and there are multiple reasons why movies are going to be cheaper.
Really good special effects can be done with almost any computer for almost nothing.
Competition from other kind of amusements. Computer games are almost as good as movies and they are interactive. Some are better than others, but they all consume a lot of time that would have been used to watch movies.
Home theaters instead of big movie centers and cinemas. The picture quality is still better at the cinema, but you will get better sound at home today. And no annoying people farting, messing with their popcorn or burping either (unless you invite som friends).
People will wait for the extended DVD edition.
More and more of a movie can be done in a small studio instead of a big studio and still make it look like outdoors by computerized special effects.
The public is more demanding for better quality both in plot and effects. (better isn't always more, so a large fireball can be replaced by a small - the outcome will still be a fire)
Some large films are actually overdoing themselves choking the audience instead of involving them.
All this means that Hollywood has to both be better at doing good movies and cut unnecessary costs. Just having good actors won't do a good movie - even if some actors are able to lift a movie by prescense. Patrick Stewart, Kevin Spacey, Sean Connery, Samuel L. Jackson, Halle Berry and Cate Blanchett are a few that has the ability.
You may not agree on the list, and there are others too. Some directors are also better than others to make a good movie out of what may seem nothing. In my opinion Stanley Kubrick was one of the best. Not that George Lucas is that bad either. The important thing is not how you are as a person when you are a director, but the ability to use what you have and compose the result to something that ends up as a whole that is more than it's parts. Another director that also is able to get good results is Luc Besson, who is very productive, and where Nikita and Léon are two films that are worth checking.
So in my opinion - cut down on all those kerosene effects and figure out something more bone-rattling thrilling experiences. You don't have to get to all special effects just to shock the audience - use as little as possible and with a good mix. Alfred Hitchcock was good at this. Just because a film has been cheap to make doesn't mean that it has to be bad.
On the other hand - the mammals didn't originate from nothing 65 million years ago, but they were at the time more adaptable than the reptiles. This means that mammals must have existed earlier than 65 million years ago, but it is likely that they resembled mice and other small mammals and fed on insects and vegetation.
Most fossils that we actually have from the jurassic period are large and important as they seem they are likely to be the top of an iceberg where the mass of animals are likely to be small. Unfortunately - small dead animals are likely to dissolve completely or have been eaten to the very last piece. This means that finding small fossilized animals will help us to understand the evolution better - so start digging!
Since not even XP Service Pack 2 with firewall enabled is safe from intrusion it should be interesting to see how well it fares.
A friend of mine (who is an IT pro) installed a machine with Win XP, installed SP2 and enabled the firewall and then connected the machine to the internet and got infected within 20 seconds - which at least proves that the internet contain some really bad things. It also proves that M$ is rather unsuccessful when it comes to fighting off threats. It may be that Windows is more targeted than *NIX-boxes, and the reason is probably that there are a lot more of them connected to the net.
Currently most of the threats are still either proof of concept or just using machines as bots on the net. Highly annoying and consumes resources. A few are actually tapping your traffic, and if you have a bank that doesn't use a two-factor authentication with a token that also signs your transactions I would recommend you to switch bank. The mini-token is not sufficient, and the soft-token is outrageously stupid to use since if your computer is infected - then that token can be accessed without your knowledge. The use of pre-generated passwords that you get from a scratchpaper is also insufficient. Any malware may just lay dormant until you have accessed your bank that way and then when you perform your transactions it can provide you with an overlay that covers the real transactions in the background. This may happen with any solution that doesn't require a signing of the actual amount you are paying.
Me - Paranoid? Well... just because you are paraniod doesn't mean they aren't out trying to get you.
is one of the more stupid ideas. You will never be able to achieve all features you use in one single language. If you are doing development in Java you may get away most of the time, but there may be things that can't be done unless you do a different language. (of course the portability suffers, but it is a trade-off between function and availability.)
Every generation has had it's favourite language, and the big ones has been Cobol, Basic and C in history. Currently the languages Java and C# is rising, and offers flexibility that can be used and abused but in the end are far much more flexible than the early languages. Ada can be defined as a father of Java and C#, and certainly has it's place.
What you actually should focus more on is not a specific language, but how to model solutions and do efficient coding models. It doesn't matter what language you use if you aren't able to do a good system design. And system design is not something only for senior system analysts to do - even junior programmers should be involved. Start with a large meeting whith a HUGE whiteboard and a lot of pens in different colors - try ideas - even ideas that may seem stupid and explain WHY it's stupid. Break down into task groups and let each group do it's own analysis. This should be repeated through various phases in the project to be able to stay on track. A system isn't better as it's overall design - even if it incorporates solutions that are outright brilliant.
Building a system is like building a house - you use different material for different parts. The foundation the house resides on is the operating system. Utilities like electricity, gas, water and sewer are all connected at foundation level, which can be seen as C code (and optionally assembly code) and are normally part of the language you use unless you have special features. The basement is done with the basic language classes of Ada, Java or C#. As is the framework of the rest of the house. The walls are then done by extended classes of your language of choice and then all trimming, wallpapers etc. are your completely custom-built classes. There is need for different class groups in different rooms - like a kitchen and a bedroom does have different properties - so only a few properties are common, and you may even be able to accept that they don't even share these properties in an abstract base class since that may require too much interoperating time between different task forces. It all comes down to how big your project is. The re-inventing of the wheel can't be avoided every time, and if the wheel costs five minutes to invent - is it worth the time to check if it is already invented?
I think that the poles may offer a significant volume of scientific information. Of course - there are places on the equator that also are of interest, but since there is a slight chance of finding ice around the poles this is worth an attempt.
Another issue to consider is that since there are areas around the poles of the moon that haven't been exposed to the hard radiation from the sun there may also be a different environment that can contain specimens not found anywhere else. I'm thinking of the possibility to find traces of life. With traces I'm at most thinking about dormant bacteria and spores, and at least amino-acids and other carbo-hydrates and other basic building-blocks of life.
The chance of finding that around the equator is slim since all the hard radiation from the sun during the millenias has probably broken up all complex molecules.
Anyway - If that is found on the moon it may arise the question whether life actually has formed on earth or if it has begun somewhere else. For most of the time in the history of earth there haven't been around anything else than single-cell life. It's only in the last billion years that we have had more complex life-forms around.
One interesting theory around reasons for the evolution of life on earth is actually corresponding to the fact that we actually have a comparably large moon. Relate that to other planets in our system where all moons are significantly smaller compared to the planet they orbit. Mars has two small moons that are more captured asteroids than anything else - Jupiter has a large variety - as has Saturn, but compared to the bulk of those planets the moons are still minor. Pluto has a moon that is relatively large compared to it's size - but then some argues that Pluto isn't a planet - and anyway it's too cold out there for any life as we know it. (which doesn't exclude life, but would we recognize it?)
The point here in the moon as a cause for evolution is that the moon is creating tidal water and that life that lives in shallow water gained an advantage if it was able to live in an environment that was lacking water for periods. Now - every planet actually "suffers" from tides due to the star they are circling, so life may evolve there too. This altogether assumes that the planet we study actually is similar to earth. But how unique is earth? We have a planet that is geologically active - which is necessary for land to be present - if it werent we wouldn't have any land - it would have eroded and at best there would have been coral reefs. Neither Mars or Venus are geologically active. This is interesting - so why is Earth? It may actually depend on the cause that we have a large moon - not that we have a moon that is large, but why it was created - a theory assumes that the moon was created by a collision between early earth and another large object during the birth of the solar system. This undoubtedly added a large amount of kinetic energy and mixing of material in the earth all the way to the core. But until we fins another planet that is earth-like we can't really tell if we are unique or not. Considering the large number of stars out there and the possibility that the majority of them has a planet system (no reason why not) there are undoubtedly planets that are resembling earth. Some may lack water - others may have too much water and yet others may be like Venus - hot atmosphere and no water. But can we be sure that a hot planet can't sustain life? Just look at the extremophile bacteria found in places like Yellowstone or around deep-sea volcanic smoke-vents. There is life in the ice at earths polar caps too - it lives at a very slow rate - but it is there.
Personally I think that any chance that we have to gain more knowledge about the world around us (including the moon) should be probed. Since the early moon-landings all were in areas that have been exposed to the sun it may be time to check other areas. You don't know what you will find until you have turned over that stone.
Instanciate coding guidelines - code must be easy to read. Minor variation in coding flavour shouldnt be here, merely the large scope.
Avoid if...else if...else if...else if... - constructs. They are especially hard to follow, and can often be replaced by switch/case-statements.
Require large modularization of code. - No function/method should be more than about 40 to 100 lines, the fewer the better, but don't be too rigid here - some functions/methods are better of being straight-on than modularized.
Code for each case-statement in a switch should be a call to a method/function that encapsulates actions and declarations. (not always possible, but if the code exceeds 4-5 lines a function/method should be considered).
Don't nest a switch/case inside a switch/case - do the nested switch in a called function/method.
All code must be reviewed.
Test cases for each module, which requires writing a bunch f test code that can be used for regression testing changes.
Don't allow compiler warnings. (-Wall shall be used if using gcc, possibly also other options)
Declare your own types to manage code neatly.
It's better to write code cleanly than to write it in the most compact manner unless it's a real performance issue.
Document each module to describe why it is and what it is doing.
Place each class in it's own file - like Java.
Be sure to keep as much as possibly 'private' and only relax to 'protected' or 'public' when needed.
Variables in classes should have get/set methods and shouldn't be accessed directly unless there is a performance issue. Set methods can then be able to validate indata and reject or throw an exception on bad data.
If something can't be resloved without a compiler warning - think again and if still not possible - document that reason before the code review.
Run the code under analysis of leak and memory access testing software like Valgrind and/or PurifyPlus. Preferrably both during unit testing and system testing.
Be paranoid. Check for 'null' results and do detailed try/catch blocks instead of a try/catch over a large block. Using detailed checks allows you to take appropriate action on detail errors.
Instaciate an extensive beta-testing program.
Inline-declare function/methods that are broken out if they should be inline with the code for performance reasons.
Notice that PurifyPlus is a package that allows you not only to detect memory leaks and invalid memory accesses, but is also able to do performance analysis of the code with Quantify as well as checking that you actually have tested all code by the component PureCoverage. This allows you to be able to focus your work on improving application performance on the places where it really matters.
by running OSGi for that. I have been involved in a solution that acted unstable and erratically since it was running on an OSGi platform. OK, it may depend on which platform, but there are several issues around developing code on that platform. Since then OSGi has been thrown away and the application is instead executing standalone.
As I see it - OSGi is just an operating system on top of an operating system, and much of the functionality can actually be achieved easier by other means.
Otherwise - a wireless sensor network as it actually is about is fairly simple, but isn't each node in the net rather expensive? A node actually talking IP will require an IP stack and that in turn will require a fair amount of CPU power together with OSGi. But on the other hand - if the nodes are able to run IP and OSGi they are certainly able to use encryption and certificates to validate the data. Cheaper wireless sensors doesn't have enough punch to be able to do much encryption - but on the other hand you may afford to lose a couple of them before anything becomes a problem.
seems to me that RIM failed to check for prior art. In any case - If they hadn't put up claiming a patent and at the same time going harsh on possible competition - would NTP have been hard on claiming their patent then?
As I see it - there are some reasons for patents today:
Filing a patent to earn money from it's licenses
Filing a patent to avoid anybody else to claim the patent and require you to pay.
Filing a patent to kill off competition.
In any case - the real winners are the lawyers.
One must always question - is it really worth the effort to file a patent. If the patent is refused - is the filing still valid as "prior art" and therefore sufficient to be able to avoid others to claim a patent and then kick you out of the market?
Question of voting - If you can't find anything to vote FOR, figure out which one you dislike least and place your vote there - it may make a difference between getting a moron and a nerd in place.
Seems like it's a staging similar to the setup that was used whenever a foreigner were going to talk to a citizen of the Soviet Union. A "translator" was needed wherever you went.
In Clinton's case - he was lying about sexual relations more than anything, which in the end is what anybody actually can laugh at. Utterly harmless but obvious lies. (At least nobody died as a direct cause of that event unless somebody got a stroke while laughing...)
In the cause of G.W.Bush it is too obvious that it was necessary to lie to get through to political means of being able to serve two periods as a president. Starting a war against a real or inventend enemy is one way to gain popularity in the short term, but in the long term the result may be that he will end up as the least popular president since Nixon (or ever). - In war, the first victim is the truth.
As I see it - as soon as Bush declared war on terrorism - the terrorists had won their case by proving that "United States is the great Devil". Of course - Afghanistan was a little more understandable than Iraq, but the use of silent infiltration may never have to be underestimated - even if it may pop up brown spots on your uniform now and then they tend to be more of an annoyance than a real problem if you were able to catch up and prevent a terrorist action.
Sometimes the best action against a threat is just to take no action - even if it seems strange and causes an outrage for the moment. Not all terrorist groups may be infiltrated, but then it may at least be possible to identify them and circumvent their options. Just don't show the terrorists that you are desperate.
One can always consider that the data shared may also soon be obsolete. Stolen sourcecode is soon outdated, business plans change day by day etc.
The amount of critical data in a company is often very limited and can be kept under control. If more energy is put into research and less into legal battles any data loss will soon be rendered useless.
Of course - this does not apply to all data.
Movie and music copying is a more direct impact where the data is the product. However - it all comes down to the issue of additional value. If downloadable files exists but lacks certain features, like the sound in mono, missing scenes etc. and a more full-featured version is available with full surround audio, better picture quality addition etc. will be paid for by the part of the audience that really want that.
and stops displaying a minute-long splash screen whenever they are started I will consider turning off the cable box.
I think it's time for manufacturers to consider the problems that arises from spamming users with all those splash screens and delays that causes problems for users.
Another issue is that a full power-off often causes a memory loss in the device and requires a reconfiguration or software download before it's possible to watch the news (or whatever you want to watch).
Of course - not all devices are that stupid, and one way around it is to get a Master/Slave power-strip that switches on power to all sub-devices when you start the master device like the TV. By doing this you can minimize the number of standby-devices.
Start with the HTML validator at
W3C and use HTML 4.01
as your target for HTML. This will ensure that most browsers will be able to read your web pages.
If you are REALLY paranoid you may go for HTML 3.2, but personally I think that it is to stretch it too far.
Second stage is to check JavaScript version and make sure that you use the right version. E.g. <script language="javascript1.2" type="text/javascript"></script>.
O'Reilly's book JavaScript: The Definitive Guide is really helpful. It contains examples of how to determine JavaScript version if you need to use features from a newer JavaScript in some cases.
Whatever you do - DO NOT USE VBSCRIPT/JScript! (Except if you want to catch special quirks with IE).
Firefox contains two good tools that are really helpful when doing Javascript, the JavaScript console and the DOM Inspector. Of course - you will still need to verify against the older browsers too, but you will get a good start.
Use JavaScript to warn the user (in a nice manner) that there may be some problems with the browser used.
Be careful with the use of CSS. It is useful, and can make your HTML more 'clean'. The backside is that not all browsers handles CSS the same way.
When specifying sizes - always use specify the size unit.
The following three alternatives produces different result, and it may also depend on your browser:
<span style="font-size: 10px;">Hello</span><br>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">Hello</span><br>
<span style="font-size: 10;">Hello (invalid - unit must be used)</span><br>
Validate the CSS you are using through the CSS Validator
Double-check for script errors in other browsers since there are differences in the handling even though two different browsers may support the same scripting. For example - IE does not allow JavaScript to focus a hidden field while Firefox does.
Put almost all JavaScript source in an external file and don't embed it into the web page. This will make the page a lot cleaner! The same goes for CSS.
When specifying a font in CSS, give a list of fonts and end the list with one of the following; "Proportional", "Serif", "Sans-serif" or "Monospace". This will ensure that the page is displayed with a look&feel that resembles your intent.
ALWAYS specify the content type so that the correct character set is used! E.g.: <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">. W3C specifies that if it isn't given UTF-8 shall be used, but different browsers behaves differently here! Use ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8 even if your page is in plain US-ASCII, since both are supersets of US-ASCII and you may be using a symbol outside the US-ASCII range without realizing it!
As stated, Valgrind and Electric Fence are two alternatives. I would also like to point out Purify (now owned by IBM) which I have been using from time to time. Of course the catch with that tool is that it's commercial, but you should at least evaluate it.
Using a complete hardened Linux distro is not necessary for "normal" development work, but it may be a good idea to verify that your application actually works there too.
In addition to the run-time checkers you can also look for static checkers like Splint. It can provide you with some extra information about potential problems that only occurs under certain conditions that maybe aren't met during runtime.
If the effort of trying to track down stack corruption is worth it? - YES! Absolutely! Catching bugs in an early stage is essential to keep down the lifecycle cost of a system. Also consider the risk of badwill if your product is prone to strange behavior and crashes.
Notice that I stated SUPPORTS, not REQUIRES. A slight difference...
From my point of view
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
C++ has it's place, but it is agressively attacked from below (read C) and from above (read Java & C-hash (C#)).
The problem with C++ is that it is neither as simple as C nor has it the benefits of Java and C# as they allow for code that is easier to read and understand. The available tools are also better for the competing environments on the upper side.
C is still developing features at a slow but steady pace and it has inherited a few from C++. There will probably be more features inherited in the future, which will cut more into the area of C++. The difference between C and C++ is that C isn't object-oriented while C++ supports object-oriented design. But object-oriented design is not necessarily needed at the low-level programming that is used when accessing devices and similar operations, and hence C will be the choice of such programming.
At least this hack is a little funny. I have been wondering about a mouse with force-feedback and then I can't wait until I see the mouse wander over the edge of the table when infected by some strange virus...
What resolution is it possible to get with the laser mice that you can get?
One step up from using Excel as a bug tracker is to use Mantis which is simple to use and written in PHP.
Subversion or CVS as version control is about the same when it comes to a small project. Subversion is the successor to CVS and should normally be the choice unless there are other factors that makes it hard to implement.
Obviously - the boss in question is probably also rejecting ISO 9000. And I even wonder about what the accounting looks like. So it may be a good idea to silently look for another job and change before the shit hits the fan.
I'm personally considering the following rules when coding:
No compiler warnings - unless there are very strong reasons for leaving one alone.
Any kind of simple version control. (cvs, svn, cms, rcs or whatever is convenient/available)
Some kind of bug tracker - like Mantis. Excel isn't really good enough.
Write well-structured code - not necessarily with a lot of comments - but the code shall be easy to read.
If self-healing can be handled in the code - use it. (like checking if a file was closed when the finalize() method is called in Java and then close the file if it wasn't)
If possible - run the code through Purify or a similar tool.
ALWAYS braces (or what the language used dictates) around the body of an IF-statement.
Each method/function shall have a comment describing that comment. (OK, I'm not always doing this)
Try to keep variables fairly short - too long variable names cuts down on the readability.
Use of single letter variables are permitted - using the old-fashioned variables i, j and k as index variables in loops.
Indent code properly - using SPACES to get compatibility with most editors. Eclipse is fairly good at this.
Align the braces so that an opening brace is in the same column as a closing brace - this makes the code a lot easier to read than if an opening brace is over the right edge somewhere.
Keep opening/closing braces on their own line. - Yet another readability issue.
DropMyRights is much better since it allows for dropping the rights of any program. The eCondom is very specialized and limited in use - it is only supporting IE, and even then only when it's your primary browser, it even refuses to install unless IE is your primary choice.
The BAD sides with DropMyRights:
It's a pure command-line tool. A GUI toolbar for starting a user-configurable list of tools would have made that tool a lot more user-friendly and acceptable as a tool for corporate use.
The functionality should have been incorporated in Windows from the beginning as a "Run As..." function and a shortcut property.
Various applications requires various limitations in rights. The DropMyRights is using pre-defined levels, but if an application requires a certain facility provided by admin rights it should only get access to that right and not everything.
Of course - a companion program to DropMyRights would be something that analyzes an application for the required rights (rights needed for the application to run) as well as optional rights (rights needed only for special functionality).
Right now it seems to ONLY support IE, and even IE as a primary browser. If you don't have IE as a primary browser it refuses to install.
I actually would like to see this program a little more intelligent and used for most bread&butter programs in use like the MS Office programs (Especially Outlook) as well as other web browsers.
There is actually a point in locking out (blacklisting) IP addresses from where a brute force is attempted. This since those bots often try one site at a time and scans for known login/passwords. It isn't that common that an attacker uses several different sources at the same time when attacking a site unless it's a DOS attack.
Blacklisting will at least make it harder for stupid bots.
Slashdot Mirror
All this means that Hollywood has to both be better at doing good movies and cut unnecessary costs. Just having good actors won't do a good movie - even if some actors are able to lift a movie by prescense. Patrick Stewart, Kevin Spacey, Sean Connery, Samuel L. Jackson, Halle Berry and Cate Blanchett are a few that has the ability.
You may not agree on the list, and there are others too. Some directors are also better than others to make a good movie out of what may seem nothing. In my opinion Stanley Kubrick was one of the best. Not that George Lucas is that bad either. The important thing is not how you are as a person when you are a director, but the ability to use what you have and compose the result to something that ends up as a whole that is more than it's parts. Another director that also is able to get good results is Luc Besson, who is very productive, and where Nikita and Léon are two films that are worth checking.
So in my opinion - cut down on all those kerosene effects and figure out something more bone-rattling thrilling experiences. You don't have to get to all special effects just to shock the audience - use as little as possible and with a good mix. Alfred Hitchcock was good at this. Just because a film has been cheap to make doesn't mean that it has to be bad.
On the other hand - the mammals didn't originate from nothing 65 million years ago, but they were at the time more adaptable than the reptiles. This means that mammals must have existed earlier than 65 million years ago, but it is likely that they resembled mice and other small mammals and fed on insects and vegetation.
Most fossils that we actually have from the jurassic period are large and important as they seem they are likely to be the top of an iceberg where the mass of animals are likely to be small. Unfortunately - small dead animals are likely to dissolve completely or have been eaten to the very last piece. This means that finding small fossilized animals will help us to understand the evolution better - so start digging!
A friend of mine (who is an IT pro) installed a machine with Win XP, installed SP2 and enabled the firewall and then connected the machine to the internet and got infected within 20 seconds - which at least proves that the internet contain some really bad things. It also proves that M$ is rather unsuccessful when it comes to fighting off threats. It may be that Windows is more targeted than *NIX-boxes, and the reason is probably that there are a lot more of them connected to the net.
Currently most of the threats are still either proof of concept or just using machines as bots on the net. Highly annoying and consumes resources. A few are actually tapping your traffic, and if you have a bank that doesn't use a two-factor authentication with a token that also signs your transactions I would recommend you to switch bank. The mini-token is not sufficient, and the soft-token is outrageously stupid to use since if your computer is infected - then that token can be accessed without your knowledge. The use of pre-generated passwords that you get from a scratchpaper is also insufficient. Any malware may just lay dormant until you have accessed your bank that way and then when you perform your transactions it can provide you with an overlay that covers the real transactions in the background. This may happen with any solution that doesn't require a signing of the actual amount you are paying.
Me - Paranoid? Well... just because you are paraniod doesn't mean they aren't out trying to get you.
Every generation has had it's favourite language, and the big ones has been Cobol, Basic and C in history. Currently the languages Java and C# is rising, and offers flexibility that can be used and abused but in the end are far much more flexible than the early languages. Ada can be defined as a father of Java and C#, and certainly has it's place.
What you actually should focus more on is not a specific language, but how to model solutions and do efficient coding models. It doesn't matter what language you use if you aren't able to do a good system design. And system design is not something only for senior system analysts to do - even junior programmers should be involved. Start with a large meeting whith a HUGE whiteboard and a lot of pens in different colors - try ideas - even ideas that may seem stupid and explain WHY it's stupid. Break down into task groups and let each group do it's own analysis. This should be repeated through various phases in the project to be able to stay on track. A system isn't better as it's overall design - even if it incorporates solutions that are outright brilliant.
Building a system is like building a house - you use different material for different parts. The foundation the house resides on is the operating system. Utilities like electricity, gas, water and sewer are all connected at foundation level, which can be seen as C code (and optionally assembly code) and are normally part of the language you use unless you have special features. The basement is done with the basic language classes of Ada, Java or C#. As is the framework of the rest of the house. The walls are then done by extended classes of your language of choice and then all trimming, wallpapers etc. are your completely custom-built classes. There is need for different class groups in different rooms - like a kitchen and a bedroom does have different properties - so only a few properties are common, and you may even be able to accept that they don't even share these properties in an abstract base class since that may require too much interoperating time between different task forces. It all comes down to how big your project is. The re-inventing of the wheel can't be avoided every time, and if the wheel costs five minutes to invent - is it worth the time to check if it is already invented?
Another issue to consider is that since there are areas around the poles of the moon that haven't been exposed to the hard radiation from the sun there may also be a different environment that can contain specimens not found anywhere else. I'm thinking of the possibility to find traces of life. With traces I'm at most thinking about dormant bacteria and spores, and at least amino-acids and other carbo-hydrates and other basic building-blocks of life.
The chance of finding that around the equator is slim since all the hard radiation from the sun during the millenias has probably broken up all complex molecules.
Anyway - If that is found on the moon it may arise the question whether life actually has formed on earth or if it has begun somewhere else. For most of the time in the history of earth there haven't been around anything else than single-cell life. It's only in the last billion years that we have had more complex life-forms around.
One interesting theory around reasons for the evolution of life on earth is actually corresponding to the fact that we actually have a comparably large moon. Relate that to other planets in our system where all moons are significantly smaller compared to the planet they orbit. Mars has two small moons that are more captured asteroids than anything else - Jupiter has a large variety - as has Saturn, but compared to the bulk of those planets the moons are still minor. Pluto has a moon that is relatively large compared to it's size - but then some argues that Pluto isn't a planet - and anyway it's too cold out there for any life as we know it. (which doesn't exclude life, but would we recognize it?)
The point here in the moon as a cause for evolution is that the moon is creating tidal water and that life that lives in shallow water gained an advantage if it was able to live in an environment that was lacking water for periods. Now - every planet actually "suffers" from tides due to the star they are circling, so life may evolve there too. This altogether assumes that the planet we study actually is similar to earth. But how unique is earth? We have a planet that is geologically active - which is necessary for land to be present - if it werent we wouldn't have any land - it would have eroded and at best there would have been coral reefs. Neither Mars or Venus are geologically active. This is interesting - so why is Earth? It may actually depend on the cause that we have a large moon - not that we have a moon that is large, but why it was created - a theory assumes that the moon was created by a collision between early earth and another large object during the birth of the solar system. This undoubtedly added a large amount of kinetic energy and mixing of material in the earth all the way to the core. But until we fins another planet that is earth-like we can't really tell if we are unique or not. Considering the large number of stars out there and the possibility that the majority of them has a planet system (no reason why not) there are undoubtedly planets that are resembling earth. Some may lack water - others may have too much water and yet others may be like Venus - hot atmosphere and no water. But can we be sure that a hot planet can't sustain life? Just look at the extremophile bacteria found in places like Yellowstone or around deep-sea volcanic smoke-vents. There is life in the ice at earths polar caps too - it lives at a very slow rate - but it is there.
Personally I think that any chance that we have to gain more knowledge about the world around us (including the moon) should be probed. Since the early moon-landings all were in areas that have been exposed to the sun it may be time to check other areas. You don't know what you will find until you have turned over that stone.
- Instanciate coding guidelines - code must be easy to read. Minor variation in coding flavour shouldnt be here, merely the large scope.
- Avoid if...else if...else if...else if... - constructs. They are especially hard to follow, and can often be replaced by switch/case-statements.
- Require large modularization of code. - No function/method should be more than about 40 to 100 lines, the fewer the better, but don't be too rigid here - some functions/methods are better of being straight-on than modularized.
- Code for each case-statement in a switch should be a call to a method/function that encapsulates actions and declarations. (not always possible, but if the code exceeds 4-5 lines a function/method should be considered).
- Don't nest a switch/case inside a switch/case - do the nested switch in a called function/method.
- All code must be reviewed.
- Test cases for each module, which requires writing a bunch f test code that can be used for regression testing changes.
- Don't allow compiler warnings. (-Wall shall be used if using gcc, possibly also other options)
- Declare your own types to manage code neatly.
- It's better to write code cleanly than to write it in the most compact manner unless it's a real performance issue.
- Document each module to describe why it is and what it is doing.
- Place each class in it's own file - like Java.
- Be sure to keep as much as possibly 'private' and only relax to 'protected' or 'public' when needed.
- Variables in classes should have get/set methods and shouldn't be accessed directly unless there is a performance issue. Set methods can then be able to validate indata and reject or throw an exception on bad data.
- If something can't be resloved without a compiler warning - think again and if still not possible - document that reason before the code review.
- Run the code under analysis of leak and memory access testing software like Valgrind and/or PurifyPlus. Preferrably both during unit testing and system testing.
- Be paranoid. Check for 'null' results and do detailed try/catch blocks instead of a try/catch over a large block. Using detailed checks allows you to take appropriate action on detail errors.
- Instaciate an extensive beta-testing program.
- Inline-declare function/methods that are broken out if they should be inline with the code for performance reasons.
Notice that PurifyPlus is a package that allows you not only to detect memory leaks and invalid memory accesses, but is also able to do performance analysis of the code with Quantify as well as checking that you actually have tested all code by the component PureCoverage. This allows you to be able to focus your work on improving application performance on the places where it really matters.For code written in C you can use Splint
As I see it - OSGi is just an operating system on top of an operating system, and much of the functionality can actually be achieved easier by other means.
Otherwise - a wireless sensor network as it actually is about is fairly simple, but isn't each node in the net rather expensive? A node actually talking IP will require an IP stack and that in turn will require a fair amount of CPU power together with OSGi. But on the other hand - if the nodes are able to run IP and OSGi they are certainly able to use encryption and certificates to validate the data. Cheaper wireless sensors doesn't have enough punch to be able to do much encryption - but on the other hand you may afford to lose a couple of them before anything becomes a problem.
As I see it - there are some reasons for patents today:
- Filing a patent to earn money from it's licenses
- Filing a patent to avoid anybody else to claim the patent and require you to pay.
- Filing a patent to kill off competition.
In any case - the real winners are the lawyers.One must always question - is it really worth the effort to file a patent. If the patent is refused - is the filing still valid as "prior art" and therefore sufficient to be able to avoid others to claim a patent and then kick you out of the market?
Question of voting - If you can't find anything to vote FOR, figure out which one you dislike least and place your vote there - it may make a difference between getting a moron and a nerd in place.
Seems like it's a staging similar to the setup that was used whenever a foreigner were going to talk to a citizen of the Soviet Union. A "translator" was needed wherever you went.
I have him on ice in my freezer waiting for the bounty to rise ;-)
In Clinton's case - he was lying about sexual relations more than anything, which in the end is what anybody actually can laugh at. Utterly harmless but obvious lies. (At least nobody died as a direct cause of that event unless somebody got a stroke while laughing...)
In the cause of G.W.Bush it is too obvious that it was necessary to lie to get through to political means of being able to serve two periods as a president. Starting a war against a real or inventend enemy is one way to gain popularity in the short term, but in the long term the result may be that he will end up as the least popular president since Nixon (or ever). - In war, the first victim is the truth.
As I see it - as soon as Bush declared war on terrorism - the terrorists had won their case by proving that "United States is the great Devil". Of course - Afghanistan was a little more understandable than Iraq, but the use of silent infiltration may never have to be underestimated - even if it may pop up brown spots on your uniform now and then they tend to be more of an annoyance than a real problem if you were able to catch up and prevent a terrorist action.
Sometimes the best action against a threat is just to take no action - even if it seems strange and causes an outrage for the moment. Not all terrorist groups may be infiltrated, but then it may at least be possible to identify them and circumvent their options. Just don't show the terrorists that you are desperate.
The amount of critical data in a company is often very limited and can be kept under control. If more energy is put into research and less into legal battles any data loss will soon be rendered useless.
Of course - this does not apply to all data.
Movie and music copying is a more direct impact where the data is the product. However - it all comes down to the issue of additional value. If downloadable files exists but lacks certain features, like the sound in mono, missing scenes etc. and a more full-featured version is available with full surround audio, better picture quality addition etc. will be paid for by the part of the audience that really want that.
I think it's time for manufacturers to consider the problems that arises from spamming users with all those splash screens and delays that causes problems for users.
Another issue is that a full power-off often causes a memory loss in the device and requires a reconfiguration or software download before it's possible to watch the news (or whatever you want to watch).
Of course - not all devices are that stupid, and one way around it is to get a Master/Slave power-strip that switches on power to all sub-devices when you start the master device like the TV. By doing this you can minimize the number of standby-devices.
The following three alternatives produces different result, and it may also depend on your browser:
<span style="font-size: 10px;">Hello</span><br>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">Hello</span><br>
<span style="font-size: 10;">Hello (invalid - unit must be used)</span><br>
Validate the CSS you are using through the CSS Validator
Using a complete hardened Linux distro is not necessary for "normal" development work, but it may be a good idea to verify that your application actually works there too.
In addition to the run-time checkers you can also look for static checkers like Splint. It can provide you with some extra information about potential problems that only occurs under certain conditions that maybe aren't met during runtime.
If the effort of trying to track down stack corruption is worth it? - YES! Absolutely! Catching bugs in an early stage is essential to keep down the lifecycle cost of a system. Also consider the risk of badwill if your product is prone to strange behavior and crashes.
Notice that I stated SUPPORTS, not REQUIRES. A slight difference...
The problem with C++ is that it is neither as simple as C nor has it the benefits of Java and C# as they allow for code that is easier to read and understand. The available tools are also better for the competing environments on the upper side.
C is still developing features at a slow but steady pace and it has inherited a few from C++. There will probably be more features inherited in the future, which will cut more into the area of C++. The difference between C and C++ is that C isn't object-oriented while C++ supports object-oriented design. But object-oriented design is not necessarily needed at the low-level programming that is used when accessing devices and similar operations, and hence C will be the choice of such programming.
What resolution is it possible to get with the laser mice that you can get?
Should read: "Each method/function shall have a comment describing that method/function"
Subversion or CVS as version control is about the same when it comes to a small project. Subversion is the successor to CVS and should normally be the choice unless there are other factors that makes it hard to implement.
Obviously - the boss in question is probably also rejecting ISO 9000. And I even wonder about what the accounting looks like. So it may be a good idea to silently look for another job and change before the shit hits the fan.
I'm personally considering the following rules when coding:
DropMyRights is much better since it allows for dropping the rights of any program. The eCondom is very specialized and limited in use - it is only supporting IE, and even then only when it's your primary browser, it even refuses to install unless IE is your primary choice.
The BAD sides with DropMyRights:
Of course - a companion program to DropMyRights would be something that analyzes an application for the required rights (rights needed for the application to run) as well as optional rights (rights needed only for special functionality).
I actually would like to see this program a little more intelligent and used for most bread&butter programs in use like the MS Office programs (Especially Outlook) as well as other web browsers.
Blacklisting will at least make it harder for stupid bots.