No it's not, because, frankly it doesn't affect anyone I know. People don't care. I don't care.
If an illegal alien can go and open a bank account, it's fine by me. Bank of America is not in the law enforcement business, it's in the banking business. This alien is supporting an American business by opening that bank account.
No, let's talk about predatory lending, sneaky credit card terms, deceitful charges, etc.
Let's talk about MBNA (now part of Bank of America) and BofA being some of the heaviest hitters to push through new bankruptcy law that makes everyone a peon to credit card companies, regardless of circumstances! Let's talk about the fact that an amendment to limit credit card interest rates to 30% (yes, that's thirty f'ing percent) was rejected last yaer. Yes, credit card companies did not want their interest rate limited to a cut-throat ceiling of 30%!
Let's talk about my platinum Bank of America card moving from 2 late payments (by even a day!) in 6 months to 2 late payments in 12 months to 1 late payment in 12 months before they bump your rate from a good APR to an insane 20%+ default APR. Let's talk about two-cycle billing (my roommate, who normally pays off his entire balance got bitten by this because he miscalculated and payed off a $1 less than the balance)
Let's talk about CapitalOne (and some other predatory lenders) not reporting your credit limit to the credit reporting agencies, which is ILLEGAL to do, but there is not enough activism or pressure to change that.
So yeah, let's talk about that, and then you can tell me why I should care that Bank of America issues a bank account to an illegal alien, when there are all these other topics out there that affect every damn American.
Where does it stop? Why only NSFW and nothign more?
You want a solution? Put [NSFW] in your link text, and possibly explain it in the TITLE="" attribute of the link. So people can see it right there. I mean, why would you want anything else?
The complaint from these experts is that the look of the UIs is different. Brushed metal here, but flat gun-metal gray here! OMG, that's so inconsistent!
And, sure, that is inconsistent.
But who gives a flying dog! The key is that the applications really are easy to use. What is consistent is that excellent flow of interaction, where each of those interfaces is simpler than Windows apps, much less frustrating than Windows apps. It's the reason why Apple users stays loyal to Apple: they design the user experience well.
Hell, if my Windows apps were as straightforward, I wouldn't care if each one was the color of the rainbow!
Those experts can't see the forest for the differently colored trees. Yet, I bet they are patting themselves on the back about their insightful analysis of differences.
I think that the amount of software engineering education for CS students is sorely lacking. Every CS program does have a software engineering class (at least all the ones that I've seen), but they don't really instill the design skills. I think it's a huge hole in CS students that graduate with the aim of getting a software job.
These are abstract skills that are useful in any research situation.
Just to be clear, I am criticising the CS education, and not you.
You have the motivation to go and learn, because you see a large area for improvement. So hopefully you will go and learn how to build that console emulator, or at least have a decent idea of how. And then you will be that much stronger for it.
I am sorry to sound like a complete ass, but you epitomize what's wrong with Computer Science education in the US today. Students graduate without design skills and software engineering skills. That's the huge gaping hole: lackluster design skills.
When I was taking a senior-level networks class, we had an assignment to emulate a physical layer, data link layer and the network layer. We had senior CS students who had trouble designing a prorgam to do that! The TAs spent more time explaining how to structure your program rather than how to deal with the tricky Unix socket calls! Now that is just messed up! A senior in computer science should not need instruction on how to design a program to consist of three layers!
I see this from the hiring side of the interview table. For me, a C.S. degree with a high GPA on a resume doesn't mean much. Sure, it means that many basics are there, which is good. However, it is far from a guarantee in being hired.
Yet, that degree (with a high GPA) could've meant so much more!
Sorry to espouse an unpopular opinion here.
Of course, you just need to learn that which you realize you don't know! (which is a good start)
Go and work on side projects. OSS or not, whatever scale. Go write your own utility or app of some size. Contribute to some OSS project, or try to understand how it works. Try to design an additional feature for some OSS project, not just fix a bug. Try to understand how you could add it and whether that addition is clean or hacky. The key is to practice the design skill and to get burnt many times by underdesigning, overdesigning, etc.
Read good books (Design Patterns by Erich, Gamma et all [essential], Effective C++ by Meyers [essential], Refactoring by Fowler, Refactoring to Patterns). Read the wiki on c2.com.
I see other posters have mentioned many good strategies.
You telling me that Linux was more polished?? You have gotta be kidding me!
Godawful performance problems? You kid me too, as the performance of Windows is not godawful--it may not be as fast as a proper BSD server, but it's not in the toilet either.
In the last 3 years, I haven't seen any ugly desktops from the major distros, such as RH or SuSE. They may not be beautiful, but they aren't ugly.
Make shit work! Let the user get shit done with no bullshit!
"Make Linux 'Gorgeous'" is delusional rambling of someone living in a Linux world bubble, where everything seems known and obvious: "well, it's already easy to use, but it's still not popular?!?! Well, shit, why is that? Oh, I know, it's not beautiful enough! Quick, more transparent terminals!"
Too often while installing Linux desktops, I am apalled at the crap that I have to go through to get it to work well.
Think of any single time that you opened up a terminal and went to tweak something in a config file to solve a problem! That single time is one time too many.
Why aren't more users using Linux? Because it's not EASY!
I don't know of any Linux distro that was designed with an ease-of-use make-shit-work no-bullshit vision from the ground up. Having intensively worked with Linux for a couple of years, I am not surprised, because once you know the details of running a Linux box, it's very easy to become complacent and very difficult to step back and reason about the true ease-of-use Linux experience.
If I were designing a Linux distro for a typical desktop user, I would spend all my time at war with all things Linux. I would write out on the wall every single stupid thing, every single expose-the-implementation config file, and then I would design a distro that saved the user from all that. I would consider every issue as a battle of the user trying to get things done and Linux getting in the way, and I would not be finished until the user trampled the defacto way of doing Linux things.
I haven't the experience that some of the engineers hanging around here have, so please take what I say with a grain of salt.
However, the article appears to be far too idealistic.
1) The only good schedule is a realistic schedule. If the schedule is intentionally compressed, it's a bad schedule. The only way to compress your schedule is to cut work (e.g. features).
1.5) Working under the "hurry hurry hurry" "boss wants it yesterday" environment means your engineers will cut corners everywhere. When faced with a choice to copy/paste a function in 15 minutes vs. taking some time to refactor and reuse the code in 1 hour, engineers will choose the earlier. In my experience, design debt then accumulates really fast.
2) Code reviews as suggested in the article are a drag (2.5 hours at a time?!). In my experience, they rarely get anything useful done: it's usually too late to make medium or major changes and under the gun (see 1.5) engineers will scoff at "wasting time" with minor changes. From what I've seen, the code reviews serve mostly as a cover-your-ass mechanism for management.
Code reviews need to be short (30-45mins) and happen as soon as possible, while the original engineer has all of the reasoning and decisions in his head. Hot-on-the-heels code-reviews of bug fixes and feature check-ins (especially useful for bug fixes).
Perhaps the code reviews need to happen as the code is written (sometimes I ask my coworkers to show me their draft solutions). That's almost pair programming though. Unfortunately, that's not practiced at my job, and so I have no expereince with pair programming.
3) Estimates. What the article described seemed to be a basic process for doing the SWAGs and the engineering time estimates that we all "know and love." I fail to see the novelty in the proposed approach: it seems to be run of the mill waterfall stuff.
It's so easy to say "break down estimates into small tasks, so you can estimate well." However, I found it very difficult to do so effectively. Pardon the Rumsfeld flavor, but often we just don't know what we don't know: stumbling blocks occur, requirements drift or get "clarified", surprises abound. Pressuring developers to provide task breakdowns and estimates past their knowledge point can create a false sense of security (i.e. misleading task estimates). I've seen many such a small task breakdown become trash as the project progressed.
Often, to get a better idea of the remaining work and tasks, prototype work is required or some progress on key features.
I have no good answer for this problem, but my feeling is that it lies somewhere in the realm of being able to react quickly to change and reevaluate the project's progress. This is where things like smaller tasks and more frequent completion points of features seem to help. At that point, changing direction is easier because you have fewer concurrent unfinished tasks.
This is where the smaller tasks and frequent iterations of the XP fame seem to be a benefit. Unfortunately, many managers can't take the thought of not having a detailed per-small-task project plan in their MS Project window. So, in my unfortunate experience, such managers attempt XP-style iterations, but then quickly regress into more traditional long-term milestones. I've seen it happen time and again.
How much yen do you want to bet that it's one of those stupid "Are you sure?" dialog boxes that everyone clicks "Yes" to without actually thinking about what it's asking? Ah, how I love ignoring those warnings, too.
I think it goes to show that the "Are you sure?" dialog boxes are not the safeguard answer that everyone seems to think it is. How many developers I know say: "oh, we just need a confirmation here." Yeah, so much for that.
The answer, IMO, is UNDO. That should've been a separate key on the keyboard.
I find that Microsoft has quite a few "lone wolves" like this. The "wolf" here is not just Hilf: it's his entire group (as small as it is against the rest of Microsoft).
For example, I went to a presentation at Microsoft about the new Visual Studio 2005 and the "Team System" upsell from the Professional version. Many cool features (refactoring, class designer) in VS2005 Team System were oriented at C# or, at best, managed environments. When people in audience asked: "what about C++? Will this be available for C++?", the answer was: "Microsoft wants you to use C# and.NET going forward." The Microsoft evangelists/reps blatantly said: "Microsoft wants to phase out C++, leaving it only to really low-level applications, such as device drivers."
I walked away from the presentation feeling that C++ was treated as a third-class citizen. However, after reading some e-mails from VC++ 2005 managers and reading MSDN weblogs (in one of them, the lead dev on the refactoring feature expresses deep regret at not being able to get C++ refactoring in for the VS2005 release), seeing C++ experts like Herb Sutter work for Microsoft, etc, one realizes that C++ is still very important for Microsoft (and, hell, it sure is with millions of developers and thousands of new C++ APIs in Longhorn). It's just that the evangelists at the Microsoft presentation didn't know anything better than ".NET.NET.NET."
Write smaller methods. Give those methods clear names. Give clear names to identifiers. Do not repeat the type in the identifier name if it doesn't help identify the purpose of the identifier.
All of these steps lead to code much clearer than similar comments, in my experience.
Aside from the std::vector(n, initialValue) constructor, which fills the vector with n copies of the initialValue, you can use the boost::assign library. From the doc: "The purpose of this library is to make it easy to fill containers with data..."
A comma-separated list:
vector<int> v; v += 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9;
A parenthesis-separated list:
map<string,int> m; insert( m )( "Bar", 1 )( "Foo", 2 );
Repeats:
vector<int> v; v += 1,2,3,repeat(10,4),5,6,7,8,9; // v = [1,2,3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,5,6,7,8,9]
I won't argue the relative merits of C++ to other languages. For many organizations, switching from C++ (regardless of whether it would make things easier) is often not an option, and not considered as an option. I will also not argue whether that is bad.
The fact is, there's a huge C++ user and code base out there, and if they are going to stick with C++, there's exciting stuff coming.
I feel that C++ is having its second coming, primarily due to developments like the boost library and the Modern C++ Design book.
For example, I've been using a combination of boost::function and boost::bind to make powerful, flexible callbacks like nobody's business. Finally, there's a function "pointer" that can work with both freestanding functions, member functions and function objects, and finally there's an easy way to delay calling functions and use closures, respectively. (Also see boost::lambda).
Sure, almost all of this has been possible one way or the other (the flexible callback has been typically implemented via function ptr and void ptr argument, C-style), but it's very refreshing to actually have the code say what you mean: "I want to delay calling this function", or "this callback doesn't give a crap whether the function you're giving it is a member function or not".
Then there are smart pointers, which have easier-to-follow, clearer semantics, and can be used in STL containers and such. No more using easy-to-shoot-yourself-in-foot auto_ptr. It's been possible to write large chunks of code that have multiple "new" statements, but have no "delete" statements, all while maintaining exact control over the memory allocation.
Of course there's more... Maybe it's stuff that LISP/Scheme programmers have been using for ages, but the key difference is I can now apply tools in production commercial C++ code, during my everyday work. I no longer sit and say: "oh, crap, I could really use a closure here." I just do it.
A big problem is that the new features require greater understanding of the language and thus better training of the run-of-the-mill C++ developer. Many C++ developers I encounter do not have the sufficient understanding of these tools, and of the language. We should strive to educate our fellow developers,... For Great Code!
I think the important conlusion of this guide is that if you take all of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes data and run it using the same fully open-source algorithms of McKitrick & McIntyre, you get the same results.
Which is reasonable since MM's argument is about source data and not methodology (as per this guide).
The blurb author attempts to paint one side as having something to hide, since they only released a part of their source code. Nevermind that both papers' data can be independently validated--no no, one side is bad for only describing the algorithm and not its source code!
So a team of real scientists (that is, by folks who work in climate science, not reporters or pundits) wrote a Dummies Guide to the latest controversy. Click on the link for a nice question-by-question breakdown, but I'll spoil the conclusion for you:
(MBH98 is the old paper with "closed" source, MM05 is the new "open source") paper)
7) Basically then the MM05 criticism is simply about whether selected N. American tree rings should have been included, not that there was a mathematical flaw?
Yes. Their argument since the beginning has essentially not been about methodological issues at all, but about 'source data' issues. Particular concerns with the "bristlecone pine" data were addressed in the followup paper MBH99 but the fact remains that including these data improves the statistical validation over the 19th Century period and they therefore should be included.
8) So does this all matter?
No. If you use the MM05 convention and include all the significant PCs, you get the same answer. If you don't use any PCA at all, you get the same answer. If you use a completely different methodology (i.e. Rutherford et al, 2005), you get basically the same answer. Only if you remove significant portions of the data do you get a different (and worse) answer.
9) Was MBH98 the final word on the climate of last millennium?
Not at all. There has been significant progress on many aspects of climate reconstructions since MBH98. Firstly, there are more and better quality proxy data available. There are new methodologies such as described in Rutherford et al (2005) or Moberg et al (2005) that address recognised problems with incomplete data series and the challenge of incorporating lower resolution data into the mix. Progress is likely to continue on all these fronts. As of now, all of the 'Hockey Team' reconstructions (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia.
I grew up on this computer. Back in Russia, Spectrum clone kits were very popular. They were cheap, the electronics were "close enough", such that intricate timing-based video tricks didn't quite work, but everything else worked.
I never used the real thing for more than a few minutes. Instead, I used a Russian clone called "Hobbit" (just googled this). My dad was involved in selling them, and so I got one. Apparently only 50000 were made. The great thing about this clone was the PC-style extended keyboard, which obviated the need for some of the trickiest key combos.
Paired to a small monochrome screen, I used to write (at the tender age of 11) programs and games for it. One game that I wrote was very simple: there was a line through the screen, a person in the middle, and a car running left to right. The sole control was the spacebar: pressing it at the right time would make the person jump long enough for the car to pass under. Despite that, I remember adults playing the game for 5-10 minutes, far longer than I expected.
Now, I was not one of the l33t assembly coders: instead, I stuck to good old onboard BASIC. One of the niftiest features it had (as far as I was concerned at the time) was the ability to define custom (USR) characters. You could define tens of 8x8 pixel chars, and then print them as normal letters. I used to sit down with a graph paper notebook, separate it into 8x8 cells, draw objects and then shade pixels. I wrote small animations, typically involving cars, little people (Lode Runner, anyone?), helicopters, parachutes, robots, and stuff exploding. The exploding was accomplished by XOR'ing X, O and other characters over the site of explosion.
Of course, there was the BEEP command. The computer's manual (or some Spectrum-related book) came with a listing to play the funeral march. Much fun was had by shortening the durations of the notes in that march, making it sound upbeat. I tried writing some of my BEEP statement music, but I recall the results were pleasing only to me and not the family:)
Back in Soviet Russia... oh wait, this was post-Soviet Russia, the black market was rampant and much tape copying was had. Name any game and you could pick it up for less than $1. Childhood memories include sitting in front of the TV, having cleaned the tape head with alcohol (of the rubbing kind, not vodka), hoping that the 5-minute load of this game will succeed.
The particular version of the Hobbit that I had also included a version of the LOGO interpreter. Since all the books about logo that I had were in Russian, and the interpreter was in English, I pretty much failed to invoke all but the basic drawing commands (DRAW was translated fine by the dictionary, but most other keywords weren't).
I probably didn't play quite the same games that most Spectrum users did. Some of the ones that I remember include "Lode Runner" (amazing), "Chuckie Egg", "Iron " (yeah!), "Commando", "Knight Lore", "Target Renegade" (boy was this one a pain in the ass to load), "Lotus Esprit Turbo", "Nebulus" (good stuff!), "Saboteur" (how many hours spent on that baby), "Chequered Flag", "Chase HQ" (oh yeah!), "Deathchase" (teh winn!11!!), "Wec Le Mans", "Crazy Cars 1" and "Crazy Cars 2" (nice!), and more that I am too tired of listing. I was not cool enough at the time to play "Elite" (required too much concentration:) ), although I did have it. "Elite" was regarded as "the game to play", from what I remember. Strangely enough, I don't think I've ever played "Jet Set Willie".
Unfortunately, one sad day, the Hobbit blew a fuse. My dad decided to try inserting a wire for the fuse, since we couldn't find an appropriate replacement fuse. That's when I learned the meanings of "fuses don't blow for no reason" and "magic smoke."
Recently, I bought a ZX Spectrum from UK off eBay, but the working condition wasn't clear. I still haven't tried it.
It hit home yesterday.. I get a call from my dad saying that tehre's some virus and half of his pictures in the My Pictures folder are gone. I told my sister to download and run the latest antivirus.. as she was doing that, she e-mailed me saying that all of her Word files are gone and she's really upset.
I mean, this is the first time e-mail worms have done real, destructive damage (loss of data) in a long time... I forgot what it's like to be really subjected to a virus since the Win95/DOS days before 98-99.
I'm pretty pissed off, I now have to figure out how the hell I can prevent this happening in the future on their computer. I told my dad not to open any attachments from unknown people (or anything suspicious looking from known people), but the damage's already done.
So to the author of MyDoom.F: fuck you, something I'm saying for the first time since OneHalf.
I'm going to go and buy something from AutoZone today. I haven't decided what yet.
Someone should start a web page "support AutoZone.com" or something.
Some neato things to buy at AutoZone for your car:
- tire shine, in a spray can... $5... good brands are Meguiar's, Black Magic and Eagle One don't get ArmorAll. Basically, spray it on your car's tire sidewall, wipe off any excess w/ a towel (or napkin). It will make the tires black instead of gray and it'll stay that way for weeks, unless it rains. The shine will fade, but the tires will remain black. It's a nice way to subtly add to your car's appearance. Makes it look more new, and keeps the tires cleaner (the treated sidewalls will accumulate less dirt).
- Glass cleaner... 20/20 Auto Glass Cleaner by Eagle One is a great choice. Spray it on the window, wipe with a towel. Safe for cars w/ tint (unlike ammonia-containing Windex). Give your car a good cleaning, you'll appreciate the crystal clear windows. Multiple passes will probably be needed. ~$3-5
- Air filter... if it's time to change your air filter (15k), consider getting the K&N rechargeable air filters.. you buy it once, buy a $10 recharging package and you can clean the air filter up to 10-15 times (that's over 100,000 miles) before you need to throw it out. It filters better and flows faster and saves you money in long run... $20-$50, depending on car...
Slashdot Mirror
No it's not, because, frankly it doesn't affect anyone I know. People don't care. I don't care.
If an illegal alien can go and open a bank account, it's fine by me. Bank of America is not in the law enforcement business, it's in the banking business. This alien is supporting an American business by opening that bank account.
No, let's talk about predatory lending, sneaky credit card terms, deceitful charges, etc.
Let's talk about MBNA (now part of Bank of America) and BofA being some of the heaviest hitters to push through new bankruptcy law that makes everyone a peon to credit card companies, regardless of circumstances! Let's talk about the fact that an amendment to limit credit card interest rates to 30% (yes, that's thirty f'ing percent) was rejected last yaer. Yes, credit card companies did not want their interest rate limited to a cut-throat ceiling of 30%!
Let's talk about my platinum Bank of America card moving from 2 late payments (by even a day!) in 6 months to 2 late payments in 12 months to 1 late payment in 12 months before they bump your rate from a good APR to an insane 20%+ default APR. Let's talk about two-cycle billing (my roommate, who normally pays off his entire balance got bitten by this because he miscalculated and payed off a $1 less than the balance)
Let's talk about CapitalOne (and some other predatory lenders) not reporting your credit limit to the credit reporting agencies, which is ILLEGAL to do, but there is not enough activism or pressure to change that.
So yeah, let's talk about that, and then you can tell me why I should care that Bank of America issues a bank account to an illegal alien, when there are all these other topics out there that affect every damn American.
Where does it stop? Why only NSFW and nothign more?
You want a solution? Put [NSFW] in your link text, and possibly explain it in the TITLE="" attribute of the link. So people can see it right there. I mean, why would you want anything else?
It doesn't even fly though...
The complaint from these experts is that the look of the UIs is different. Brushed metal here, but flat gun-metal gray here! OMG, that's so inconsistent!
And, sure, that is inconsistent.
But who gives a flying dog! The key is that the applications really are easy to use. What is consistent is that excellent flow of interaction, where each of those interfaces is simpler than Windows apps, much less frustrating than Windows apps. It's the reason why Apple users stays loyal to Apple: they design the user experience well.
Hell, if my Windows apps were as straightforward, I wouldn't care if each one was the color of the rainbow!
Those experts can't see the forest for the differently colored trees. Yet, I bet they are patting themselves on the back about their insightful analysis of differences.
I think that the amount of software engineering education for CS students is sorely lacking. Every CS program does have a software engineering class (at least all the ones that I've seen), but they don't really instill the design skills. I think it's a huge hole in CS students that graduate with the aim of getting a software job.
These are abstract skills that are useful in any research situation.
Just to be clear, I am criticising the CS education, and not you.
You have the motivation to go and learn, because you see a large area for improvement. So hopefully you will go and learn how to build that console emulator, or at least have a decent idea of how. And then you will be that much stronger for it.
I am sorry to sound like a complete ass, but you epitomize what's wrong with Computer Science education in the US today. Students graduate without design skills and software engineering skills. That's the huge gaping hole: lackluster design skills.
When I was taking a senior-level networks class, we had an assignment to emulate a physical layer, data link layer and the network layer. We had senior CS students who had trouble designing a prorgam to do that! The TAs spent more time explaining how to structure your program rather than how to deal with the tricky Unix socket calls! Now that is just messed up! A senior in computer science should not need instruction on how to design a program to consist of three layers!
I see this from the hiring side of the interview table. For me, a C.S. degree with a high GPA on a resume doesn't mean much. Sure, it means that many basics are there, which is good. However, it is far from a guarantee in being hired.
Yet, that degree (with a high GPA) could've meant so much more!
Sorry to espouse an unpopular opinion here.
Of course, you just need to learn that which you realize you don't know! (which is a good start)
Go and work on side projects. OSS or not, whatever scale. Go write your own utility or app of some size. Contribute to some OSS project, or try to understand how it works. Try to design an additional feature for some OSS project, not just fix a bug. Try to understand how you could add it and whether that addition is clean or hacky. The key is to practice the design skill and to get burnt many times by underdesigning, overdesigning, etc.
Read good books (Design Patterns by Erich, Gamma et all [essential], Effective C++ by Meyers [essential], Refactoring by Fowler, Refactoring to Patterns). Read the wiki on c2.com.
I see other posters have mentioned many good strategies.
You telling me that Linux was more polished?? You have gotta be kidding me!
Godawful performance problems? You kid me too, as the performance of Windows is not godawful--it may not be as fast as a proper BSD server, but it's not in the toilet either.
Windows made shit work easy.
In the last 3 years, I haven't seen any ugly desktops from the major distros, such as RH or SuSE. They may not be beautiful, but they aren't ugly.
Make shit work! Let the user get shit done with no bullshit!
"Make Linux 'Gorgeous'" is delusional rambling of someone living in a Linux world bubble, where everything seems known and obvious: "well, it's already easy to use, but it's still not popular?!?! Well, shit, why is that? Oh, I know, it's not beautiful enough! Quick, more transparent terminals!"
Too often while installing Linux desktops, I am apalled at the crap that I have to go through to get it to work well.
Think of any single time that you opened up a terminal and went to tweak something in a config file to solve a problem! That single time is one time too many.
Why aren't more users using Linux? Because it's not EASY!
I don't know of any Linux distro that was designed with an ease-of-use make-shit-work no-bullshit vision from the ground up. Having intensively worked with Linux for a couple of years, I am not surprised, because once you know the details of running a Linux box, it's very easy to become complacent and very difficult to step back and reason about the true ease-of-use Linux experience.
If I were designing a Linux distro for a typical desktop user, I would spend all my time at war with all things Linux. I would write out on the wall every single stupid thing, every single expose-the-implementation config file, and then I would design a distro that saved the user from all that. I would consider every issue as a battle of the user trying to get things done and Linux getting in the way, and I would not be finished until the user trampled the defacto way of doing Linux things.
What I meant was "using Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V exclusively"
Indeed! More and more software is using Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V these days... but I keep doing Ctrl+Ins and Shift-Ins... it just feels right!
"the lousy design comes around to bite you in the ass"... the technical term is "design debt" ;)
I haven't the experience that some of the engineers hanging around here have, so please take what I say with a grain of salt.
However, the article appears to be far too idealistic.
1) The only good schedule is a realistic schedule. If the schedule is intentionally compressed, it's a bad schedule. The only way to compress your schedule is to cut work (e.g. features).
1.5) Working under the "hurry hurry hurry" "boss wants it yesterday" environment means your engineers will cut corners everywhere. When faced with a choice to copy/paste a function in 15 minutes vs. taking some time to refactor and reuse the code in 1 hour, engineers will choose the earlier. In my experience, design debt then accumulates really fast.
2) Code reviews as suggested in the article are a drag (2.5 hours at a time?!). In my experience, they rarely get anything useful done: it's usually too late to make medium or major changes and under the gun (see 1.5) engineers will scoff at "wasting time" with minor changes. From what I've seen, the code reviews serve mostly as a cover-your-ass mechanism for management.
Code reviews need to be short (30-45mins) and happen as soon as possible, while the original engineer has all of the reasoning and decisions in his head. Hot-on-the-heels code-reviews of bug fixes and feature check-ins (especially useful for bug fixes).
Perhaps the code reviews need to happen as the code is written (sometimes I ask my coworkers to show me their draft solutions). That's almost pair programming though. Unfortunately, that's not practiced at my job, and so I have no expereince with pair programming.
3) Estimates. What the article described seemed to be a basic process for doing the SWAGs and the engineering time estimates that we all "know and love." I fail to see the novelty in the proposed approach: it seems to be run of the mill waterfall stuff.
It's so easy to say "break down estimates into small tasks, so you can estimate well." However, I found it very difficult to do so effectively. Pardon the Rumsfeld flavor, but often we just don't know what we don't know: stumbling blocks occur, requirements drift or get "clarified", surprises abound. Pressuring developers to provide task breakdowns and estimates past their knowledge point can create a false sense of security (i.e. misleading task estimates). I've seen many such a small task breakdown become trash as the project progressed.
Often, to get a better idea of the remaining work and tasks, prototype work is required or some progress on key features.
I have no good answer for this problem, but my feeling is that it lies somewhere in the realm of being able to react quickly to change and reevaluate the project's progress. This is where things like smaller tasks and more frequent completion points of features seem to help. At that point, changing direction is easier because you have fewer concurrent unfinished tasks.
This is where the smaller tasks and frequent iterations of the XP fame seem to be a benefit. Unfortunately, many managers can't take the thought of not having a detailed per-small-task project plan in their MS Project window. So, in my unfortunate experience, such managers attempt XP-style iterations, but then quickly regress into more traditional long-term milestones. I've seen it happen time and again.
I think it goes to show that the "Are you sure?" dialog boxes are not the safeguard answer that everyone seems to think it is. How many developers I know say: "oh, we just need a confirmation here." Yeah, so much for that.
The answer, IMO, is UNDO. That should've been a separate key on the keyboard.
I find that Microsoft has quite a few "lone wolves" like this. The "wolf" here is not just Hilf: it's his entire group (as small as it is against the rest of Microsoft).
.NET going forward." The Microsoft evangelists/reps blatantly said: "Microsoft wants to phase out C++, leaving it only to really low-level applications, such as device drivers."
.NET .NET."
For example, I went to a presentation at Microsoft about the new Visual Studio 2005 and the "Team System" upsell from the Professional version. Many cool features (refactoring, class designer) in VS2005 Team System were oriented at C# or, at best, managed environments. When people in audience asked: "what about C++? Will this be available for C++?", the answer was: "Microsoft wants you to use C# and
I walked away from the presentation feeling that C++ was treated as a third-class citizen. However, after reading some e-mails from VC++ 2005 managers and reading MSDN weblogs (in one of them, the lead dev on the refactoring feature expresses deep regret at not being able to get C++ refactoring in for the VS2005 release), seeing C++ experts like Herb Sutter work for Microsoft, etc, one realizes that C++ is still very important for Microsoft (and, hell, it sure is with millions of developers and thousands of new C++ APIs in Longhorn). It's just that the evangelists at the Microsoft presentation didn't know anything better than ".NET
Write smaller methods. Give those methods clear names. Give clear names to identifiers. Do not repeat the type in the identifier name if it doesn't help identify the purpose of the identifier.
All of these steps lead to code much clearer than similar comments, in my experience.
I won't argue the relative merits of C++ to other languages. For many organizations, switching from C++ (regardless of whether it would make things easier) is often not an option, and not considered as an option. I will also not argue whether that is bad.
... For Great Code!
The fact is, there's a huge C++ user and code base out there, and if they are going to stick with C++, there's exciting stuff coming.
I feel that C++ is having its second coming, primarily due to developments like the boost library and the Modern C++ Design book.
For example, I've been using a combination of boost::function and boost::bind to make powerful, flexible callbacks like nobody's business. Finally, there's a function "pointer" that can work with both freestanding functions, member functions and function objects, and finally there's an easy way to delay calling functions and use closures, respectively. (Also see boost::lambda).
Sure, almost all of this has been possible one way or the other (the flexible callback has been typically implemented via function ptr and void ptr argument, C-style), but it's very refreshing to actually have the code say what you mean: "I want to delay calling this function", or "this callback doesn't give a crap whether the function you're giving it is a member function or not".
Then there are smart pointers, which have easier-to-follow, clearer semantics, and can be used in STL containers and such. No more using easy-to-shoot-yourself-in-foot auto_ptr. It's been possible to write large chunks of code that have multiple "new" statements, but have no "delete" statements, all while maintaining exact control over the memory allocation.
Of course there's more... Maybe it's stuff that LISP/Scheme programmers have been using for ages, but the key difference is I can now apply tools in production commercial C++ code, during my everyday work. I no longer sit and say: "oh, crap, I could really use a closure here." I just do it.
A big problem is that the new features require greater understanding of the language and thus better training of the run-of-the-mill C++ developer. Many C++ developers I encounter do not have the sufficient understanding of these tools, and of the language. We should strive to educate our fellow developers,
I think the important conlusion of this guide is that if you take all of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes data and run it using the same fully open-source algorithms of McKitrick & McIntyre, you get the same results.
Which is reasonable since MM's argument is about source data and not methodology (as per this guide).
So a team of real scientists (that is, by folks who work in climate science, not reporters or pundits) wrote a Dummies Guide to the latest controversy. Click on the link for a nice question-by-question breakdown, but I'll spoil the conclusion for you:
(MBH98 is the old paper with "closed" source, MM05 is the new "open source") paper)
Read the rest for more explanation.I'll make a plugin for Mozilla called "Double Flush"!
Fond memories indeed!
:)
:) ), although I did have it. "Elite" was regarded as "the game to play", from what I remember. Strangely enough, I don't think I've ever played "Jet Set Willie".
I grew up on this computer. Back in Russia, Spectrum clone kits were very popular. They were cheap, the electronics were "close enough", such that intricate timing-based video tricks didn't quite work, but everything else worked.
I never used the real thing for more than a few minutes. Instead, I used a Russian clone called "Hobbit" (just googled this). My dad was involved in selling them, and so I got one. Apparently only 50000 were made. The great thing about this clone was the PC-style extended keyboard, which obviated the need for some of the trickiest key combos.
Paired to a small monochrome screen, I used to write (at the tender age of 11) programs and games for it. One game that I wrote was very simple: there was a line through the screen, a person in the middle, and a car running left to right. The sole control was the spacebar: pressing it at the right time would make the person jump long enough for the car to pass under. Despite that, I remember adults playing the game for 5-10 minutes, far longer than I expected.
Now, I was not one of the l33t assembly coders: instead, I stuck to good old onboard BASIC. One of the niftiest features it had (as far as I was concerned at the time) was the ability to define custom (USR) characters. You could define tens of 8x8 pixel chars, and then print them as normal letters. I used to sit down with a graph paper notebook, separate it into 8x8 cells, draw objects and then shade pixels. I wrote small animations, typically involving cars, little people (Lode Runner, anyone?), helicopters, parachutes, robots, and stuff exploding. The exploding was accomplished by XOR'ing X, O and other characters over the site of explosion.
Of course, there was the BEEP command. The computer's manual (or some Spectrum-related book) came with a listing to play the funeral march. Much fun was had by shortening the durations of the notes in that march, making it sound upbeat. I tried writing some of my BEEP statement music, but I recall the results were pleasing only to me and not the family
Back in Soviet Russia... oh wait, this was post-Soviet Russia, the black market was rampant and much tape copying was had. Name any game and you could pick it up for less than $1. Childhood memories include sitting in front of the TV, having cleaned the tape head with alcohol (of the rubbing kind, not vodka), hoping that the 5-minute load of this game will succeed.
The particular version of the Hobbit that I had also included a version of the LOGO interpreter. Since all the books about logo that I had were in Russian, and the interpreter was in English, I pretty much failed to invoke all but the basic drawing commands (DRAW was translated fine by the dictionary, but most other keywords weren't).
I probably didn't play quite the same games that most Spectrum users did. Some of the ones that I remember include "Lode Runner" (amazing), "Chuckie Egg", "Iron " (yeah!), "Commando", "Knight Lore", "Target Renegade" (boy was this one a pain in the ass to load), "Lotus Esprit Turbo", "Nebulus" (good stuff!), "Saboteur" (how many hours spent on that baby), "Chequered Flag", "Chase HQ" (oh yeah!), "Deathchase" (teh winn!11!!), "Wec Le Mans", "Crazy Cars 1" and "Crazy Cars 2" (nice!), and more that I am too tired of listing. I was not cool enough at the time to play "Elite" (required too much concentration
Unfortunately, one sad day, the Hobbit blew a fuse. My dad decided to try inserting a wire for the fuse, since we couldn't find an appropriate replacement fuse. That's when I learned the meanings of "fuses don't blow for no reason" and "magic smoke."
Recently, I bought a ZX Spectrum from UK off eBay, but the working condition wasn't clear. I still haven't tried it.
It hit home yesterday.. I get a call from my dad saying that tehre's some virus and half of his pictures in the My Pictures folder are gone. I told my sister to download and run the latest antivirus.. as she was doing that, she e-mailed me saying that all of her Word files are gone and she's really upset.
I mean, this is the first time e-mail worms have done real, destructive damage (loss of data) in a long time... I forgot what it's like to be really subjected to a virus since the Win95/DOS days before 98-99.
I'm pretty pissed off, I now have to figure out how the hell I can prevent this happening in the future on their computer. I told my dad not to open any attachments from unknown people (or anything suspicious looking from known people), but the damage's already done.
So to the author of MyDoom.F: fuck you, something I'm saying for the first time since OneHalf.
AFAIK, you can order their stuff online (www.autozone.com)
I'm going to go and buy something from AutoZone today. I haven't decided what yet.
.com" or something.
... if it's time to change your air filter (15k), consider getting the K&N rechargeable air filters.. you buy it once, buy a $10 recharging package and you can clean the air filter up to 10-15 times (that's over 100,000 miles) before you need to throw it out. It filters better and flows faster and saves you money in long run... $20-$50, depending on car...
Someone should start a web page "support AutoZone
Some neato things to buy at AutoZone for your car:
- tire shine, in a spray can... $5... good brands are Meguiar's, Black Magic and Eagle One don't get ArmorAll. Basically, spray it on your car's tire sidewall, wipe off any excess w/ a towel (or napkin). It will make the tires black instead of gray and it'll stay that way for weeks, unless it rains. The shine will fade, but the tires will remain black. It's a nice way to subtly add to your car's appearance. Makes it look more new, and keeps the tires cleaner (the treated sidewalls will accumulate less dirt).
- Glass cleaner... 20/20 Auto Glass Cleaner by Eagle One is a great choice. Spray it on the window, wipe with a towel. Safe for cars w/ tint (unlike ammonia-containing Windex). Give your car a good cleaning, you'll appreciate the crystal clear windows. Multiple passes will probably be needed. ~$3-5
- Air filter