading the free materials from the organization that certifies HCI professionals:
http://www.humanfactors.com/
The only other certification requires a Masters degree in the subject, at which point another certification is pointless.
"Know your audience and let them evaluate Throwaway Prototypes."
Your audience is human beings. Dividing any further is an excuse for allowing poor interface design.
"If all goes well, this thread will serve as a good starting point for getting ideas/content to populate your new Wiki with."
I have two rules for good UI on my website (which needs better organization and will be fixed later this year):
1. Make every function as obvious as possible.
2. Require the least action for every function.
Many interfaces hide functions with menus, tabs, and dialog boxes. The functions are hidden, and activation requires more than one click. Some programs even show functions that cannot be used. (Photoshop has so many options that hiding some is almost necessary, yet still shows actions that cannot be used at the moment.)
The third rule should be to minimize the probability of mistakes. Many environments have dialog boxes with "OK" and "Cancel" buttons very close. Buttons should be explicit. Damaging actions should be separated. All options should be allowed.
Firefox is better than most programs and still violates these rules. If you attempt to close a window with multiple tabs open, the buttons are "Close all tabs and this window" and "Cancel - Do not close any tabs" (italics added for missing text). No option is presented for the most likely desired option to "Close the current tab".
These three rules cover every situation. More guidelines are useful for consistency, such as
- The expected action is always first and has a green background.
- Other actions may follow with yellow backgrounds.
- Cancel and other destructive actions are always in the bottom-left at least 20 pixels from other controls and have a red background.
Mirrors.
I make businesses better. My personal interests are for my personal projects. Paid work results from companies realizing a great programmer is needed, usually after trying several "good" programmers. I arrive, learn about the business and the current needs, and complete projects so everybody is smiling. Programs are fast. Interfaces are easy to use and teach the job rather than requiring training. Designs are easily understood, options allow for changes in business, and the code is maintainable by normal programmers.
Most companies need me for weeks. The largest projects only need my skills for months. With good plans and any difficult code written, projects succeed without my continuing involvement. The result is more of my time is spent waiting for work than working.
I have been actively seeking work for a few weeks. The last effort was two years ago. Finding work is difficult. I have been involved with over 200 successful projects for over 70 companies; none of my projects were over financial or time budgets. I cannot sell myself since listing achievements sounds like bragging, focusing on teamwork makes me just a project manager, and focusing on code makes me just a programmer. Once contact is made with a customer, we focus on their needs; my breadth and depth of experience is obvious from my questions and solutions.
Companies expect consulting firms to rave about the skills of consultants. My method is to contact several consulting firms. Consulting firms wait for a request for the best while giving most projects to less-expensive programmers. Contact is eventually made with a potential client, and I start work a few days later.
I have met thousands of programmers. Most were good. Several were terrible. A few were great within their specialties. I have no idea how a company could locate those few. I doubt any company needs more than a few great programmers since a great programmer can handle the work of hundreds of good programmers. One project started as assisting with an almost-two-years-of-work backlog for a 20-programmer department. I focused on program design, code reuse, and mentoring the permanent teams so the work was completed quickly and the organization was more efficient. The backlog was eliminated in two months.
I once had expectations that previous clients would contact me when attempting another urgent mission-critical project or discovering the IT department is not delivering well. Management turnover has eliminated that hope. Successful projects lead to promotions so my bosses rarely need me again. Bean counters look at immediate cost rather than ROI. Better development methods mean clients rarely have problems until most of the people aware of me have left. Few companies have used me more than once; the assignments were usually years apart, involved different skills and sometimes different consulting firms (e.g. DuPont and GM each used me for an architecture project and a programming project with no overlap of required skills.)
Consulting firms usually prefer to offer good programmers with higher profitability than a great programmer. Web job boards seem useless; I have received only one position due to my resume being found on the Internet. (I have not posted to Joel's job board). Referrals work when management truly cares; about half my positions come from previous colleagues recommending me when a project's success seems hopeless. The rest of my jobs come from a consulting company caring more for a client's happiness than immediate profitability -- either about to lose a major contract because a project failed, or as the loss-leader suggesting that hiring more consultants from this firm will give similar results. At least one currently empty position is in that last category -- the diverse skills required are rarely found in one person and a consulting firm wants the "win" so I may be working soon.
I am listed as two people with the same pseudonym; my real name is not found. I am listed for two related projects belonging to the same organization. Both of me have the same score albeit for different skills. Ohloh obviously only checks commits to the main branches; my commits and LOCs to an experimental branch of one project would drown my official commits. I won commit status due to my assistance on the mailing lists and a lengthy complicated patch for critical functionality; my name is in the credits, but the commit is credited to someone else. I cured a critical bug in a third project (a component affecting many FOSS projects), but my patch was included as text in the bug tracking system and committed by and credited to someone else. The system measures lines of code, but great programming often reduces LOCs (as happened in the patch to the third project.) I am about to post code in a bug-tracking system that will not be integrated into the project due to management's objections ("This function has been broken for 8 years and we are afraid to fix it"); this will not be credited. Contributions to official documentation are ignored, as is useful information on personal websites.
Another committer has a much higher score. He is involved in more products and has committed tons of code to the official branches. He has kudos from other developers. From researching several developers whose work I know, I agree with the scores (except mine. My fame is in the corporate world for completing critical, urgent IT projects. I am a very minor player in the FOSS world. I am surprised my score is so high based on the limited contributions considered.)
Some suggestions:
1. List one person as one person. The organization requires a unique pseudonym for all projects. Start with the page translating the pseudonyms to real names.
2. Look at mailing list activity and distinguish between questions and answers. The first post in a user thread is a question; additional posts are often requests for information; the final post not from the original poster is usually the solution. The first post in a dev thread is often a new idea; additional posts are clarifications so give credit for length to avoid "+1" posts but avoid crediting lengthy log listings.
3. Look at bug-tracking systems. Many official commits are patches provided by non-committers through the bug-tracking system.
4. Counting LOCs is usually a poor determination of the quality of contributions. One of my official commits added code. My commit was reverted and replaced with half the LOCs of the original code. While I would accept credit for the concept that was implemented, those LOCs should not contribute positively to my score. Did the committer writing the excellent replacement code lose points for reducing LOC?
Ohloh ignores many important types of contributions and poorly assigns credit for much work to the committer rather than the contributor. Ohloh does not distinguish between types of commits; many commits are correcting bugs introduced by the same committer. Assigning importance ratings to commits requires integration with bug-tracking systems; CVS and SVN do not have scoring mechanisms.
Ohloh cannot score personality. Much of my career has been accomplishing the "impossible" (whether functional or due to deadlines) as my focus is on business usefulness rather than technical limitations. One person (scored 9 by Ohloh) is an incredible programmer once someone proves something can and should be done, but is extremely resistant to new ideas. Creativity is not reflected in the scores.
Ohloh has a good idea. I like the kudos system (and hope merit wins over popularity.) The system still needs work to be accepted as a reliable source of useful information.
"the parent had intended to say open NAT/Wireless AP, not router"
- Network Address Translation (NAT) requires a router. by definition, NAT functionality is not possible with switches or hubs.
- A Wireless Access Point device is not technically required to include a router, but all consumer WAP devices are routers. (I will research later if enterprise WAPs are available without routing capabilities. Anybody know?)
- Man-in-the-Middle is easier than brute force. Why crack something when you can access the original text?
I could have stated "open wireless router" or "wireless access point". My non-technical friend has learned that modems and routers are needed for Internet access. Computers talk to the "router". The "router" talks to the "modem". The "modem" talks to the Internet. His desktops and wireless laptop talk to a "router". He knows Internet problems are solved by powering off everything, then booting each device starting closest to the Internet and waiting for the green lights before starting the next device. I am careful not to mention that his DSL modems include routers. Adding "access points" to the terminology adds no value.
Is there a single reader of Slashdot that did not understand "open router" in the context of wireless Internet in NYC to mean an "open wireless access point?"
Start by explaining a real-world current personal problem. (I do not crack so showing his bank balance is not possible.)
A friend loves his wireless laptop. We encrypted router communication at both homes. Explaining why encryption is needed led to an explanation of the dangers of handling financial transactions while wandering NYC -- that any open router could record everything including passwords and perform man-in-the-middle attacks to bypass SSL. Anybody willing to capture his information could; expecting those people not to use the information maliciously seems silly.
Once those dangers were understood, my friend was eager to hear about more insidious problems such as government policies (telecommunication recording), other insecure devices (iPhone), and deliberately open websites (Facebook).
Google is preventing money to be made from AdSense while domain-tasting. The problem is domain-tasting tests whether a domain receives traffic. If a domain receives one visit during a five-day period, the domain is likely to receive enough traffic to offset the registration cost. Whether income is earned on that first visit does not change the domain-tasting business. This policy only affects companies that taste and never buy. No company spending money on equipment to handle tasting (automating registration, DNS, virtual host, cancellation) will balk at buying domains expected to be profitable.
The problem is that every expiring domain is domain-tasted. A once-registered, but unused domain bounces from domain-taster to domain-taster forever. If someone has an interest in the domain, the current taster notices, then buys and parks the domain. This guarantees that every domain that was ever registered will never become available to the general public. (Yes, a very small chance exists that a person could register the domain just as a domain-taster released the domain, but domain-tasters have faster equipment, more bandwidth, and better relationships with registrars.)
The best method to slow domain-tasting is to declare one week* each year that domains may not be registered. All domains must be bought or released. The defect is the Internet might crash as the domain-tasters attempt to recover as many domains as possible. Limiting the number of registrations from each account would help, but domain-tasters are usually registrars able to avoid such limits.
* One week = 7 days = 5-day "Add Grace Period" + 24 hours to avoid time zone issues + 24 hours padding.
Five responses:
- rrkap asked a joke question. (The area is strange -- superstars live 1/2 mile from slums. The neighborhood borders three towns with neighborhoods varying from upper class to lower class. My street has nice houses with large backyards. Most of the people living on our street were old, but some had sold/rented to poor people. My father chose that house; I live in a different State.)
- AC claims Category 2. (Score:0 as I write this, but a well-written humorous response.)
- Azuma Hazuki joins Category 4.
Many of the posts define the category of the authors. Most posts demonstrating Category 1 traits are modded down. Slashdot is elitist.
- An AC and Dripdry are upset about my elitist attitude.
I do not "pass the buck." I do not state, "My friends and I are not smart." Your inability to use proper grammar excuses you from worrying that you and your friends are in the smart group. Do not fear people more intelligent than you. With great intelligence comes great responsibility. Many smart people care for the less fortunate.
I am prejudiced. I am elitist. I am intelligent. I like being around smart people. I choose smart people as my friends. Smart people understand me. I do not need to filter my vocabulary or ideas to converse with smart people. I prefer discussions not concerning television or the weather. My friends are smart because I choose smart people to be my friends.
The "education" system tries to neutralize the effects of varying intelligence. Being around people with poor or limited vocabulary affects your speech patterns. Everybody chooses their friends based on their own personality and intelligence. (See LunaticTippy's response.)