I had a Hotmail account before they were bought by M$. I still have that account because of plain laziness: I don't feel like researching which sites I used that account with in order to migrate to a new service.
I think this design is actually more important with regard to the speed of recognition. In other words, your subconscious brain registers precursors of the identification of an object (or partial object/pattern in the case of camouflage) - and this helmet picks up on those precursors causing a marker to appear in the hud pointing to the object before you would normally be conscious of it.
Essentially it creates a jump instruction in the identification functionality of the brain, allowing the user to bypass the full assembly of a clear identification prior to bringing it to the fore.
I see this as both useful, and potentially dangerous. On the one hand, the user of this device would have a fraction of a second advantage - which might spell the difference between life and death. On the other hand, the risk short circuiting the brain's identification mechanism runs the risk of providing false positives - which may lead to collateral damage or friendly fire. Users would have to be trained to deal with this problem before being released into the wild.
Microsoft was actually part of the catalyst that made it explode. Since Microsoft has had such a significant role in software development, it's not fair to say that they were just "lucky". I'll agree it wasn't luck if you agree that stealing from, breaking interfaces with, or buying-out the competition is not software development.
*CRASH* (That was the sound of all the world's high altitude aircraft falling from the sky from the accumulation of ice the ceased to sublimate from the wings).
From what I've heard, Solar Thermal power heats up an oil in the central collection grid - which powers a turbine. The oil gets so hot that there is enough residual energy to keep the turbine turning through most of the night.
Back to my point. Pushing nuclear energy has relatively very little do with our dependence on gasoline via crude oil. Please lets not confuse the two. There is no chance that there will be cars powered by "under the hood" nuclear reactors in the near future. Wind power will also do nothing for our dependence on oil for gasoline. Lets see - I buy one of these and plug it into the power grid each night...
If enough of us do that, then it would definitely have an impact on the amount of oil (gasoline) we collectively consume. Bonus points for selecting power generation technologies (nuclear, solar, wind, hydrogen) that also lower or eliminate the carbon footprint.
deliverable - something that is supposed to be delivered on time, but is probably not going to be. Used by PMs who are not technically competent to specify what the deliverable is.
issue - something or someone used as a scapegoat for said deliverable not being delivered. Used by PMs to indicate a problem without saying specifically what the problem is due to their misunderstanding of the technical aspects.
delta (the greek letter) - the difference between what functionality we expected in the deliverable, and what was actually delivered. Since the PHDs in R&D use it, PMs have picked up on the term and use it to be 'cool' with the developers. It doesn't work - the computer scientists are not impressed.
pushback - what the development team should have done when management specified improbable functionality over impossible time lines. Used by PMs in a reproachful manner when talking to upper management, "so-and-so is giving me pushback on this issue."
2.0 - 'web 2.0' spawned a plethora of '2.0'-isms, which is now used to describe the deliverable, that was probably designed during web 0.9. Used by PMs when trying to get a new functional specification across to the development team - badly.
synergies - what the web 2.0 deliverable is supposed to give us. It doesn't. Also what management attributes as the goal of yet-another-reorganization.
mashup - take a bunch of non-integrated deliverables and do a very poor job connecting them with glue in such a way as to allow non-technical types the ability to manipulate the outcome. Social science numbers have more rigorous results.
Even from MS, for all its other sins, you hear about who championed, say, their getting into the whole Internet thing, against Bill Gates's vision. Or about those two guys whose bright idea was to make DirectX instead of just going with the OpenGL flow. Heck, you even hear about the Bob clusterfuck being the brain child of Melinda Gates. Good or bad, it's not particularly hard to find out who was really behind what. All of the things you listed here ultimately turned out bad for the end user and developers.
One of the problems with the AP is that their whole business model isn't so different from providing an RSS feed these days. You hit the nail squarely on the head. This is yet another example of a pre-internet business model running aground on the new technology.
AP could do some really cool things to get a better return on their investment - but that would take creativity and effort, which is usually in short supply in an entrenched corporate bureaucracy. Much easier to release the lawyers to drive the 'competition' out of business.
We are in the midst of a sea-change. When are the suits going to get it?
You want to say the code was mediocre? Fine. We had tight schedules and we met them. I do believe that is the closest I've seen a Microsoftie to actually telling the truth.
We made up for it with the best marketing and sales divisions ever created. It probably didn't hurt to have OEM vendor lock-in, an array of products that broke interoperability and standards in selective ways, not to mention strong-arm tactics used when a large customer or vendor wanted to leave the flock. All of these issues were brought out in the antitrust case - which Microsoft lost, if you recall.
There is a reason you had it so good - and it wasn't your marketing department.
Can you understand why customers and developers were and are still angry about these issues?
Let's say you have 1000 coders, and 1/10 of your coders (100 of them) write poorly documented code... Actually I would more sooner believe 1/10th write well documented code.
This speaks to 'whatever happened to code reviews...'
If they are managing to get obfuscated code past a code review, either:
a) people reviewing it can't comprehend it or do the research to comprehend it and don't want to look stupid to the rest of the team.
b) the team lead isn't establishing solid coding practices. In many instances team leads/project managers have no coding background - and thus can't establish standards.
A solid chair and a solid monitor then keyboard/mouse goes very very far in keeping you productive.
And then you visit slashdot, nullifying all your efforts. Actually, productivity as a measurement of how many times you press the keys on the keyboard, or how many hours you spend on the job is a fallacy when it comes to software development.
The most productive developers I know spend much of their time thinking about the problem and mulling it over in their heads before they touch the keyboard. Many times when I'm stuck, just getting away - taking a walk, or reading/. clears the cobwebs and allows ideas to flow or the system architecture to coalesce.
I find writing code well is not at all akin to factory work.
Unfortunately most IT departments don't think this way - hence the shoddy code I have to end up fixing or replacing...
I was a geek before I joined the Army. I didn't have much time to program, and my skills did get rusty. But I was certainly in good shape.
On the other hand I did learn valuable skills that are applicable in my job today in the civilian sector, like 'call for fire', 'building clearing techniques', 'how to set up an L-shaped ambush', 'land navigation' (critical when trying to find the bus-stop), 'TOW Antitank Weapon System' and many more.
And I was an NCO when I got out, so I definitely had a personality transplant.:P
I would comfortably assume that were you up against us on a project, my people would eat your lunch. Okay -- why is this at all relevant?
1. Projects are awarded based upon a bidding process that includes the technical merit, as well as the price. I have yet to see a contract awarded based upon the speed or volume of output.
2. For any non-trivial project, it always ends up being more important to have it done right, than done quick. Time and time again I have had to fix or scrap code created by hot-shot contractors with your attitude - which means we should have kept the project in-house to begin with.
Why doesn't Microsoft just use their huge amounts of money and work for it, where is their internal drive and passion? Because just about every large corporation gets to a particular size where actually getting anything done is almost impossible - at which point they buy or contract out the actual work, and the CORE of the company becomes a bunch of project managers who talk on the phone all day...
Sounds like asking your wife which restaurant for dinner. And she always says any one of them is fine, but just don't like the one you pick. HAHAHA -- that is what I do to my wife....not on purpose, you understand. She, of course does the same thing to me.
I don't know what I want, but I know I don't want THAT (whatever that may be -- usually Indian food for my wife, and usually, well, whatever she says at that moment for me).
Yes, but if they make the best OS around, why should they be punished?...They got fined for being the best out there - which in my opinion - is wrong... I've been using Linux since 1993/94 time frame (Slackware), and it was better than MS Windows then - and is still better now. Mac OS only got usable for me when they brought in the BSD core - so Apple has only gotten better - and are still way ahead of MS Windows in the usability category. Those are the only OS's running on my home network today - Mac workstations, and Linux servers.
Just because Microsoft has the most market share doesn't mean they are 'the best' by any stretch of the imagination.
That is my perspective on the 'best' OS - YMMV.
PS - they did not get fined for being the 'best'; they got fined for abusing antitrust laws.
Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone. You have got to be kidding! They don't have any real skills - and they know it, hence the clinging to the old business model - trying to milk every last dime...
Slashdot Mirror
I had a Hotmail account before they were bought by M$. I still have that account because of plain laziness: I don't feel like researching which sites I used that account with in order to migrate to a new service.
What is RCN?
DISCLAIMER: I work at Microsoft.
Pretty much everyone who posts about this is full of shit.
1. Try to influence the discussion of something that is self serving/conflict of interest.2. Throw out an insult.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Yet another nail in the coffin of any respect I had left for Microsoft.
I think this design is actually more important with regard to the speed of recognition. In other words, your subconscious brain registers precursors of the identification of an object (or partial object /pattern in the case of camouflage) - and this helmet picks up on those precursors causing a marker to appear in the hud pointing to the object before you would normally be conscious of it.
Essentially it creates a jump instruction in the identification functionality of the brain, allowing the user to bypass the full assembly of a clear identification prior to bringing it to the fore.
I see this as both useful, and potentially dangerous. On the one hand, the user of this device would have a fraction of a second advantage - which might spell the difference between life and death. On the other hand, the risk short circuiting the brain's identification mechanism runs the risk of providing false positives - which may lead to collateral damage or friendly fire. Users would have to be trained to deal with this problem before being released into the wild.
*CRASH* (That was the sound of all the world's high altitude aircraft falling from the sky from the accumulation of ice the ceased to sublimate from the wings).
From what I've heard, Solar Thermal power heats up an oil in the central collection grid - which powers a turbine. The oil gets so hot that there is enough residual energy to keep the turbine turning through most of the night.
If enough of us do that, then it would definitely have an impact on the amount of oil (gasoline) we collectively consume. Bonus points for selecting power generation technologies (nuclear, solar, wind, hydrogen) that also lower or eliminate the carbon footprint.
Your statement is false.
Here are some of my favorite management terms:
deliverable - something that is supposed to be delivered on time, but is probably not going to be. Used by PMs who are not technically competent to specify what the deliverable is.
issue - something or someone used as a scapegoat for said deliverable not being delivered. Used by PMs to indicate a problem without saying specifically what the problem is due to their misunderstanding of the technical aspects.
delta (the greek letter) - the difference between what functionality we expected in the deliverable, and what was actually delivered. Since the PHDs in R&D use it, PMs have picked up on the term and use it to be 'cool' with the developers. It doesn't work - the computer scientists are not impressed.
pushback - what the development team should have done when management specified improbable functionality over impossible time lines. Used by PMs in a reproachful manner when talking to upper management, "so-and-so is giving me pushback on this issue."
2.0 - 'web 2.0' spawned a plethora of '2.0'-isms, which is now used to describe the deliverable, that was probably designed during web 0.9. Used by PMs when trying to get a new functional specification across to the development team - badly.
synergies - what the web 2.0 deliverable is supposed to give us. It doesn't. Also what management attributes as the goal of yet-another-reorganization.
mashup - take a bunch of non-integrated deliverables and do a very poor job connecting them with glue in such a way as to allow non-technical types the ability to manipulate the outcome. Social science numbers have more rigorous results.
There are more, but I am out of time...
I think there is a pattern emerging here...
Not if it is embedded in hardware...
AP could do some really cool things to get a better return on their investment - but that would take creativity and effort, which is usually in short supply in an entrenched corporate bureaucracy. Much easier to release the lawyers to drive the 'competition' out of business.
We are in the midst of a sea-change. When are the suits going to get it?
There is a reason you had it so good - and it wasn't your marketing department.
Can you understand why customers and developers were and are still angry about these issues?
This speaks to 'whatever happened to code reviews...'
If they are managing to get obfuscated code past a code review, either:
a) people reviewing it can't comprehend it or do the research to comprehend it and don't want to look stupid to the rest of the team.
b) the team lead isn't establishing solid coding practices. In many instances team leads/project managers have no coding background - and thus can't establish standards.
The most productive developers I know spend much of their time thinking about the problem and mulling it over in their heads before they touch the keyboard. Many times when I'm stuck, just getting away - taking a walk, or reading
I find writing code well is not at all akin to factory work.
Unfortunately most IT departments don't think this way - hence the shoddy code I have to end up fixing or replacing...
Speak for yourself.
:P
I was a geek before I joined the Army. I didn't have much time to program, and my skills did get rusty. But I was certainly in good shape.
On the other hand I did learn valuable skills that are applicable in my job today in the civilian sector, like 'call for fire', 'building clearing techniques', 'how to set up an L-shaped ambush', 'land navigation' (critical when trying to find the bus-stop), 'TOW Antitank Weapon System' and many more.
And I was an NCO when I got out, so I definitely had a personality transplant.
1. Projects are awarded based upon a bidding process that includes the technical merit, as well as the price. I have yet to see a contract awarded based upon the speed or volume of output.
2. For any non-trivial project, it always ends up being more important to have it done right, than done quick. Time and time again I have had to fix or scrap code created by hot-shot contractors with your attitude - which means we should have kept the project in-house to begin with.
~
When best isn't good enough - there is always mediocrity.
You'll go far with mediocrity and boatloads of cash. What a message to tell our children...
I don't know what I want, but I know I don't want THAT (whatever that may be -- usually Indian food for my wife, and usually, well, whatever she says at that moment for me).
Just because Microsoft has the most market share doesn't mean they are 'the best' by any stretch of the imagination.
That is my perspective on the 'best' OS - YMMV.
PS - they did not get fined for being the 'best'; they got fined for abusing antitrust laws.
How do you know you aren't talking to an AI in SL now?
I ride the bus to work every day. I know there are AI more intelligent than at least some of us...