Forget to feed your computer and it crashes.
Forget to change the litter and it stinks.
It's an XX cpu and will only play games and search Google for pr0n.
It's an XY cpu and is really only good for about one week out of the month.
Overclocking hell, let's give this beauty some psychadelics!
Spill beer on it and all it wants is Country & Western mp3z!
Don't even start about a virus.
Microsoft's language offerings are the result of some other people's way of deciding how things should work. While Microsoft is not alone in this practice, they are the topic of this article. I can't even count the times that I have seen the following: A programmer sits at an IDE, and on the screen is something like this:
Private Sub Command1_Click()
End Sub
What they will do in the process is to go out and grab a bunch of someone else's code, paste it in there, and change the names of a few things. It really bothers me that the product of this process is even called software. At best shouldn't it be called 'macro-gramming?' Sorry to be such a stickler, but does that programmer have any idea what really goes on when that button is pushed? When the end users need a change that is not an exposed property or method of the pre-packaged object, what can they do? They probably have more creative skills when it comes to making excuses than they do at actually programming. Hell, we've all done it. It seemed like a good idea at the time to just slap together a few goodies, make it look pretty and ship it out the door. But what you end up doing is letting someone else make all the really important decisions for you. If you're lucky enough to be able to satisfy all the demands you encounter that way then more power to you.
In order to learn the principles of computer programming, less is more in my book. The more computer science you know, the less dependent on any particular set of tools you become. When code is dear and time consuming to write debug test and maintain, you will be absolutely amazed on how little of it you can get by on. Take the same algorithm and implement it in a couple different formats, languages, compilers, etc. See how many instructions it actually becomes when it gets run. See where different efficiencies of speed or size become important. Try some Python to see what can really be done in an interpreted environment. Try a C compiler. Try looking for a couple of algorithms and see which one performs better and be able to describe why. Then, no matter what tools you end up using, you will have a much better idea of what is going on, how to make it both secure and efficient from the start.
You're absolutely correct! Compile to native code aside, while most of the calls to the dll can be minimized, I'm thinking more along the lines of VarPtr & AddressOf. But then my first copy of AppleSoft][ was an Integer Basic program that poked the assembly into memory and then jumped to it. However, for some special occasions I still have a copy of Visual Basic for DOS 1.0 and even the QBasic 4.5 compiler! And when all else fails there's MASM.
Until Visual Studio returns the ability to create a stand alone executable program there will always be a place for VB6. Microsoft could not have made their AntiSpyware without it!
Guess I'm just too old school. Usually there is both a direct and specific task to accomplish and a minimum amount of code that will do it. For me it is unattractive to munge an elegant representation of the task so that it will fit within the constraints of a framework. When I first got into Zope I wanted to express everything in products and DTML or TAL, but I ended up putting almost everything in external methods in Python, because it was so much more direct. Then I started doing minimal imports or just digging what I needed out of modules and in-lining it. There's no more and no less code than is needed to do the job and almost zero risk of something getting broken as the supporting code changes. Within any good code a framework of sorts will usually develop of its own accord. But it's properties are specific to the task at hand. Over generalized frameworks are very easy to use, but I've never seen one that was flexible enough lend itself to self-minimilization. Take the time to step through the machine code that one of these beasties generates and see how much of it is actually performing your assigned task. It will quickly become clear that most of those cycles are there for the framework's benefit, not to do the work that needs to be done.
I think that all this eye candy, IDE's, frameworks, etc. are more of a hindrance than a help. They certainly don't do anything to improve programmer's skills either. I see people start thinking in terms of their tools (when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail) and pretty soon they can generate 10,000 lines of code in 10 minutes, but can't add feature X because the framework doesn't support it and they can't even find where in the generated code to begin to modify it to try and accomplish the task. The pity of it is that there's usually a really direct way to do what is necessary, that will run faster, accomplish more with less resources, and improve maintainability. But it may not be as easy to a novice programmer who realizes that with the framework they only have to write 5 lines of code and name two objects. He doesn't care that it takes a lot more resources, or that he can no longer actually determine what is and isn't needed to do the job, because he can't even think that way any more.
I'd like to see political correctness removed from programming and let's bring the computer science back into it. It would be much more advantageous if we started mastering the algorithms and the science behind them than to keep arguing about who's gui widget is 'cooler' to use.
OK, With the NDA you may have legal grounds to sue their asses off, but what happens when you have to do this with some other company, and the one after that? How can you know who leaked it? Just do what the CIA/NSA/DOD et al have been doing for years. Make small almost insignificant modifications, (comments, variable names, etc) so that each version is slightly different. Get the names of who will actually be handling the code from their side and supply each with a different tainted version. So, when and if your source does show up in the wrong hands, you have a higher probablity of identifying specifically where it came from.
If you google Google you will see a list of critics, detractors and alternatives, after a few pages of Google top ranking itself. While there are some crackpots there is also some pretty interesting stuff; certainly worth the effort.
My ISP has already done this. Fortunately, in the new tiered system I was at a bracket that already met my needs. So there was no 'net' disadvantage for me, and I can now get more that I would have ever been allowed under my existing agreement by electing to go to the higher tier.
Pixar has a special ability and place in the movie industry. Don't let it fall in the hands of Disney. Sure keep them as a client, keep them happy, whatever...
They will never really appreciate Pixar and they will run it into the ground if you let them. Just day NO!
Back in the late 60's and early 70's I used to love my Minolta 16 http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/minol16e.htm. This camera used 16 mm film, and I used to reload the cartridges in a light proof bak from a reel of 16mm film. It fit nicely in a shirt or pants pocket ans was pretty rugged for it's day. Loaded up with some Tri-X and pushed up to about 1600 it was pretty good for party pics without flash.
In a company of that size you can make a lot of money. But what's the real reward? In the academic situation, even as an administrator, you have the opportunity to help the next generation of IT graduates. Often the practical assistance that you may have the opportunity to share with the students will be more valuable to them than any of the student/faculty interaction available to them. The opportunity to provide a select few students, as part of a work study program, with practical knowledge and skills will help them for the rest of their lives. That's something that you can't buy.
Let's take a look at rights management. When recordings were made on wax cylinders, there was little or no concern for what rights could and could not be protected. Granted you had to speak or sing in a stage voice to make any kind of decent impression on the wax, and that brought about a somewhat unique situation in that while everyone who used the technology could both make recordings and play back with the same device, it was practically useless for either copying or mass production.
Next came 78's. These were cast in a mold and made of the miracle plastic bakelite. Since the recording machinery was expensive and complex, as was the disk manufacturing process, the door was opened to both rights management and mass production. Improvements in technology lead to the 45 and the 33 &1/3 LP & EP albums.
While the technologies which used mechanical force were dominating the marketplace, a competing technology, based on magnetic recording also existed. Magnetic recording was less expensive, and much harder to mass-produce, but it was capable of making copies fairly easily. The new difficulty was that a small portion of the magnetic image was erased every time it was played.
Finally the digital technology emerged as the primary vehicle for copyrighted audio materials. At first it was not a problem, because individual users were unable to afford the technology to duplicate and/or create recordings which were theoretically perfect copies. But today it's hard to get a computer that can't accomplish this feat. So the audio industry turned to the promise of DRM. Unfortunately, though it will take many more incidents like Sony's debacle, we will reach a level of understanding where we realize that as long as the technology is in the hands of everyone that can duplicate these forms of media, that they will be copied.
The only way that we will see any form of successful rights management will be for the audio industry to develop a technology which is as popular and as acceptable as the LP. It may take the form of a holographic crystal or some other 'futuristic' media. But as long as the ability to manipulate the bits is available to end users, DRM will continue to fail. IMHO it is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the audio industry to believe that there will ever be a digital solution to a digital problem. In the meantime I believe that any damage to computers and infrastructure brought on by companies who cannot accept the fact that DRM will never work should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Often, we have developed an unrealistic set of expectations that surround the holidays. Our culture has told us repeatedly that we should feel a certain way, and that if we don't that we are bad. That's total bullshit! We are who we are, and the sooner we accept it the better off we'll all be.
Similarly, we need to recognize that we are not dependent on others 'to make us happy' nor are they dependent on us for their happiness. Face it, no one can make you happy and you can't make anyone else happy. People choose to be happy, or they don't; and that's their business.
Realistic expectations can uncomplicate things quite a bit. Those expectations may be about any number of things, people, the weather, or whatever; especially about ourselves. It's unrealistic to expect to always feel good. Experiencing life is a series of ups and downs. The ups we really enjoy, but we learn the value of the ups from the downs.
A 'perfect life' would be maddeningly boring and ultimately valueless. Just look at all the rich and well to do that are chronically depressed! Look at the poor who have almost nothing jet remain optimistic! Part of that revolves around a quirk of brain chemistry, just like we tend not to notice a bad smell if we're around it long enough, the brain begins to ignore certain chemical stimuli after they have been around for long enough.
IMHO the trick it to realize what is being experienced, and savor it for the value that it represents to us, for the opportunity it represents to experience our life to the fullest, but then just let it go. That letting go both prevents obsessive attachment to the experience, but it also enables us to become aware of the next experience and revel in our ability to explore our feelings.
Take a moment to experience a cup of plain unsweetened hot tea. First, smell the dry tea, then you have to focus on heating the water, then steeping the tea. Now smell the wet tea. The smell of the tea is much lighter when dry and very strong when warm and wet from the steeping. All you did was put it in hot water, but the experience has transformed both the tea and you! Pour the tea into a cup and hold it. It warms the hands, and the steamy sent excites the sense of smell. Taste it. In reality, no too sips are quite the same. Each time the chemistry changes slightly in the mouth and on the taste buds. Each time the reaction of the brain changes. The temperature changes as it cools, the flavor reaches a peak of intensity. There is some bitterness, but then after the cup empties, a sweetness, the rebound of the taste buds and the brain, becomes recognizable.
Sometimes we need to be steeped in a little hot water to realize our own emotional state, experience and accept it, and let it go. And when you realize what that experience can be like, what you can get from a simple cup of tea; try sharing it with a friend. Don't be afraid to explore some ideas from other cultures. Eastern religions and philosophies abound with different strategies to appreciate and experience life from other perspectives. Whatever you believe, cultivate your appreciation of it in your daily life. Develop your center. Choose to be yourself.
Captchas work by creating something that is easier for a human to decipher than a machine. An analog on a Braille display might be to keep changing the keys in patterns where the end users can 'feel' the phrase stand out against the 'noise.' To the bot it will look like a random string or characters, but as the words repeat, a few letters here, a few letters there, eventually the blind-deaf user will realize the hidden content.
If there is you're pretty well (insert explicative). On the other hand, if there is not one I'suggest starting to call some of those customers and see how happy they are with the service being provided by the new, smaller, (and hopefully less responsive) old company. Determine from an economic standpoint what you can realistically afford to charge to cover your expenses and get back on the horse that threw you. My guess is that you can afford as a startup to charge significantly less than the old company did since you're not having to inflate your budget to cover the cost of bigwigs who needed to cut expenses to cover their bonuses in the first place. It's happened before.
Java takes up the COBOL banner 'Java-Correctness'
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
COBOL (IMHO) was written by accountants for accountants and I distictly remember agnozing over each and every byte. I think that what will doom Java is a form of political correctness that reminds me of COBOL. In Java, there are many less right ways to do something. Java Correctness means that there must be some sort of inherent bias in the design of the language, or in the leadership of it's development. If there is one thing that I have learned is that programmers do not think alike nor do they code alike. How can one define the productivity losses imposed by a language that has a 'correct' way of doing something? By contrast, I believe that Giudo keeps python as open as humanly possible. That, in no small measure, contributes to the reality of increased productivity with python.
So, what do you want to do today; be correct or be productive?
After experiemnting with Pandora for a while I noticed something. IMHO it appears to be 'leading' the user toward more mainstream music, which sounds like the stuff their sponsors are trying to sell. As I explored the offerings, the more I accepted, I found myself further from the Songs/Groups that sounded like what I was interested in. A couple of quick Thumbs Down would bring me right back on track, for a song or two. YMMV
Slashdot Mirror
So true, so true. That's what I get for not Previewing . . .
Forget to feed your computer and it crashes.
Forget to change the litter and it stinks.
It's an XX cpu and will only play games and search Google for pr0n.
It's an XY cpu and is really only good for about one week out of the month.
Overclocking hell, let's give this beauty some psychadelics!
Spill beer on it and all it wants is Country & Western mp3z!
Don't even start about a virus.
Private Sub Command1_Click()
End Sub
What they will do in the process is to go out and grab a bunch of someone else's code, paste it in there, and change the names of a few things. It really bothers me that the product of this process is even called software. At best shouldn't it be called 'macro-gramming?' Sorry to be such a stickler, but does that programmer have any idea what really goes on when that button is pushed? When the end users need a change that is not an exposed property or method of the pre-packaged object, what can they do? They probably have more creative skills when it comes to making excuses than they do at actually programming. Hell, we've all done it. It seemed like a good idea at the time to just slap together a few goodies, make it look pretty and ship it out the door. But what you end up doing is letting someone else make all the really important decisions for you. If you're lucky enough to be able to satisfy all the demands you encounter that way then more power to you.
In order to learn the principles of computer programming, less is more in my book. The more computer science you know, the less dependent on any particular set of tools you become. When code is dear and time consuming to write debug test and maintain, you will be absolutely amazed on how little of it you can get by on. Take the same algorithm and implement it in a couple different formats, languages, compilers, etc. See how many instructions it actually becomes when it gets run. See where different efficiencies of speed or size become important. Try some Python to see what can really be done in an interpreted environment. Try a C compiler. Try looking for a couple of algorithms and see which one performs better and be able to describe why. Then, no matter what tools you end up using, you will have a much better idea of what is going on, how to make it both secure and efficient from the start.
You're absolutely correct! Compile to native code aside, while most of the calls to the dll can be minimized, I'm thinking more along the lines of VarPtr & AddressOf. But then my first copy of AppleSoft][ was an Integer Basic program that poked the assembly into memory and then jumped to it. However, for some special occasions I still have a copy of Visual Basic for DOS 1.0 and even the QBasic 4.5 compiler! And when all else fails there's MASM.
Until Visual Studio returns the ability to create a stand alone executable program there will always be a place for VB6. Microsoft could not have made their AntiSpyware without it!
I think that all this eye candy, IDE's, frameworks, etc. are more of a hindrance than a help. They certainly don't do anything to improve programmer's skills either. I see people start thinking in terms of their tools (when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail) and pretty soon they can generate 10,000 lines of code in 10 minutes, but can't add feature X because the framework doesn't support it and they can't even find where in the generated code to begin to modify it to try and accomplish the task. The pity of it is that there's usually a really direct way to do what is necessary, that will run faster, accomplish more with less resources, and improve maintainability. But it may not be as easy to a novice programmer who realizes that with the framework they only have to write 5 lines of code and name two objects. He doesn't care that it takes a lot more resources, or that he can no longer actually determine what is and isn't needed to do the job, because he can't even think that way any more.
I'd like to see political correctness removed from programming and let's bring the computer science back into it. It would be much more advantageous if we started mastering the algorithms and the science behind them than to keep arguing about who's gui widget is 'cooler' to use.
Now where did I put that fire suit ...
A High Tech Horizontal Beverage Containment Device: http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/mugs/5d28/
OK, With the NDA you may have legal grounds to sue their asses off, but what happens when you have to do this with some other company, and the one after that? How can you know who leaked it? Just do what the CIA/NSA/DOD et al have been doing for years. Make small almost insignificant modifications, (comments, variable names, etc) so that each version is slightly different. Get the names of who will actually be handling the code from their side and supply each with a different tainted version. So, when and if your source does show up in the wrong hands, you have a higher probablity of identifying specifically where it came from.
If you google Google you will see a list of critics, detractors and alternatives, after a few pages of Google top ranking itself. While there are some crackpots there is also some pretty interesting stuff; certainly worth the effort.
My ISP has already done this. Fortunately, in the new tiered system I was at a bracket that already met my needs. So there was no 'net' disadvantage for me, and I can now get more that I would have ever been allowed under my existing agreement by electing to go to the higher tier.
Pixar has a special ability and place in the movie industry. Don't let it fall in the hands of Disney. Sure keep them as a client, keep them happy, whatever ...
They will never really appreciate Pixar and they will run it into the ground if you let them. Just day NO!
Thanks,
-/.-
Maybe it's just as important where you post as what you say...
Back in the late 60's and early 70's I used to love my Minolta 16 http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/minol16e.htm. This camera used 16 mm film, and I used to reload the cartridges in a light proof bak from a reel of 16mm film. It fit nicely in a shirt or pants pocket ans was pretty rugged for it's day. Loaded up with some Tri-X and pushed up to about 1600 it was pretty good for party pics without flash.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98942&threshol d=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=8440300
In a company of that size you can make a lot of money. But what's the real reward? In the academic situation, even as an administrator, you have the opportunity to help the next generation of IT graduates. Often the practical assistance that you may have the opportunity to share with the students will be more valuable to them than any of the student/faculty interaction available to them. The opportunity to provide a select few students, as part of a work study program, with practical knowledge and skills will help them for the rest of their lives. That's something that you can't buy.
Next came 78's. These were cast in a mold and made of the miracle plastic bakelite. Since the recording machinery was expensive and complex, as was the disk manufacturing process, the door was opened to both rights management and mass production. Improvements in technology lead to the 45 and the 33 &1/3 LP & EP albums.
While the technologies which used mechanical force were dominating the marketplace, a competing technology, based on magnetic recording also existed. Magnetic recording was less expensive, and much harder to mass-produce, but it was capable of making copies fairly easily. The new difficulty was that a small portion of the magnetic image was erased every time it was played.
Finally the digital technology emerged as the primary vehicle for copyrighted audio materials. At first it was not a problem, because individual users were unable to afford the technology to duplicate and/or create recordings which were theoretically perfect copies. But today it's hard to get a computer that can't accomplish this feat. So the audio industry turned to the promise of DRM. Unfortunately, though it will take many more incidents like Sony's debacle, we will reach a level of understanding where we realize that as long as the technology is in the hands of everyone that can duplicate these forms of media, that they will be copied.
The only way that we will see any form of successful rights management will be for the audio industry to develop a technology which is as popular and as acceptable as the LP. It may take the form of a holographic crystal or some other 'futuristic' media. But as long as the ability to manipulate the bits is available to end users, DRM will continue to fail. IMHO it is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the audio industry to believe that there will ever be a digital solution to a digital problem. In the meantime I believe that any damage to computers and infrastructure brought on by companies who cannot accept the fact that DRM will never work should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Hint-hint!
May the Farce be with You!
Similarly, we need to recognize that we are not dependent on others 'to make us happy' nor are they dependent on us for their happiness. Face it, no one can make you happy and you can't make anyone else happy. People choose to be happy, or they don't; and that's their business.
Realistic expectations can uncomplicate things quite a bit. Those expectations may be about any number of things, people, the weather, or whatever; especially about ourselves. It's unrealistic to expect to always feel good. Experiencing life is a series of ups and downs. The ups we really enjoy, but we learn the value of the ups from the downs.
A 'perfect life' would be maddeningly boring and ultimately valueless. Just look at all the rich and well to do that are chronically depressed! Look at the poor who have almost nothing jet remain optimistic! Part of that revolves around a quirk of brain chemistry, just like we tend not to notice a bad smell if we're around it long enough, the brain begins to ignore certain chemical stimuli after they have been around for long enough.
IMHO the trick it to realize what is being experienced, and savor it for the value that it represents to us, for the opportunity it represents to experience our life to the fullest, but then just let it go. That letting go both prevents obsessive attachment to the experience, but it also enables us to become aware of the next experience and revel in our ability to explore our feelings.
Take a moment to experience a cup of plain unsweetened hot tea. First, smell the dry tea, then you have to focus on heating the water, then steeping the tea. Now smell the wet tea. The smell of the tea is much lighter when dry and very strong when warm and wet from the steeping. All you did was put it in hot water, but the experience has transformed both the tea and you! Pour the tea into a cup and hold it. It warms the hands, and the steamy sent excites the sense of smell. Taste it. In reality, no too sips are quite the same. Each time the chemistry changes slightly in the mouth and on the taste buds. Each time the reaction of the brain changes. The temperature changes as it cools, the flavor reaches a peak of intensity. There is some bitterness, but then after the cup empties, a sweetness, the rebound of the taste buds and the brain, becomes recognizable.
Sometimes we need to be steeped in a little hot water to realize our own emotional state, experience and accept it, and let it go. And when you realize what that experience can be like, what you can get from a simple cup of tea; try sharing it with a friend. Don't be afraid to explore some ideas from other cultures. Eastern religions and philosophies abound with different strategies to appreciate and experience life from other perspectives. Whatever you believe, cultivate your appreciation of it in your daily life. Develop your center. Choose to be yourself.
Captchas work by creating something that is easier for a human to decipher than a machine. An analog on a Braille display might be to keep changing the keys in patterns where the end users can 'feel' the phrase stand out against the 'noise.' To the bot it will look like a random string or characters, but as the words repeat, a few letters here, a few letters there, eventually the blind-deaf user will realize the hidden content.
If there is you're pretty well (insert explicative). On the other hand, if there is not one I'suggest starting to call some of those customers and see how happy they are with the service being provided by the new, smaller, (and hopefully less responsive) old company. Determine from an economic standpoint what you can realistically afford to charge to cover your expenses and get back on the horse that threw you. My guess is that you can afford as a startup to charge significantly less than the old company did since you're not having to inflate your budget to cover the cost of bigwigs who needed to cut expenses to cover their bonuses in the first place. It's happened before.
So, what do you want to do today; be correct or be productive?
Somehow the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy doesn't seem quite so far fetched as before.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2189271708. html
After experiemnting with Pandora for a while I noticed something. IMHO it appears to be 'leading' the user toward more mainstream music, which sounds like the stuff their sponsors are trying to sell. As I explored the offerings, the more I accepted, I found myself further from the Songs/Groups that sounded like what I was interested in. A couple of quick Thumbs Down would bring me right back on track, for a song or two. YMMV