Spoiler: How about those over the top car explosions in the motorcycle chase scenes? That was especially awful! The methods he employed to solve those clues seemed fairly over the top and overly contrived as well.
Oh, right, there was a car/bike chase.. Yeah, "awful" is the word. I'd actually given up well before then and was into some heavy duty mushin exercises;). And "contrived" is being very kind.
What did it for me (apart from the non-existent acting/directing), was the double-plus-dumb premises:
How can anyone be (and stay) a top reverse engineer, if every insight, experience and understanding gained on every job, is 'zapped' all the time?! He'd have to relearn everything for every job!! What the hell kind of knowledge did he bring to all of these super-advanced development gigs, his college training? Silly beyond words...
Affleck's bigshot CEO "friend" from way back trusts him enough to give him the clandestine job (working for 3 years in an overcrowded lab on a huge campus). And wants to vest him with stock(!) Plus millions in cash. But - oh yeah - he must rip out 3 years of Affleck's memories because...because the script said so, probably. Pretty unbelievable... I wanted to bitchslap Affleck's character when he agreed almost without blinking.
I saw Paycheck half a day ago, and strongly wish I could erase that perticular memory.
As for the plausibility of erasing specific memories..
In the movie, the head-fscking machine had pedagogic monitors displaying individual neurons being "zapped"; electromagnetics? (and Affleck frowning, as if brain cells could feel..) And yeah, good luck with zapping neurons to erase memories; one down, 53 billion to go...
From what little I've read about how the brain is thought to work (consciousness being a "real-time", emergent "supernetwork effect" of sorts), I wouldn't bet on us ever having enough knowledge to tinker with the mind with any kind of higher precision.
Interesting (if OT:) ). I'm also looking at the X1 (lots of rave reviews netside..). Infocus has a "projection calculator" on their site - but it's Flash...and that piece of abhorrance won't be installed on my system any time soon.
Perhaps you have the algorithm for calculating the projection area for the X1?
Or, if not - just so we can get a general idea what to expect: how far from the wall is your X1 today?
(OT) Just wanted to say thanks for XP PG
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Being part of a dev. team slowly migrating to XP, your Pocket Guide is really helpful. You and your editor/s obviously put a lot of effort into communicating a lot of knowledge as clearly and concisely as possible, without losing too much detail.
XP PG accomplishes that, thanks guy.
(Sorry for the OT everybody, chromatic's book was - is - right beside my laptop when I saw his post. Hadda holler..)
Disclaimer: I don't know chromatic, and am not affiliated with either O'Reilly or Addison-Wesley.
redtail1's point and attitude is sadly a bit rare. Learning, exploring, sharing; while understanding those who "just want to get [var.thing] done". But I'd say the former is more central to the open source way, than the latter.
Pride in one's accomplishments is fine, but--and I'm not saying that's what the grandparent (jargoone) is doing--the bashing and negativity is so unuseful (unless very witty); stop energy as Dave Winer calls it. I mightn't like Winer very much, but I've learned plenty from him and his code.
There are things to learn, and to improve upon, everywhere. (Even stuff out of fortress Redmond..once in a blue moon.) We should concentrate on finding all-the-possible-(GPL-or-BSD-compliant)-uses-under -the-sun for all this open source.
Good post, redtail1. Power to you. Sorry to go OT on y'all.
I actually think Joel says so too. Towards the end of the article (emphasis mine):
When Unix was created and when it formed its cultural values, there were no end users./.../ learning about computers meant learning how to program. It's no wonder that the culture which emerged valued things which are useful to other programmers.
By contrast, Windows was created with one goal only: to sell as many copies as conceivable at a profit. Scrillions of copies. "A computer on every desktop and in every home" was the explicit goal of the team which created Windows, set its agenda and determined its core values.
Yeah, I have the 3rd edt. (oct 2002, 1st edt. came march 1993, 2nd edt. in aug 1997) right here.
Unix Power Tools. 1113 pages of goodness, although many things are way too advanced for this delicate flower. But "power grows on you", as the authors say..
You are missing, totally, a very important aspect of this "support" for OSS. It's too big - and off-topic, admittedly - a discussion, but nevertheless:
It's about the *process* and *culture* of open source.
I'm quite new to open source (and to/.), but this was the first thing I realized as being fundamentally different (from proprietary IT). How could anyone miss that, and here of all places?!
It's the *process* to learn without restrictions (lack of source, copyrights, NDAs, "biz strategy", &c.), to create while learning, to share your learnings and teach it (see sourceforge, here on/., and a million other places). And to question and tinker with the *process* itself (the open source development model).
Essentially, I don't "want" any part of this *process* just handed (free or $29.95) to me. So fucking what if a company use Linux/OSS if it's just a plug-in component in a biz-as-usual ecology? Then it's just stuff, and has nothing to do with "supporting open source".
Some companies (not saying Tivo's one, I don't know enough about them) just use OSS to save cash and/or TTM, and close their own solutions - i.e. not participating in the *process*, not sharing.
If you can't take part in the *process* - the evolution - of an "innovative" product/solution, then all you have is 'just another thing' (like Windows, or a Volvo). Not necessarily bad in-and-of-itself, but certainly not related to either open source or "Linux-ness".
I'm just guessing, but today, to "get the message out there" - that's mucho expensive.
If the company doesn't have tight connections in the industry and/or a strong position in geek community/culture (do they? Some geeks here are saying "poo..", &c., so..), then it might be difficult...
Maybe they just don't know *how* to get the message out (without heaps of dollahs, and a Superbowl to run ads all over).
Re:Well, that's just fantastic, isn't it
on
RSA-576 Factored
·
· Score: 1
Agreed, good PMs are (at times, very) valuable. I've met one or two, one during PM training - I learned that plans change, so be flexible... (ok, so I'm not a shit-hot PM myself). As are, of course, good programmers/'coders', DBAs, system architects, HCI people, etc...even CEOs;).
Perhaps my biggest gripe is this idolization of management (of any kind) I see perpetuated. Everywhere.
It's getting painfully obvious that it detached from reality quite some time ago (as in it's a team effort, and that every role is very demanding - and overlapping, when development is done right, in my experience).
Nowadays the "heroic Savior/Manager image" looks more like rationalizing vastly steeper income curves (compared to the rest of us) and bonuses than anything. Not to mention the horrific concentration of authority/power.
This powershift - I think - has artificial construct written all over it. Sure, managers are mostly competent people doing good work, but the demigod status in companies today? Suddenly managers are the only 'holistic' roles/competencies, and the rest of us are cogs(!?) Hell no.
It's demoralizing and strips people of their ability to meet challanges, to take risks, to innovate. And I believe it's ultimately destructive for everyone, thus also for the companies employing us. Powerless employees sooner rather than later regress to "low-level" whatever.
And *managing* projects (comprised of skilled - intelligent - IT folk)..is very difficult? As to WTF "advanced" means... I'm guessing 'managing' a portfolio of projects.. woo-hoo, tough stuff.
Keeping track of documentation, deliverables, schedules, budgets... Hell, a calculator can do that shit.
But since it's these 'managers' who're doing the outsourcing, no way in hell are they outsourcing their own cabal. Enter reality re-construction #1: Management (of any kind) is indispensible! All other living matter - workers, office plants, et al. are forthwith commodities. Bring out the org. charts and let the random shuffling commence!! PowerPoint slides galore to come any week now!!!
Case in point: In the article, Mr. Johnson responsible for the quote
MR. JOHNSON It's all about innovation and productivity. As long as we maintain those two engines, we'll continue to have a very high standard of living. Out in the Bay Area there are plenty of folks who would love to create a little bit of protectionism around their I.T. jobs, but we are far better off letting a lot of those jobs go. Low-skill jobs like coding are moving offshore and what's left in their place are more advanced project management jobs.
...goes totally unquestioned. Everyone 'round that table probably nodding sagely... I mean for the LOVE of all things geeky!
Since WHEN did GODDAMMED/PROJECT/ MANAGEMENT have ANYTHING to do with "innovation" ("...and productivity" - well, outsourcing sure looks good on paper so, ok)!? Such utter bloody nonsense.
Yeah. I got to metamod the grandparent's troll-mod to oblivion yesterday.
Re:apache has a project called Xindice
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 2, Informative
True, Xindice (Apache license, has reached version 1.0) looks good (I've no experience with it), but some of the original developers (Tom Bradford - dbXML, see below, and Kimbro Staken - Syncato, also below) of the source donated to Apache think they (Apache) haven't made the most of it. I don't know if this is true, and I don't know nor have any connections with either Bradford or Staken, but they seem like competent developers; they certainly churn out code - positive sign, right?
Consider Berkeley DB XML (currently at v1.1.0). Built on Berkeley DB and identically licensed (open source, free for non-commercial/development use, etc.); tons of APIs - can't get hold of the link but one of the developers (at least I think so) maintains a weblog of 'all' things Berkeley DB XML. Googleit.
Bradford recently released dbXML under GPL (commercial licenses available should you need it), there's a v2.0 beta available at the site.
Another native XML database is eXist, at version 0.9.2, java-based, LGPL licensed, I've only glanced at it, looks alright though I'm not the guy to say..
Then there're several commercial alternatives - X-Hive, Birdstep, Virtuoso, et al. - but this is Slashdot so..
Well, someone called Ron Bourret has compiled a full-bodied overview of XML databases, and have a big list of XML/DB links too (some link-rot). Goto.
I agree that we need (to learn) to communicate better with... that's the thing, isn't it - how and with whom?
*users hand-waving vigourously*
Was/isn't marketing supposed to "fill that gap" between producers and consumers? And we got advertising, we've ended up with info/com/mercials and corporate bullshit as in this latest example from HP. You write:
...it's really not that hard to interpret Marketsp'aek positively
Why, I ask, why the fsk should we have to interpret what corporations say? It's what we get with marketing. Your solution (I could misinterpret) seems to be improving communication with marketing people.
I say to hell with marketing people and shame on all of us for the utter mess we've created. My bet would be to improve direct communication and cooperation with the people we do business with.
Weinberger, Locke, Searls, et al., discuss these matters over at Cluetrain.org. Check it out. (The gist: marketing obfuscate and obstruct real conversation, and advertising is a piss-poor substitute for knowledge creation.)
What I feel open source (and even more so FSF - GNU) is doing, is fundamentally blur the dividing line between "producer" and "consumer". But even more importantly, the free software (and to some extent, open source) movement(s) spell out, in blazing capitals, very real alternatives to marketing drones, legalese, and commercials. It's called communication, enabled by freedom. To choose, to change, to get to the source, to understand, to create. Source, in this context, is much more than 'just' code.
Oh so many corporations know not the first goddammed thing about how to communicate with people. They often seem to take *pride* (something like 'we're very excited about our new ad campaign...') in talking to "the market", as anyone apart from sleeping beauty knows painfully well.
Umm.. programming ability of
(company) xyz doesn't make people 'switch'.
Had programming been the dealmaker for switching, Windows would have no users.
Well put (and we're reading, no worries:)). I would, in addition to the empowering and strategic importance of open source, like to underscore that the concepts that Linux, *BSD, GPL, BSD, the Internet, WWW, &c., provide us with, are central.
OSS to me ("free software" even more so) is about the idea and realization - the enactment - of that fundamental freedom you point out; "there is no box," like the saying goes. It's a long walk to reach that insight, and we shouldn't underestimate the power inherent in the process of (continually) grokking that.
True, it would be detrimental if Linux et al. were reduced to mere ROI, TCO or function-by-function comparisons with OSX, Windows, and the like. But focusing too much on the (sometimes perceived) *control* that source code gives us, can eventually become restricting as well.
A 'reality' Bourne (oh sorry) out of GPL, BSD, and such, where we all are mutually creating and defining the *whole* thing, is a fundamentally different 'reality', than being restricted to "think different" inside a prefab framework (eg. MS or Apple walled gardens).
Slashdot Mirror
What did it for me (apart from the non-existent acting/directing), was the double-plus-dumb premises:
I saw Paycheck half a day ago, and strongly wish I could erase that perticular memory.
As for the plausibility of erasing specific memories..
In the movie, the head-fscking machine had pedagogic monitors displaying individual neurons being "zapped"; electromagnetics? (and Affleck frowning, as if brain cells could feel..) And yeah, good luck with zapping neurons to erase memories; one down, 53 billion to go...
From what little I've read about how the brain is thought to work (consciousness being a "real-time", emergent "supernetwork effect" of sorts), I wouldn't bet on us ever having enough knowledge to tinker with the mind with any kind of higher precision.
Interesting (if OT :) ). I'm also looking at the X1 (lots of rave reviews netside..). Infocus has a "projection calculator" on their site - but it's Flash ...and that piece of abhorrance won't be installed on my system any time soon.
Perhaps you have the algorithm for calculating the projection area for the X1?
Or, if not - just so we can get a general idea what to expect: how far from the wall is your X1 today?
Got your XP Pocket Guide a few months back, and it is a very good complement to the A-W series.
Being part of a dev. team slowly migrating to XP, your Pocket Guide is really helpful. You and your editor/s obviously put a lot of effort into communicating a lot of knowledge as clearly and concisely as possible, without losing too much detail.
XP PG accomplishes that, thanks guy.
(Sorry for the OT everybody, chromatic's book was - is - right beside my laptop when I saw his post. Hadda holler..)
Disclaimer: I don't know chromatic, and am not affiliated with either O'Reilly or Addison-Wesley.
Wow, you're actually equating - in a way - your country's security with copyright... Tihi.
C'mon, lemme hear you chant "USA! USA! USA!" to really deep-freeze my bone marrow.
**AA's propaganda machines welcome another suc...soul to its (high-numbered) rung deep in Inferno.
redtail1's point and attitude is sadly a bit rare. Learning, exploring, sharing; while understanding those who "just want to get [var.thing] done". But I'd say the former is more central to the open source way, than the latter.
..once in a blue moon.) We should concentrate on finding all-the-possible-(GPL-or-BSD-compliant)-uses-under -the-sun for all this open source.
Pride in one's accomplishments is fine, but--and I'm not saying that's what the grandparent (jargoone) is doing--the bashing and negativity is so unuseful (unless very witty); stop energy as Dave Winer calls it. I mightn't like Winer very much, but I've learned plenty from him and his code.
There are things to learn, and to improve upon, everywhere. (Even stuff out of fortress Redmond
Good post, redtail1. Power to you. Sorry to go OT on y'all.
Absoredundantly, but XP AND ads every other minute. Wow.
So, where do I sign up for the electroshock-torture-and-sleep-deprivation alternative 'offer'?
If this won't bring "the masses" screaming for GPL goodness, we are probably doomed. Doomed I teel you!
Yeah, I have the 3rd edt. (oct 2002, 1st edt. came march 1993, 2nd edt. in aug 1997) right here.
Unix Power Tools. 1113 pages of goodness, although many things are way too advanced for this delicate flower. But "power grows on you", as the authors say..
Trolling AC, I must reply.
/.), but this was the first thing I realized as being fundamentally different (from proprietary IT). How could anyone miss that, and here of all places?!
/., and a million other places). And to question and tinker with the *process* itself (the open source development model).
You are missing, totally, a very important aspect of this "support" for OSS. It's too big - and off-topic, admittedly - a discussion, but nevertheless:
It's about the *process* and *culture* of open source.
I'm quite new to open source (and to
It's the *process* to learn without restrictions (lack of source, copyrights, NDAs, "biz strategy", &c.), to create while learning, to share your learnings and teach it (see sourceforge, here on
Essentially, I don't "want" any part of this *process* just handed (free or $29.95) to me. So fucking what if a company use Linux/OSS if it's just a plug-in component in a biz-as-usual ecology? Then it's just stuff, and has nothing to do with "supporting open source".
Some companies (not saying Tivo's one, I don't know enough about them) just use OSS to save cash and/or TTM, and close their own solutions - i.e. not participating in the *process*, not sharing.
If you can't take part in the *process* - the evolution - of an "innovative" product/solution, then all you have is 'just another thing' (like Windows, or a Volvo). Not necessarily bad in-and-of-itself, but certainly not related to either open source or "Linux-ness".
Open source is a (collaborative) verb.
I'm just guessing, but today, to "get the message out there" - that's mucho expensive.
If the company doesn't have tight connections in the industry and/or a strong position in geek community/culture (do they? Some geeks here are saying "poo..", &c., so..), then it might be difficult...
Maybe they just don't know *how* to get the message out (without heaps of dollahs, and a Superbowl to run ads all over).
David Rees, is that you??
(Why aren't you updating GYWO anymore? I miss it man.)
4 such posts in 8 minutes?! You going for some record? Why not go *on* record, though?
Still, excellent. Thanks
Agreed, good PMs are (at times, very) valuable. I've met one or two, one during PM training - I learned that plans change, so be flexible... (ok, so I'm not a shit-hot PM myself). As are, of course, good programmers/'coders', DBAs, system architects, HCI people, etc. ..even CEOs ;).
Perhaps my biggest gripe is this idolization of management (of any kind) I see perpetuated. Everywhere.
It's getting painfully obvious that it detached from reality quite some time ago (as in it's a team effort, and that every role is very demanding - and overlapping, when development is done right, in my experience).
Nowadays the "heroic Savior/Manager image" looks more like rationalizing vastly steeper income curves (compared to the rest of us) and bonuses than anything. Not to mention the horrific concentration of authority/power.
This powershift - I think - has artificial construct written all over it. Sure, managers are mostly competent people doing good work, but the demigod status in companies today? Suddenly managers are the only 'holistic' roles/competencies, and the rest of us are cogs(!?) Hell no.
It's demoralizing and strips people of their ability to meet challanges, to take risks, to innovate. And I believe it's ultimately destructive for everyone, thus also for the companies employing us. Powerless employees sooner rather than later regress to "low-level" whatever.
The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
Wow. Eloquent, intelligent satire. On /. The community sure is ... diverse.
;)?
Perchance an *insightful* moderation of the parent, eventhough it's only a lowly AC motherfucker
Keeping track of documentation, deliverables, schedules, budgets
But since it's these 'managers' who're doing the outsourcing, no way in hell are they outsourcing their own cabal. Enter reality re-construction #1: Management (of any kind) is indispensible! All other living matter - workers, office plants, et al. are forthwith commodities. Bring out the org. charts and let the random shuffling commence!! PowerPoint slides galore to come any week now!!!
Case in point: In the article, Mr. Johnson responsible for the quote
Since WHEN did GODDAMMED
Ok, rant completed, thanks for reading.
Yeah. I got to metamod the grandparent's troll-mod to oblivion yesterday.
True, Xindice (Apache license, has reached version 1.0) looks good (I've no experience with it), but some of the original developers (Tom Bradford - dbXML, see below, and Kimbro Staken - Syncato, also below) of the source donated to Apache think they (Apache) haven't made the most of it. I don't know if this is true, and I don't know nor have any connections with either Bradford or Staken, but they seem like competent developers; they certainly churn out code - positive sign, right?
:): Check out Kimbro Staken's weblog Inspirational Technology (who also develops Syncato, an XML database weblog system using Berkeley DB XML.):
There is choice
Consider Berkeley DB XML (currently at v1.1.0). Built on Berkeley DB and identically licensed (open source, free for non-commercial/development use, etc.); tons of APIs - can't get hold of the link but one of the developers (at least I think so) maintains a weblog of 'all' things Berkeley DB XML. Googleit.
Bradford recently released dbXML under GPL (commercial licenses available should you need it), there's a v2.0 beta available at the site.
Another native XML database is eXist, at version 0.9.2, java-based, LGPL licensed, I've only glanced at it, looks alright though I'm not the guy to say..
Then there're several commercial alternatives - X-Hive, Birdstep, Virtuoso, et al. - but this is Slashdot so..
Well, someone called Ron Bourret has compiled a full-bodied overview of XML databases, and have a big list of XML/DB links too (some link-rot). Goto.
for saying in one sentence what I tried/failed to say in several paragraphs, earlier in this thread.
Must be something to that rhetowhatchamacallit I've been hearing about.
Was/isn't marketing supposed to "fill that gap" between producers and consumers? And we got advertising, we've ended up with info/com/mercials and corporate bullshit as in this latest example from HP. You write: Why, I ask, why the fsk should we have to interpret what corporations say? It's what we get with marketing. Your solution (I could misinterpret) seems to be improving communication with marketing people.
I say to hell with marketing people and shame on all of us for the utter mess we've created. My bet would be to improve direct communication and cooperation with the people we do business with. Weinberger, Locke, Searls, et al., discuss these matters over at Cluetrain.org. Check it out. (The gist: marketing obfuscate and obstruct real conversation, and advertising is a piss-poor substitute for knowledge creation.)
What I feel open source (and even more so FSF - GNU) is doing, is fundamentally blur the dividing line between "producer" and "consumer". But even more importantly, the free software (and to some extent, open source) movement(s) spell out, in blazing capitals, very real alternatives to marketing drones, legalese, and commercials. It's called communication, enabled by freedom. To choose, to change, to get to the source, to understand, to create. Source, in this context, is much more than 'just' code.
Oh so many corporations know not the first goddammed thing about how to communicate with people. They often seem to take *pride* (something like 'we're very excited about our new ad campaign
Had programming been the dealmaker for switching, Windows would have users.
OSS to me ("free software" even more so) is about the idea and realization - the enactment - of that fundamental freedom you point out; "there is no box," like the saying goes. It's a long walk to reach that insight, and we shouldn't underestimate the power inherent in the process of (continually) grokking that.
True, it would be detrimental if Linux et al. were reduced to mere ROI, TCO or function-by-function comparisons with OSX, Windows, and the like. But focusing too much on the (sometimes perceived) *control* that source code gives us, can eventually become restricting as well.
A 'reality' Bourne (oh sorry) out of GPL, BSD, and such, where we all are mutually creating and defining the *whole* thing, is a fundamentally different 'reality', than being restricted to "think different" inside a prefab framework (eg. MS or Apple walled gardens).
An informative, insightful (modup) and carefully constructed post. Always great to see knowledge shared this well.
/. posts pales considerably in comparison though. Takes all kinds, I guess.
/Jan
Much of the rest of the