My first thought was that Time was exposing that Microsoft is behind/inside/running the US government.
Then I read the captions, and it's just something about how our borders are still open. Yeah, we're still the free country. No, our fight against terrorism is losing. Yay, we still have rights. No, we want the government to take those rights away. Yay, bring us your poor and tired, or at least they will be once they start working our overtime crazy schedules. No, I am not reading Time magazine to discover how they slanted it; I'd rather read Slantdot.
But watch out! That image of the magazine cover is a JPEG. Time magazine could be taking over your computer. (Pretending that anybody reading Slashdot is still using MSInternetExplorer.)
Wow. I changed an MX record using Verisign's (NetworkSolutions.com) website about 30 minutes ago. I received an email through the new server 10 minutes later. I received email from the sender yesterday, so the MX record should have been cached at their company, and the MX record was changed from one ISP to another. I did not expect any results until sometime tomorrow.
--- I still use Verisign for my domains. It was inertia; I had my domains there, so I continued adding domains there.
I almost switched when they stole one of my domains. (I tried paying for it 5 times, starting several months before it expired; they insisted that the records would be updated "in a few days" each time. Three weeks after the expiration date, someone else owned it. So renew early! Like a year in advance.)
Setting DNS entries was a hassle. My ISP takes forever to make updates, and often set them wrong. I used Verio while waiting for my ISP to get it right. (I paid Verio for 6 months, and cancelled the service at 4 months. Verio stole money from me for the next 2 years. I complained each time. They stated they would stop. I finally changed the credit card number. Then Verio sent me another bill for a service I had not used in 2 years.)
I set up a BIND server just as Verisign offered to handle the DNS for free. I never used the BIND server; when I went to change my DNS servers, I noticed the new Verisign offering and just used that. It works great, but the interface is awful.
Verisign's interface for editing DNS for multiple domains is atrocious. To make a change: 0. Sign in. 1. Check next to one domain and click "Edit DNS". 2. Click "Continue" that you still want to use Verisign for your DNS. 3. Choose to edit your A records, or your MX records, or your CNAME records. Pick one and only one. 4. Edit the records, click Continue. 5. Click Continue again to confirm the changes. 6. Returned to screen #3 to choose the type of records. Choose a different type, or go back to the domain list (screen #1) and start over.
I would like a page that has all of my domains and DNS settings. They might need to have previous/next page buttons if you have more than 10 domains. Let me change several of the domains at one time. And remember that I am keeping my DNS settings there; why do I have to confirm (step #2) every time I look at the settings?
The Verisign DNS system works great if you are willing to use the poor interface. Can anybody report if other domain registrars have free DNS? How good are their interfaces?
I am all for free wireless internet. I expected more governments to provide internet access as a standard community service. The bureacracy moves slow enough that the technology has improved before it became standard.
But government-controlled internet access allows easy censorship by the government. Check how China deals with the internet. Remember that Pennsylvania, the State that contains Philadelphia, has already tried to censor the internet by forcing commercial ISPs to block websites. That had a happy ending, but what if the government is the ISP? How long would the site-blocking remain secret? How long before the government ISP stops once it becomes known? The commercial ISPs did not want to block because of the expense, and possible loss of customers. (Actual cost does not matter; it cost more than not doing it.)
The Internet is becoming the only media. It can provide phone service, television shows, movies, news, weather reports, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and much more. It will become the primary method of distribution for all information. Do you want the government to control your access to all media? Do you want it to track what you are reading?
Do you want the government to track your internet usage? Commercial ISPs delete their usage records to avoid privacy issues. Comcast, the Philadelphia cable company, got vilified because they were caching websites. How will the privacy contingent react when the government controls internet access?
That said, the convenience of ubiquitous wireless service will probably override any privacy concerns. This is the place where the public will allow their purchases to be tracked in exchange for a minor discount, or just a chance to win a few dollars.
(I live in the Philadelphia suburbs, but that is not relevant to this post.)
Assuming the plan *COULD* work (it would never be imposed)
Agreed. Any plan attempting to move the advantage from big business to the people has to overcome the problem that big business has the money and power. I love capitalism, but it is not perfect.
simply add a rule that if the patent is filed in the janitor's name, then the janitor owns it, not the company. If the company lays claim to the patent, then the company owns the patent not the janitor even though he filed it.
Then we need oversight to make certain the patent owner of record receives appropriate compensation. If the janitor is told that he will be fired if he complains, then he might let the company use it cheap. But the threat of the janitor quitting and asking (suing) for appropriate compansation should reduce that issue.
The problem would be patents that are held by the janitor until they have been available for review for some time (and maybe passed a challenge) before the company demands it be transferred (assigned). A law that made it easy to break contracts that assigned patents under duress could help. There are already laws about contracts negotiated under duress that should apply (such as giving someone your house while they have a gun to your head.)
The problem isn't so much the penalties, it's that patent applications don't seem to be denied even when they obviously should be. The USPTO needs to start denying applications.
The patent office has already proven that it does not have the capabilities to review patents properly. This plan moves the responsibility from the USPTO to the applicants, and provides the public with incentives to review the applications. $100 for a patent still keeps those with nothing to lose from applying, but making bad patents costly to the applicants means the applicants must do their homework.
Raising fees for patents is a BAD idea
on
More Microsoft Patents
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
to fund this, I recommend that patent application fees be raised by some nominal amount.
I agree with your ideas, but the implementation would not work: 1. Moving patent complaints to "settlement sessions" would not remove the need for lawyers. Big companies would send their lawyers, and normal people would have little hope without their own lawyers. Patent applications are so complex that applying for one without an IP lawyer is a waste of money; defending a patent without a lawyer would be worse.
2. Raising the fees would exclude even more "normal people" from applying for patents. They already cost too much: the basic filing fee is $770, and most patents require additional fees. My IP lawyer requires $8000 before starting the process (and you do not want to file without a lawyer.) This means that the McD's worker who invents a better basket for frying fries has no hope of affording a patent.
Better would be to lower the fees, but add penalties based on your income. One percent of your yearly income (average the last 3 years) should work. If the minumum-wage worker files for $100, and could be penalized another $100, he may go for it. If MSFT files for $100, but could be penalized $74,000 (generously using the net income after taxes and all other deductions), they might stop filing these obviously bad patents.
Extra incentive: give a portion (10%?) of the penalty to whoever provides evidence that a patent is bad: - MSFT proves Joe WageWorker's patent is bad: Joe is penalized $100; MSFT is given $10. - Joe proves MSFT's patent is bad: MSFT is penalized $74,000; Joe gets $7,400, preferably tax-free for doing the government's work for it.
This could result in patents being filed by the lowest paid person involved in the process (like the janitor.) Any ideas about avoiding that problem?
1. I should have said "electric guitar". Acoustic guitars were usually part of an ensemble. 2. I should not have blamed the guitar. Other guitar-like instruments, such as lutes, have been used by minstrels for centuries. Anything portable that can produce polyphonic music without requiring the mouth is good for travelling solo performers to accompany themselves. 3. While there was simple music before the electric guitar, most of the well-known music required an orchestra. Horns (brass and woodwinds) and most strings are monophonic, so multiple instruments were required to create music. The guitar, piano, accordian, harp, and vibraphone are the only multiphonic instruments I can remember at the moment. I have never heard a solo perfomance on a vibraphone, and the only popular accordian player is Weird Al. 4. It is possible to create complex music with a single guitar, but it is still limited to 6 (or 7) notes. A symphony can have more melody lines than a guitar, and have them played in several octaves at the same time.
Tthe number of people required to play popular music has decreased since the electric guitar was invented. I prefer to blame the increase in power of the recording and distribution companies than the guitar. It is cheaper for those companies to hire a 3-4 person band than to hire an orchestra, so the profits are higher if they can sell simpler music.
--- I am a guitarist, so please do not interpret anything I state as disparaging to guitar music. While I have been to the opera and a ballet recently, I prefer guitar music. I hope guitar music remains popular to increase the audience for my music.
The reason popular music is popular is because people happen to LIKE it.
The reason popular music is popular is because people have already heard it and are comfortable with repetition. Classical, Musicals, Big Band, Swing, Gospel, Rock, Punk, Metal, BoyBands: each generation did not morph into a new type of human being preferring a new type of music; each generation was indoctrinated by the music aimed at them during their formative years.
Today's popular music is simplistic compared to music before the rise of the guitar. Modern music is complex when it has 2 vocal melodies, 1 instrumental chord pattern, 1 instrumental melody, and a beat limited to what one person can create (hands doing one pattern and a single-note bass drum line.) Songs are limited to 3 minutes because there is not enough content to keep anybody interested longer. (I enjoy LinkinPark, but they usually turn off the music when they sing, and much of the "singing" does not have a melody.)
Today's music is not "better" than older material because it is more popular. It is popular because we hear it more often.
--- Please refrain from poorly written personal attacks. I do not know Morgaine, but the post was not "self-involved" and does not exclude Morgaine from the sheep category.
Most people want to know that medical assistance is available at all times regardless of their financial abilities. Much of the civilized world does this with government-sponsored doctors.
The US was doing that: public hospitals must fix anybody, and are not allowed to ruin your credit if you cannot pay for the aid. Doctors did not like this, so now the doctors at most hospitals are consultants who bill the clients directly to avoid the laws applying to hospitals. The hospital charges you a few thousand for use of their space, and you do not have to pay, but then the anesthesiologist sends you a bill for giving you pain-killers, and the surgeon sends you a bill for cutting you open, and either of them can ruin your credit.
The US has corporate-sponsored medical aid. Most companies include "health insurance" as a benefit for working in a job. If you do not work in a corporate-approved job, health insurance is very expensive and very limited. This discourages people from escaping from company-mandated lives.
The real disadvantage to having government-sponsored doctors is the doctors.
If a doctor is really good, they move to an open market (like the US) so they can charge market prices. That is threatened in the US by health insurance companies setting standardized wages, but you can still get better service if you are willing to pay more. Many doctors have policies that you are responsible for the difference between their price and what your insurance is willing to pay.
People are also discouraged from becoming doctors. They must be willing to spend a decade of their life on specialized education, and then have their pay determined by the government (or health insurance companies) rather than their abilities. The most talented and ambitious will choose a different field where they can be compensated for their abilities. The average level of expertise declines, and everybody loses.
Thank you. I have not been called a "Renaissance Man" in weeks. (And I apologize for changing the spelling.)
You do not need to know a client's business better than they do. You need to learn the process being automated. You are seeing it for the first time, so the inefficiencies are obvious, and know the process is changing so they can be removed. Focus on the basics, then add whatever is required for acceptance. (And sometimes you can ignore some of those "requirements". Just keep saying it will be in the next release until they realize the function is useless and stop asking for it.)
It does help to have knowledge of business, management, accounting, efficiency (engineering), and other relevant subjects. I use the term "hacker" to mean someone who learns by doing. People who learn anything tend to learn everything. I assume that other Great Heackers have similar abilities.
3 for 3: I got lucky. I am the boss. We are a small informal shop.
I mentioned in another post that I was fired from every job until I went freelance.
Story time: I was consulted because a breakfix company tried to write software and realized they were over their head. I rewrote the UI and much of the backend. They did not want to stay in the software business, and asked for the source to hand to the customer, but poor contracts left me with copyright to the project. When they realized they had no legal standing, they told the customer to sue me because I was the only one who could maintain it. The customer called me; the lawyers had fun; and my software company gained a new customer. We rebuilt everything from scratch; the only remnant from the other company's attempt is the name of the application (which was chosen by the customer.)
I followed the same procedures when I was fulltime at a consulting company. I almost had a project go over budget because my team was told it was a 6 month project, but the customer expected a 2 month project. We worked week 9 for free, cleaned up the existing functionality for delivery, and it was a win.
I insisted on leading all projects after that. I always throw away any specs from sales people. I ask the customer for their expectations of the budget. I do my own analysis. I have yet to have a customer be less than ecstatic about one of my applications. The consulting company let me because I delivered satisfied customers, and I stayed with them until they let me go during a round of downsizing which left the company with 10 staff, 50 managers, and 2 programmers.
I was also freelance consulting, and started my software company about the time they went under.
You can get away with doing things correctly if you are very good, very lucky, never make mistakes, and work for a company that truly wants results. It seems people and companies like that are rare.
in the real world those specs are guaranteed to be between 5% and 100% WRONG. The client can't explain what it is they actually want, the business rep can't help draw real specifications out of them, the systems analyst can't convert the nebulous requirements into a solid spec.
Read what you wrote. The realize that a Great Hacker will... IGNORE THE SPECS.
The specs are always wrong. The client never know what they want. Anyone trying to write specs or deliver what a client asks will end with an unhappy client.
So the first rule of programming is to find out what problem you are solving. Go watch the enduser do their job. Figure out what can be improved. Decide if computers can help. Decide which parts SHOULD be automated. Plan enough of the program(s) to check if the budget is enough. Then go write it. Give options anytime there are choices so that it can be configured without additional programming.
I got my current project because they asked for a revision, and I completely trashed their UI. The new UI took one-tenth the time for data input, and was more expandable. Then I changed how the business processes work. Now I am working on reporting tools. The customer loves it.
I may have an unhappy customer someday, but it will mean that we needed another programmer and were unable to find another Great Hacker.
"Code written by a great hacker usually doesn't need maintenance because it already does the right thing"
All software needs maintenance
--- Disagreement I wrote an application 5 years ago. Every time they called asking for new features, I told them it was already in there and which configuration option to change. They may need a revision later this year because the infrastructure is changing, but not because the program stopped fulfilling their needs.
Another company used software I wrote in 1991 until 1999 when their new parent company insisted they change to a standard Human Resources application. The new program does not meet their needs as well as my DOS-based program (which ran well in Windows95.) No maintenance was ever done on my program.
My current project keeps expanding, but I am the visionary expanding the specifications. Adding one minor function would make the business people feel it is good enough, but I want to add 5 major functions. It will be finished later this year, and should not require any maintenance.
Lotus Notes 6.5 can still run applications built for Lotus Notes 2. Java 1.5 runtimes can run Java 1.0 programs.
--- Agreement WindowsXP finally killed DOS programs. Longhorn is supposed to kill Windows programs. (That says something about depending on MS.)
Hardware compatibility depends on what connectors are provided. ISA cards will not fit in most modern motherboards. But most hardware does not care what software runs on it. The exception is that printers were controlled by applications until Windows95, which introduced an API for printing.
How does one become a great hacker? 1 part talent, 9 parts determination.
This line caught my attention because it is exactly the opposite of how I and the article explain great hackers. It is 9 parts talent, 1 part the inability to do otherwise. We don't program only what we want and do it extremely well because of determination. We program only what we want because we cannot stay interested in anything else. We program extremely well because we cannot tolerate less than optimized code. Being a great hacker is more about the inability to survive as a normal person. Most of us would have been the village layabout or erratic handyman before computers were invented.
programming is a skill. There is only one proven method of developing skills in people, and that is mentoring.
I never had a mentor. Most great hackers did not have mentors. Where are we to find someone who can program as well as we can to teach us the next level? We teach ourselves, and our monomania keeps us thinking about programming all the time, so we advance ourselves. The article mentions centers of excellence that attract great hackers. I have never been part of one, but I can understand the attraction of working with people where every other sentence does not go over their heads.
Great hackers are wired differently... it actually sucks to be them. In this paragraph, you almost seem to understand. I cannot work 9-5 for more than 2 weeks. I was fired from every job until I became a consultant. Now I work about 2 weeks a quarter. Thankfully I can live on that.
No one believes implementing yet another payroll system is going to change the world. Of my current projects: 1 captures business experience/corporate knowledge into a computerized system. 1 removes guesswork from planning inventory. 1 changes how the public shops. 1 improves how we develop business applications.
- The first seems to be the Holy Grail of corporate computing. My solution may be limited to retail stores, but its a start. - The second is just a fun application. - The third will change the world. - The fourth might change the world, but it is unlikely since making programming too easy loses the programmers. So my audience will be business people who can develop applications on a platform where they can change their mind every 5 minutes and still have a usable system. But it is the tool I want to use when developing applications, so I am scratching my own itch.
BTW, I have a life outside of programming. I am leaving tomorrow morning for a week without computers.
In early 2002, when a freight train derailed near Minot, N.D., releasing a cloud of anhydrous ammonia over the town, police tried to call local radio stations, six of which are owned by radio mammoth Clear Channel Communications. According to news reports, it took them over an hour to reach anyone--no one was answering the Clear Channel phone. By the next day, 300 people had been hospitalized, many partially blinded by the ammonia. Pets and livestock died. And Clear Channel continued beaming its signal from headquarters in San Antonio, Texas--some 1,600 miles away.
What happened to the emergency broadcast network? I remember the tests that interrupted the Saturday morning cartoons and other shows of the 70s. Media bandwidth (TV and radio) is granted by our government to allow reaching the public, but it carried the responsibility of making that bandwidth available for public emergencies.
Another post states that the accident was not Clear Channel's fault, and implies that Clear Channel has no responsibility. Radio is the fastest method to reach the public, and has the responsibility to do so during emergencies. Clear Channel should have been charged with attempted murder through negligence of the entire population of the area, and fined an estimate of the damages that resulted because the warnings were not publicized. Make it economical for Clear Channel to have someone live answering the phone who can override the broadcast with public service announcements. (Six people and their manager in an office in the middle of nowhere should be able to handle the calls for the entire country.)
I am pro-business. I believe businesses should be allowed to profit. Businesses that provide communication services are responsible to provide those services. Verizon cannot decide to declare a company holiday and turn off the phones for 2 weeks. Radio stations must allow interruptions for emergencies, and must be held accountable if they fail.
The difference in whether sex and/or violence are seen as obscene is cultural. There was a TV show that had separate cuts for the American and European audiences: the American show removed 10 minutes of sexual content; the European show removed 10 minutes of gore. Americans think breasts are disgusting, and should not be seen by people over 3 years old; Europeans, and most of the world excluding the USA, have topless beaches.
A society WITHOUT sex will die out. A society WITH violence will die out. The USA has always considered immigration a cleaner form of population growth than encouraging people to reproduce. I (an American) know only one set of parents of child-bearing age that has more than 2 children.
This difference can be positive. Americans redirect their sexual energy into other activity, such as the 70-hour work week, and redirect their sexual obsession into inventions such as the Internet that allow better (more private) distribution of pornography. Our sexually-regressed society drives the advancement of technology, while depending on other countries to supply us with new people.
Maybe that was my problem. I thought Slackware was Linux, so I changed the runlevel. I was surprised that the network settings disappeared since I expected all runlevels that connect to the network to use the same config (unless extra work is done.) I think the problem was that the runlevel I chose did not start the network. Does noone using Slackware like to boot directly to a GUI and still have network access?
This may have been my fault. I may have changed the runlevel from 3 to 4, when it should have been 5. I'll check later and post back. (It may be about 14 hours before I can.)
[This was last year, and I am currently configuring a RedHat7.2 server for production.]
=== Appendix Linux runlevels 0 - halt 1 - Single user mode 2 - Multiuser, without NFS (The same as 3, if you don't have networking) 3 - Full multiuser mode 4 - unused 5 - X11 6 - Reboot
I installed Slackware9 for a user. They always want the GUI, so I changed the run level so it would boot to the GUI without typing startx; it also uses the GUI logon. Then Mozilla could not find the internet. I had to fix the startup script to regain the working settings. I was surprised the startup scripts did not use a common file for loading the network settings for different run levels.
I read the article, but it focuses on server installs and does not mention this issue. Was this fixed in Slackware10?
Rather than putting the entire GPL as a EULA, have a summarized pre-license screen like:
1. You have the right to use this program as much as you like on as many computers as you like. 2. You have the right to give (or even sell) this program to anybody else as long as they receive these rights. 3. You have the right to modify (or have someone else modify) the program for your own use. 4. If you give or sell a modified version of this program, you must make the source code including any changes available to anybody who receives a modified copy of the program.
Would you like to read the full license?
Yes - I would like to read why I have these rights. No - I just want to use the program, and you already stated I could.
--- Most licenses attempt to convince you of restrictions that are not technically plausible. "You can only install this program on one computer." The only real method to monitor this is to have the program call home.
MS uses a particularly user-unfriendly method of doing this. Did you read the story where the ZDNet editor lost the ability to boot WindowsXP on his laptop during a plane ride during which he had planned to write an article about the greatness of WindowsXP? Installing to completely blank PCs still allows WindowsXP to be installed as many times as you want, but using the online WindowsUpdate means MS will know how many copies use each key.
My startup is using a variation where a few pieces of information about the program's file are used to create a key that requires contacting us for the answer ("registration code"). Our protection can be bypassed by creating multiple servers with identical information, but issues with the platform make it difficult to maintain multiple servers with the same name in the same organization, and server names usually include the organization's name. It is unlikely that any "stolen" copy of the program would be used in production. And our prices are low enough that it would be more costly to maintain a "stolen" copy than to buy a license.
Related: We use the "pay once and free upgrades forever" model. We maintain programs until they are no longer worth updating (because sales have died), and then they become open source (without the registration generation code.)
your PC should take all that drudgery away from you leaving you free to think. Let the PC do all the thinking and work and you do all the creativity. As someone who likes to think of himself as creative, that sounds... stupid. [...] Most artists consider the "drudgery" part of the creative process. [...] Being truly creative is about taking all there is inside you and expressing it. Making it "easier" is missing the point. Kay also believes that the drudgery inhibits creativity; which it doesn't. (Please read parent for context.)
I disagree from several perspectives. Computers (and most tools) were invented to remove the drudgery.
As an artist, I want tools that help me realize my creative vision as efficiently as possible. When writing, I want to fix my misspellings and grammar as effortlessly as possible. When creating a song, I want to hum the tune, and have it recorded in a reusable format. I want to sing the lyrics and have them appear on my screen. I do not want to try to remember the lyrics long enough to write or type them. I have lost entire songs (that seemed good to me at the time) because I kept creating lyrics without taking the time to record them. Usually I am able to record the chorus and a few of the rhymes, but the new work-still-required version is unlikely to be as good as the inspired version I first sang.
My startup is building software that reproduces and improves the business management processes for people management (and other stuff.) The software forces recording what is important to safety, productivity, and promotions. Then it forces recognition of problems and excellence. The goal is to reduce the drudgery and level of expertise necessary to be a good manager, while promoting people with the skills to make business better.
All tools were created to reduce drudgery. The computer is the best tool for working with thoughts. Kay seems to be asking for another product we are developing to turn the world into one big P2P real-time database. (Expect it to be released around 2010. Vision is easy, but implementation takes time even with today's tools.)
He is correct in that most of today's use of computers does not further creativity. I have been introduced to several "computer experts" that knew how to install software and use Kazaa. But computers also help Pixar create by removing the drudgery of drawing, inking, and coloring every frame of animation on paper. The truly creative use whatever tools are available, and using a computer increases efficiency for many tasks. I think the real problem is that most people are only creative when deciding how to pay the bills.
I wrote my most recent, decent-sized project... with built-in updates so that with almost no effort whatsoever, I can issue updates and patches and the program will notice, when online, that these new patches exist and offer to download them!
So are you writing viruses? Or anti-virus programs?
The only good thing about viruses is that they have advanced the state-of-the-art for self-updating programs. All the effort Microsoft has put into WindowsUpdate would not have been done if viruses were not taking advantage of security holes. That is a good thing because if MS had put that effort into securing their OSes, there would be less incentive for people to switch.
If you are the natural team leader then its unlikely the team will listen ot the manager anyway, they'll listen to you. So don't hire yourself a manager, hire yourself an assistant. Someone who goes to meetings for you, plans schedules for you and lets you get on with the real job. That doesn't have to be someone who is in charge of or controlling what you do but someone who enjoys doing the bits you don't and you can work alongside.
I lived this experience.
I was the "lead developer" for many projects at a consulting company. We had several customers that required much personal attention that had no impact on the projects, so I asked my boss (the VP) to hire someone to take the phone calls, make appearances at "strategic" meetings, and handle the paperwork I hated. We gave this person the title "Project Manager" (PM), but the development team still expected my leadership.
We introduced the PM to our customers. He said some silly buzzword filled comments ("Joint Application Development") that added even more meetings, but that was fine as long as none of the techies (including me) had to go to them.
Everything was great until we started a new project. Everybody had the same titles, but the PM decided that as "manager", he should be the top of the chain-of-command. The first time he tried to give me orders, I explained his purpose. The second time, I had the VP explain his purpose. The third time, we transferred him to the Microsoft group.
I have had several great managers (and just hired one of them to work for my new company.) A great manager acts as a filter between the techies and the customers. He protects the time of the techies. He stays out of design and development, but can offer a non-techie perspective when asked.
This only applies if you have a great lead developer. I know of one group that fires programmers with leadership skills. The manager is a non-techie, but knows how to coordinate development with mediocre developers. Adding a hotshot guru programmer would disrupt his system. (He works for a large bureaucratic company where speed is not a priority.)
(Responding to a flame that was just modded Interesting.)
I did not mention QuickBasic because it is not on the chart, but most of my previous post really applied to QuickBasic since it was not called VB until it moved to Windows.
I did not state that QuickBasic or VB "required" line numbers. I stated that MS added the ability to use line numbers as part of the transition from Pascal to QuickBasic.
When I first encountered QuickBasic, I already knew BASIC, Pascal, and C. I could replace the keywords in my Pascal programs and then do minor debugging to have functional QuickBasic programs. The API for VB has grown since then, but it still looks like Pascal with different keywords.
It was a smart move for MS. Most college grads were learning Pascal, and the transition to developing in the MS-proprietary language was easy since few of the rules were different.
--- Today I work with Java and LotusScript with Domino because it is allows much faster business application development than any other platform. LotusScript was based on VB, and still looks similar: same keywords, different API, and it has the List variable type. I also use Java for applets, servlets, and server applications; and one of my Java projects will require a GUI-based client, although I have not written it yet. (I prefer Java over C/C++ because the native memory management saves development and QA time.) I have never developed with Delphi, although several friends are good with it, and their code looks like super-charged Pascal.
--- Fun fact: One of my IBM redbooks states that VisualBasic is a trademark of IBM. I think it was a misprint.
Which happens to "feel" exactly the same as VB. It's not simply the language syntax but also the structure, and programming in Delphi is practically the same as VB
This is backwards. VB and Delphi both came from Pascal, although Delphi was an improvement and VB was a translation.
In the late 80s, Pascal was the language being taught at most colleges, although C was starting to gain some marketshare. Microsoft needed to replace BASIC with a functional language. They took Pascal, changed the keywords to the ones from BASIC, added line numbers, and called it VisualBasic. This had the effect of killing the market for Pascal programmers. The good ones upgraded to Delphi; the rest moved to MS VB.
VB 1.0 had much more in common with Pascal than it did with BASIC. "Pascal format function calls" are still used by VB, in contrast to "C format function calls". Pascal and VB have "procedures" (or "subroutines") which allow the values of parameters to be overwritten in calling routine. C requires that one and only one value can be returned, which must be explicitly assigned in the calling routine (although fun with pointers can cause many other effects.) BASIC did not have procedures, and subroutines overwrote the global variables, because BASIC was also missing local variables.
interact with the server _without_ reloading the page
I wrote a very short Java Applet back in 1998 to take a request from JavaScript and put the result into a field on a FORM. It was written using Java1.1 so MSIE could understand it. It allowed JavaScript to: 1. Create URL that will return information. 2. Ask Java Applet to get information. 3. Parse information. 4. Redraw page.
(We also had a CORBA version that let JavaScript handle Domino objects. It could retrieve data and even update records on the server without refreshing the webpage.)
The good part is that we had a standard method for JavaScript to talk to the server. Just tell the Applet the URL and the name of the field to put the data, then look at the data. It was easy to write the server side programs that returned the information. (Too easy. We found ourselves returning JavaScript to call with eval() rather than returning the generically-formatted information that could be reused by other applications.)
The difficult part was forcing the browser to notice sections of the page changed. Changing a graphic was easy. Changing options for a pull-down was easy. Changing options for radio-buttons and checkboxes was difficult. Changing "static" text on the page was almost impossible.
We used it for its strengths. Choose a department from one pull-down. A second pull-down would allow choice of the employees in that department, and would be updated without a full page refresh.
The entire point of this technology was to save bandwidth and a little time. We could update the employee list without updating the entire page. A few years later, we realized that bandwidth was inexpensive and the complexity of the technology cost more than just refreshing the page all the time. We redirected the effort into writing programs that would write concise HTML to keep the bandwidth usage low.
The only reason that any of this is necessary is that MS embraced the browser and halted all progress. They deliberately skipped the "extend" phase. Today we develop for Mozilla (using very old HTML standards), test against MSIE5.5 and MSIE6.0, and then fix all the stuff MS broke.
After upgrading from Mozilla1.3 to Mozilla1.6, it changed the theme to the default. When I tried to change it, it complained that the chosen theme was for a previous version, and please click OK to uninstall it. After clicking OK, the "Apply Theme" menu refused to open until I restarted Mozilla.
After repeating this twice (to prove the bug), I went into Preferences and removed all the themes for previous versions. Preferences does tell you which themes are for previous versions, but there is no "Remove all obsolete themes" button. Better would be a "Upgrade all themes" button, with the question to automatically remove all themes that cannot be upgraded. This would require each theme to remember where it came from, and for the websites to have the ability to know there is an applicable version. This should be easy if architected well.
I then downloaded the current Microzilla theme. Why do most of the themes use big buttons? Screen space is always at a premium. I usually run 1024x768 (on a 21" monitor), and often need to adjust higher to have enough space (or use a second PC to browse while working on my main box.) I was on a friend's PC earlier today, and she runs 800x600 on a 15" monitor; Mozilla with the default large icons uses about one quarter of the screen for non-content.
--- BTW, I just got mod points again. The last batch expired unused this morning.
Slashdot Mirror
(See the link in the parent post.)
My first thought was that Time was exposing that Microsoft is behind/inside/running the US government.
Then I read the captions, and it's just something about how our borders are still open. Yeah, we're still the free country. No, our fight against terrorism is losing. Yay, we still have rights. No, we want the government to take those rights away. Yay, bring us your poor and tired, or at least they will be once they start working our overtime crazy schedules. No, I am not reading Time magazine to discover how they slanted it; I'd rather read Slantdot.
But watch out! That image of the magazine cover is a JPEG. Time magazine could be taking over your computer. (Pretending that anybody reading Slashdot is still using MSInternetExplorer.)
Wow. I changed an MX record using Verisign's (NetworkSolutions.com) website about 30 minutes ago. I received an email through the new server 10 minutes later. I received email from the sender yesterday, so the MX record should have been cached at their company, and the MX record was changed from one ISP to another. I did not expect any results until sometime tomorrow.
---
I still use Verisign for my domains. It was inertia; I had my domains there, so I continued adding domains there.
I almost switched when they stole one of my domains. (I tried paying for it 5 times, starting several months before it expired; they insisted that the records would be updated "in a few days" each time. Three weeks after the expiration date, someone else owned it. So renew early! Like a year in advance.)
Setting DNS entries was a hassle. My ISP takes forever to make updates, and often set them wrong. I used Verio while waiting for my ISP to get it right. (I paid Verio for 6 months, and cancelled the service at 4 months. Verio stole money from me for the next 2 years. I complained each time. They stated they would stop. I finally changed the credit card number. Then Verio sent me another bill for a service I had not used in 2 years.)
I set up a BIND server just as Verisign offered to handle the DNS for free. I never used the BIND server; when I went to change my DNS servers, I noticed the new Verisign offering and just used that. It works great, but the interface is awful.
Verisign's interface for editing DNS for multiple domains is atrocious. To make a change:
0. Sign in.
1. Check next to one domain and click "Edit DNS".
2. Click "Continue" that you still want to use Verisign for your DNS.
3. Choose to edit your A records, or your MX records, or your CNAME records. Pick one and only one.
4. Edit the records, click Continue.
5. Click Continue again to confirm the changes.
6. Returned to screen #3 to choose the type of records. Choose a different type, or go back to the domain list (screen #1) and start over.
I would like a page that has all of my domains and DNS settings. They might need to have previous/next page buttons if you have more than 10 domains. Let me change several of the domains at one time. And remember that I am keeping my DNS settings there; why do I have to confirm (step #2) every time I look at the settings?
The Verisign DNS system works great if you are willing to use the poor interface. Can anybody report if other domain registrars have free DNS? How good are their interfaces?
I am all for free wireless internet. I expected more governments to provide internet access as a standard community service. The bureacracy moves slow enough that the technology has improved before it became standard.
But government-controlled internet access allows easy censorship by the government. Check how China deals with the internet. Remember that Pennsylvania, the State that contains Philadelphia, has already tried to censor the internet by forcing commercial ISPs to block websites. That had a happy ending, but what if the government is the ISP? How long would the site-blocking remain secret? How long before the government ISP stops once it becomes known? The commercial ISPs did not want to block because of the expense, and possible loss of customers. (Actual cost does not matter; it cost more than not doing it.)
The Internet is becoming the only media. It can provide phone service, television shows, movies, news, weather reports, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and much more. It will become the primary method of distribution for all information. Do you want the government to control your access to all media? Do you want it to track what you are reading?
Do you want the government to track your internet usage? Commercial ISPs delete their usage records to avoid privacy issues. Comcast, the Philadelphia cable company, got vilified because they were caching websites. How will the privacy contingent react when the government controls internet access?
That said, the convenience of ubiquitous wireless service will probably override any privacy concerns. This is the place where the public will allow their purchases to be tracked in exchange for a minor discount, or just a chance to win a few dollars.
(I live in the Philadelphia suburbs, but that is not relevant to this post.)
Assuming the plan *COULD* work (it would never be imposed)
Agreed. Any plan attempting to move the advantage from big business to the people has to overcome the problem that big business has the money and power. I love capitalism, but it is not perfect.
simply add a rule that if the patent is filed in the janitor's name, then the janitor owns it, not the company. If the company lays claim to the patent, then the company owns the patent not the janitor even though he filed it.
Then we need oversight to make certain the patent owner of record receives appropriate compensation. If the janitor is told that he will be fired if he complains, then he might let the company use it cheap. But the threat of the janitor quitting and asking (suing) for appropriate compansation should reduce that issue.
The problem would be patents that are held by the janitor until they have been available for review for some time (and maybe passed a challenge) before the company demands it be transferred (assigned). A law that made it easy to break contracts that assigned patents under duress could help. There are already laws about contracts negotiated under duress that should apply (such as giving someone your house while they have a gun to your head.)
The problem isn't so much the penalties, it's that patent applications don't seem to be denied even when they obviously should be. The USPTO needs to start denying applications.
The patent office has already proven that it does not have the capabilities to review patents properly. This plan moves the responsibility from the USPTO to the applicants, and provides the public with incentives to review the applications. $100 for a patent still keeps those with nothing to lose from applying, but making bad patents costly to the applicants means the applicants must do their homework.
to fund this, I recommend that patent application fees be raised by some nominal amount.
I agree with your ideas, but the implementation would not work:
1. Moving patent complaints to "settlement sessions" would not remove the need for lawyers. Big companies would send their lawyers, and normal people would have little hope without their own lawyers. Patent applications are so complex that applying for one without an IP lawyer is a waste of money; defending a patent without a lawyer would be worse.
2. Raising the fees would exclude even more "normal people" from applying for patents. They already cost too much: the basic filing fee is $770, and most patents require additional fees. My IP lawyer requires $8000 before starting the process (and you do not want to file without a lawyer.) This means that the McD's worker who invents a better basket for frying fries has no hope of affording a patent.
Better would be to lower the fees, but add penalties based on your income. One percent of your yearly income (average the last 3 years) should work. If the minumum-wage worker files for $100, and could be penalized another $100, he may go for it. If MSFT files for $100, but could be penalized $74,000 (generously using the net income after taxes and all other deductions), they might stop filing these obviously bad patents.
Extra incentive: give a portion (10%?) of the penalty to whoever provides evidence that a patent is bad:
- MSFT proves Joe WageWorker's patent is bad: Joe is penalized $100; MSFT is given $10.
- Joe proves MSFT's patent is bad: MSFT is penalized $74,000; Joe gets $7,400, preferably tax-free for doing the government's work for it.
This could result in patents being filed by the lowest paid person involved in the process (like the janitor.) Any ideas about avoiding that problem?
1. I should have said "electric guitar". Acoustic guitars were usually part of an ensemble.
2. I should not have blamed the guitar. Other guitar-like instruments, such as lutes, have been used by minstrels for centuries. Anything portable that can produce polyphonic music without requiring the mouth is good for travelling solo performers to accompany themselves.
3. While there was simple music before the electric guitar, most of the well-known music required an orchestra. Horns (brass and woodwinds) and most strings are monophonic, so multiple instruments were required to create music. The guitar, piano, accordian, harp, and vibraphone are the only multiphonic instruments I can remember at the moment. I have never heard a solo perfomance on a vibraphone, and the only popular accordian player is Weird Al.
4. It is possible to create complex music with a single guitar, but it is still limited to 6 (or 7) notes. A symphony can have more melody lines than a guitar, and have them played in several octaves at the same time.
Tthe number of people required to play popular music has decreased since the electric guitar was invented. I prefer to blame the increase in power of the recording and distribution companies than the guitar. It is cheaper for those companies to hire a 3-4 person band than to hire an orchestra, so the profits are higher if they can sell simpler music.
---
I am a guitarist, so please do not interpret anything I state as disparaging to guitar music. While I have been to the opera and a ballet recently, I prefer guitar music. I hope guitar music remains popular to increase the audience for my music.
The reason popular music is popular is because people happen to LIKE it.
The reason popular music is popular is because people have already heard it and are comfortable with repetition. Classical, Musicals, Big Band, Swing, Gospel, Rock, Punk, Metal, BoyBands: each generation did not morph into a new type of human being preferring a new type of music; each generation was indoctrinated by the music aimed at them during their formative years.
Today's popular music is simplistic compared to music before the rise of the guitar. Modern music is complex when it has 2 vocal melodies, 1 instrumental chord pattern, 1 instrumental melody, and a beat limited to what one person can create (hands doing one pattern and a single-note bass drum line.) Songs are limited to 3 minutes because there is not enough content to keep anybody interested longer. (I enjoy LinkinPark, but they usually turn off the music when they sing, and much of the "singing" does not have a melody.)
Today's music is not "better" than older material because it is more popular. It is popular because we hear it more often.
---
Please refrain from poorly written personal attacks. I do not know Morgaine, but the post was not "self-involved" and does not exclude Morgaine from the sheep category.
Most people want to know that medical assistance is available at all times regardless of their financial abilities. Much of the civilized world does this with government-sponsored doctors.
The US was doing that: public hospitals must fix anybody, and are not allowed to ruin your credit if you cannot pay for the aid. Doctors did not like this, so now the doctors at most hospitals are consultants who bill the clients directly to avoid the laws applying to hospitals. The hospital charges you a few thousand for use of their space, and you do not have to pay, but then the anesthesiologist sends you a bill for giving you pain-killers, and the surgeon sends you a bill for cutting you open, and either of them can ruin your credit.
The US has corporate-sponsored medical aid. Most companies include "health insurance" as a benefit for working in a job. If you do not work in a corporate-approved job, health insurance is very expensive and very limited. This discourages people from escaping from company-mandated lives.
The real disadvantage to having government-sponsored doctors is the doctors.
If a doctor is really good, they move to an open market (like the US) so they can charge market prices. That is threatened in the US by health insurance companies setting standardized wages, but you can still get better service if you are willing to pay more. Many doctors have policies that you are responsible for the difference between their price and what your insurance is willing to pay.
People are also discouraged from becoming doctors. They must be willing to spend a decade of their life on specialized education, and then have their pay determined by the government (or health insurance companies) rather than their abilities. The most talented and ambitious will choose a different field where they can be compensated for their abilities. The average level of expertise declines, and everybody loses.
Thank you. I have not been called a "Renaissance Man" in weeks. (And I apologize for changing the spelling.)
You do not need to know a client's business better than they do. You need to learn the process being automated. You are seeing it for the first time, so the inefficiencies are obvious, and know the process is changing so they can be removed. Focus on the basics, then add whatever is required for acceptance. (And sometimes you can ignore some of those "requirements". Just keep saying it will be in the next release until they realize the function is useless and stop asking for it.)
It does help to have knowledge of business, management, accounting, efficiency (engineering), and other relevant subjects. I use the term "hacker" to mean someone who learns by doing. People who learn anything tend to learn everything. I assume that other Great Heackers have similar abilities.
3 for 3: I got lucky. I am the boss. We are a small informal shop.
I mentioned in another post that I was fired from every job until I went freelance.
Story time:
I was consulted because a breakfix company tried to write software and realized they were over their head. I rewrote the UI and much of the backend. They did not want to stay in the software business, and asked for the source to hand to the customer, but poor contracts left me with copyright to the project. When they realized they had no legal standing, they told the customer to sue me because I was the only one who could maintain it. The customer called me; the lawyers had fun; and my software company gained a new customer. We rebuilt everything from scratch; the only remnant from the other company's attempt is the name of the application (which was chosen by the customer.)
I followed the same procedures when I was fulltime at a consulting company. I almost had a project go over budget because my team was told it was a 6 month project, but the customer expected a 2 month project. We worked week 9 for free, cleaned up the existing functionality for delivery, and it was a win.
I insisted on leading all projects after that. I always throw away any specs from sales people. I ask the customer for their expectations of the budget. I do my own analysis. I have yet to have a customer be less than ecstatic about one of my applications. The consulting company let me because I delivered satisfied customers, and I stayed with them until they let me go during a round of downsizing which left the company with 10 staff, 50 managers, and 2 programmers.
I was also freelance consulting, and started my software company about the time they went under.
You can get away with doing things correctly if you are very good, very lucky, never make mistakes, and work for a company that truly wants results. It seems people and companies like that are rare.
in the real world those specs are guaranteed to be between 5% and 100% WRONG. The client can't explain what it is they actually want, the business rep can't help draw real specifications out of them, the systems analyst can't convert the nebulous requirements into a solid spec.
...
Read what you wrote. The realize that a Great Hacker will
IGNORE THE SPECS.
The specs are always wrong.
The client never know what they want.
Anyone trying to write specs or deliver what a client asks will end with an unhappy client.
So the first rule of programming is to find out what problem you are solving. Go watch the enduser do their job. Figure out what can be improved. Decide if computers can help. Decide which parts SHOULD be automated. Plan enough of the program(s) to check if the budget is enough. Then go write it. Give options anytime there are choices so that it can be configured without additional programming.
I got my current project because they asked for a revision, and I completely trashed their UI. The new UI took one-tenth the time for data input, and was more expandable. Then I changed how the business processes work. Now I am working on reporting tools. The customer loves it.
I may have an unhappy customer someday, but it will mean that we needed another programmer and were unable to find another Great Hacker.
"Code written by a great hacker usually doesn't need maintenance because it already does the right thing"
All software needs maintenance
--- Disagreement
I wrote an application 5 years ago. Every time they called asking for new features, I told them it was already in there and which configuration option to change. They may need a revision later this year because the infrastructure is changing, but not because the program stopped fulfilling their needs.
Another company used software I wrote in 1991 until 1999 when their new parent company insisted they change to a standard Human Resources application. The new program does not meet their needs as well as my DOS-based program (which ran well in Windows95.) No maintenance was ever done on my program.
My current project keeps expanding, but I am the visionary expanding the specifications. Adding one minor function would make the business people feel it is good enough, but I want to add 5 major functions. It will be finished later this year, and should not require any maintenance.
Lotus Notes 6.5 can still run applications built for Lotus Notes 2.
Java 1.5 runtimes can run Java 1.0 programs.
--- Agreement
WindowsXP finally killed DOS programs.
Longhorn is supposed to kill Windows programs.
(That says something about depending on MS.)
Hardware compatibility depends on what connectors are provided. ISA cards will not fit in most modern motherboards. But most hardware does not care what software runs on it. The exception is that printers were controlled by applications until Windows95, which introduced an API for printing.
How does one become a great hacker? 1 part talent, 9 parts determination.
This line caught my attention because it is exactly the opposite of how I and the article explain great hackers. It is 9 parts talent, 1 part the inability to do otherwise. We don't program only what we want and do it extremely well because of determination. We program only what we want because we cannot stay interested in anything else. We program extremely well because we cannot tolerate less than optimized code. Being a great hacker is more about the inability to survive as a normal person. Most of us would have been the village layabout or erratic handyman before computers were invented.
programming is a skill. There is only one proven method of developing skills in people, and that is mentoring.
I never had a mentor. Most great hackers did not have mentors. Where are we to find someone who can program as well as we can to teach us the next level? We teach ourselves, and our monomania keeps us thinking about programming all the time, so we advance ourselves. The article mentions centers of excellence that attract great hackers. I have never been part of one, but I can understand the attraction of working with people where every other sentence does not go over their heads.
Great hackers are wired differently... it actually sucks to be them.
In this paragraph, you almost seem to understand. I cannot work 9-5 for more than 2 weeks. I was fired from every job until I became a consultant. Now I work about 2 weeks a quarter. Thankfully I can live on that.
No one believes implementing yet another payroll system is going to change the world.
Of my current projects:
1 captures business experience/corporate knowledge into a computerized system.
1 removes guesswork from planning inventory.
1 changes how the public shops.
1 improves how we develop business applications.
- The first seems to be the Holy Grail of corporate computing. My solution may be limited to retail stores, but its a start.
- The second is just a fun application.
- The third will change the world.
- The fourth might change the world, but it is unlikely since making programming too easy loses the programmers. So my audience will be business people who can develop applications on a platform where they can change their mind every 5 minutes and still have a usable system. But it is the tool I want to use when developing applications, so I am scratching my own itch.
BTW, I have a life outside of programming. I am leaving tomorrow morning for a week without computers.
In early 2002, when a freight train derailed near Minot, N.D., releasing a cloud of anhydrous ammonia over the town, police tried to call local radio stations, six of which are owned by radio mammoth Clear Channel Communications. According to news reports, it took them over an hour to reach anyone--no one was answering the Clear Channel phone. By the next day, 300 people had been hospitalized, many partially blinded by the ammonia. Pets and livestock died. And Clear Channel continued beaming its signal from headquarters in San Antonio, Texas--some 1,600 miles away.
What happened to the emergency broadcast network? I remember the tests that interrupted the Saturday morning cartoons and other shows of the 70s. Media bandwidth (TV and radio) is granted by our government to allow reaching the public, but it carried the responsibility of making that bandwidth available for public emergencies.
Another post states that the accident was not Clear Channel's fault, and implies that Clear Channel has no responsibility. Radio is the fastest method to reach the public, and has the responsibility to do so during emergencies. Clear Channel should have been charged with attempted murder through negligence of the entire population of the area, and fined an estimate of the damages that resulted because the warnings were not publicized. Make it economical for Clear Channel to have someone live answering the phone who can override the broadcast with public service announcements. (Six people and their manager in an office in the middle of nowhere should be able to handle the calls for the entire country.)
I am pro-business. I believe businesses should be allowed to profit. Businesses that provide communication services are responsible to provide those services. Verizon cannot decide to declare a company holiday and turn off the phones for 2 weeks. Radio stations must allow interruptions for emergencies, and must be held accountable if they fail.
The difference in whether sex and/or violence are seen as obscene is cultural. There was a TV show that had separate cuts for the American and European audiences: the American show removed 10 minutes of sexual content; the European show removed 10 minutes of gore. Americans think breasts are disgusting, and should not be seen by people over 3 years old; Europeans, and most of the world excluding the USA, have topless beaches.
A society WITHOUT sex will die out. A society WITH violence will die out. The USA has always considered immigration a cleaner form of population growth than encouraging people to reproduce. I (an American) know only one set of parents of child-bearing age that has more than 2 children.
This difference can be positive. Americans redirect their sexual energy into other activity, such as the 70-hour work week, and redirect their sexual obsession into inventions such as the Internet that allow better (more private) distribution of pornography. Our sexually-regressed society drives the advancement of technology, while depending on other countries to supply us with new people.
Slack does not use "run levels" per se.
Maybe that was my problem. I thought Slackware was Linux, so I changed the runlevel. I was surprised that the network settings disappeared since I expected all runlevels that connect to the network to use the same config (unless extra work is done.) I think the problem was that the runlevel I chose did not start the network. Does noone using Slackware like to boot directly to a GUI and still have network access?
This may have been my fault. I may have changed the runlevel from 3 to 4, when it should have been 5. I'll check later and post back. (It may be about 14 hours before I can.)
[This was last year, and I am currently configuring a RedHat7.2 server for production.]
=== Appendix
Linux runlevels
0 - halt
1 - Single user mode
2 - Multiuser, without NFS (The same as 3, if you don't have networking)
3 - Full multiuser mode
4 - unused
5 - X11
6 - Reboot
I installed Slackware9 for a user. They always want the GUI, so I changed the run level so it would boot to the GUI without typing startx; it also uses the GUI logon. Then Mozilla could not find the internet. I had to fix the startup script to regain the working settings. I was surprised the startup scripts did not use a common file for loading the network settings for different run levels.
I read the article, but it focuses on server installs and does not mention this issue. Was this fixed in Slackware10?
Rather than putting the entire GPL as a EULA, have a summarized pre-license screen like:
1. You have the right to use this program as much as you like on as many computers as you like.
2. You have the right to give (or even sell) this program to anybody else as long as they receive these rights.
3. You have the right to modify (or have someone else modify) the program for your own use.
4. If you give or sell a modified version of this program, you must make the source code including any changes available to anybody who receives a modified copy of the program.
Would you like to read the full license?
Yes - I would like to read why I have these rights.
No - I just want to use the program, and you already stated I could.
---
Most licenses attempt to convince you of restrictions that are not technically plausible. "You can only install this program on one computer." The only real method to monitor this is to have the program call home.
MS uses a particularly user-unfriendly method of doing this. Did you read the story where the ZDNet editor lost the ability to boot WindowsXP on his laptop during a plane ride during which he had planned to write an article about the greatness of WindowsXP? Installing to completely blank PCs still allows WindowsXP to be installed as many times as you want, but using the online WindowsUpdate means MS will know how many copies use each key.
My startup is using a variation where a few pieces of information about the program's file are used to create a key that requires contacting us for the answer ("registration code"). Our protection can be bypassed by creating multiple servers with identical information, but issues with the platform make it difficult to maintain multiple servers with the same name in the same organization, and server names usually include the organization's name. It is unlikely that any "stolen" copy of the program would be used in production. And our prices are low enough that it would be more costly to maintain a "stolen" copy than to buy a license.
Related: We use the "pay once and free upgrades forever" model. We maintain programs until they are no longer worth updating (because sales have died), and then they become open source (without the registration generation code.)
your PC should take all that drudgery away from you leaving you free to think. Let the PC do all the thinking and work and you do all the creativity. As someone who likes to think of himself as creative, that sounds... stupid. [...] Most artists consider the "drudgery" part of the creative process. [...] Being truly creative is about taking all there is inside you and expressing it. Making it "easier" is missing the point. Kay also believes that the drudgery inhibits creativity; which it doesn't. (Please read parent for context.)
I disagree from several perspectives. Computers (and most tools) were invented to remove the drudgery.
As an artist, I want tools that help me realize my creative vision as efficiently as possible. When writing, I want to fix my misspellings and grammar as effortlessly as possible. When creating a song, I want to hum the tune, and have it recorded in a reusable format. I want to sing the lyrics and have them appear on my screen. I do not want to try to remember the lyrics long enough to write or type them. I have lost entire songs (that seemed good to me at the time) because I kept creating lyrics without taking the time to record them. Usually I am able to record the chorus and a few of the rhymes, but the new work-still-required version is unlikely to be as good as the inspired version I first sang.
My startup is building software that reproduces and improves the business management processes for people management (and other stuff.) The software forces recording what is important to safety, productivity, and promotions. Then it forces recognition of problems and excellence. The goal is to reduce the drudgery and level of expertise necessary to be a good manager, while promoting people with the skills to make business better.
All tools were created to reduce drudgery. The computer is the best tool for working with thoughts. Kay seems to be asking for another product we are developing to turn the world into one big P2P real-time database. (Expect it to be released around 2010. Vision is easy, but implementation takes time even with today's tools.)
He is correct in that most of today's use of computers does not further creativity. I have been introduced to several "computer experts" that knew how to install software and use Kazaa. But computers also help Pixar create by removing the drudgery of drawing, inking, and coloring every frame of animation on paper. The truly creative use whatever tools are available, and using a computer increases efficiency for many tasks. I think the real problem is that most people are only creative when deciding how to pay the bills.
I wrote my most recent, decent-sized project ... with built-in updates so that with almost no effort whatsoever, I can issue updates and patches and the program will notice, when online, that these new patches exist and offer to download them!
So are you writing viruses? Or anti-virus programs?
The only good thing about viruses is that they have advanced the state-of-the-art for self-updating programs. All the effort Microsoft has put into WindowsUpdate would not have been done if viruses were not taking advantage of security holes. That is a good thing because if MS had put that effort into securing their OSes, there would be less incentive for people to switch.
If you are the natural team leader then its unlikely the team will listen ot the manager anyway, they'll listen to you. So don't hire yourself a manager, hire yourself an assistant. Someone who goes to meetings for you, plans schedules for you and lets you get on with the real job. That doesn't have to be someone who is in charge of or controlling what you do but someone who enjoys doing the bits you don't and you can work alongside.
I lived this experience.
I was the "lead developer" for many projects at a consulting company. We had several customers that required much personal attention that had no impact on the projects, so I asked my boss (the VP) to hire someone to take the phone calls, make appearances at "strategic" meetings, and handle the paperwork I hated. We gave this person the title "Project Manager" (PM), but the development team still expected my leadership.
We introduced the PM to our customers. He said some silly buzzword filled comments ("Joint Application Development") that added even more meetings, but that was fine as long as none of the techies (including me) had to go to them.
Everything was great until we started a new project. Everybody had the same titles, but the PM decided that as "manager", he should be the top of the chain-of-command. The first time he tried to give me orders, I explained his purpose. The second time, I had the VP explain his purpose. The third time, we transferred him to the Microsoft group.
I have had several great managers (and just hired one of them to work for my new company.) A great manager acts as a filter between the techies and the customers. He protects the time of the techies. He stays out of design and development, but can offer a non-techie perspective when asked.
This only applies if you have a great lead developer. I know of one group that fires programmers with leadership skills. The manager is a non-techie, but knows how to coordinate development with mediocre developers. Adding a hotshot guru programmer would disrupt his system. (He works for a large bureaucratic company where speed is not a priority.)
(Responding to a flame that was just modded Interesting.)
I did not mention QuickBasic because it is not on the chart, but most of my previous post really applied to QuickBasic since it was not called VB until it moved to Windows.
I did not state that QuickBasic or VB "required" line numbers. I stated that MS added the ability to use line numbers as part of the transition from Pascal to QuickBasic.
When I first encountered QuickBasic, I already knew BASIC, Pascal, and C. I could replace the keywords in my Pascal programs and then do minor debugging to have functional QuickBasic programs. The API for VB has grown since then, but it still looks like Pascal with different keywords.
It was a smart move for MS. Most college grads were learning Pascal, and the transition to developing in the MS-proprietary language was easy since few of the rules were different.
---
Today I work with Java and LotusScript with Domino because it is allows much faster business application development than any other platform. LotusScript was based on VB, and still looks similar: same keywords, different API, and it has the List variable type. I also use Java for applets, servlets, and server applications; and one of my Java projects will require a GUI-based client, although I have not written it yet. (I prefer Java over C/C++ because the native memory management saves development and QA time.) I have never developed with Delphi, although several friends are good with it, and their code looks like super-charged Pascal.
---
Fun fact: One of my IBM redbooks states that VisualBasic is a trademark of IBM. I think it was a misprint.
---
BTW, there is only one 'h' in "half-wit".
Delphi from VBasic?
Which happens to "feel" exactly the same as VB. It's not simply the language syntax but also the structure, and programming in Delphi is practically the same as VB
This is backwards. VB and Delphi both came from Pascal, although Delphi was an improvement and VB was a translation.
In the late 80s, Pascal was the language being taught at most colleges, although C was starting to gain some marketshare. Microsoft needed to replace BASIC with a functional language. They took Pascal, changed the keywords to the ones from BASIC, added line numbers, and called it VisualBasic. This had the effect of killing the market for Pascal programmers. The good ones upgraded to Delphi; the rest moved to MS VB.
VB 1.0 had much more in common with Pascal than it did with BASIC. "Pascal format function calls" are still used by VB, in contrast to "C format function calls". Pascal and VB have "procedures" (or "subroutines") which allow the values of parameters to be overwritten in calling routine. C requires that one and only one value can be returned, which must be explicitly assigned in the calling routine (although fun with pointers can cause many other effects.) BASIC did not have procedures, and subroutines overwrote the global variables, because BASIC was also missing local variables.
interact with the server _without_ reloading the page
I wrote a very short Java Applet back in 1998 to take a request from JavaScript and put the result into a field on a FORM. It was written using Java1.1 so MSIE could understand it. It allowed JavaScript to:
1. Create URL that will return information.
2. Ask Java Applet to get information.
3. Parse information.
4. Redraw page.
(We also had a CORBA version that let JavaScript handle Domino objects. It could retrieve data and even update records on the server without refreshing the webpage.)
The good part is that we had a standard method for JavaScript to talk to the server. Just tell the Applet the URL and the name of the field to put the data, then look at the data. It was easy to write the server side programs that returned the information. (Too easy. We found ourselves returning JavaScript to call with eval() rather than returning the generically-formatted information that could be reused by other applications.)
The difficult part was forcing the browser to notice sections of the page changed. Changing a graphic was easy. Changing options for a pull-down was easy. Changing options for radio-buttons and checkboxes was difficult. Changing "static" text on the page was almost impossible.
We used it for its strengths. Choose a department from one pull-down. A second pull-down would allow choice of the employees in that department, and would be updated without a full page refresh.
The entire point of this technology was to save bandwidth and a little time. We could update the employee list without updating the entire page. A few years later, we realized that bandwidth was inexpensive and the complexity of the technology cost more than just refreshing the page all the time. We redirected the effort into writing programs that would write concise HTML to keep the bandwidth usage low.
The only reason that any of this is necessary is that MS embraced the browser and halted all progress. They deliberately skipped the "extend" phase. Today we develop for Mozilla (using very old HTML standards), test against MSIE5.5 and MSIE6.0, and then fix all the stuff MS broke.
After upgrading from Mozilla1.3 to Mozilla1.6, it changed the theme to the default. When I tried to change it, it complained that the chosen theme was for a previous version, and please click OK to uninstall it. After clicking OK, the "Apply Theme" menu refused to open until I restarted Mozilla.
After repeating this twice (to prove the bug), I went into Preferences and removed all the themes for previous versions. Preferences does tell you which themes are for previous versions, but there is no "Remove all obsolete themes" button. Better would be a "Upgrade all themes" button, with the question to automatically remove all themes that cannot be upgraded. This would require each theme to remember where it came from, and for the websites to have the ability to know there is an applicable version. This should be easy if architected well.
I then downloaded the current Microzilla theme. Why do most of the themes use big buttons? Screen space is always at a premium. I usually run 1024x768 (on a 21" monitor), and often need to adjust higher to have enough space (or use a second PC to browse while working on my main box.) I was on a friend's PC earlier today, and she runs 800x600 on a 15" monitor; Mozilla with the default large icons uses about one quarter of the screen for non-content.
---
BTW, I just got mod points again. The last batch expired unused this morning.