I do. I think Scandinavia is pretty well known, since it comes up a lot in history classes, etc. But Belgium, Netherlands & Luxembourg are pretty small, and according to the search I did, the term didn't come about until the 1940s. They don't really come up in conversation that much here.
I'm surprised that Brand Management (or whatever marketing folks handle that for them) are letting them get rid of such a well-known icon of Windows.;-)
Besides, what's quicker, typing "for (int i = 0; i max; i++)" or dragging an "if" element from a toolbar and dropping it on an empty area of the form, activating and filling out its fields, and connecting it to the rest of the program flow?
Visual programming, or using models, or whatever name, will eventually come, but only when we are ready to jump to the next level - when we don't have to use if's explicitly. Yes, modelling ifs and fors and whiles would be extremely unwieldly. But eventually we will move to using constructs that exist at a higher level. These may be domain-specfic modelling languages - or not, I really don't know. But just as I hardly give a thought as to what is what register when, years from now programmers will not give much thought as to exactly when this list is iterated over, or how it is done. Just that each item in a group goes through a certain process.
Modelling languages will need great tool support to catch on. They will also need the ability to move from various levels of abstraction extremely easily, as this is one of the biggest problems of modelling today (too much makes it practically unusable).
Just by using themes. The Windows one comes close, but it is still pretty easy to tell - things aren't exactly alike. Better than that ugly blue-shaded crap though.
If SWT gains a critical mass, it could be interesting to see where it goes. It's mature, but just doesn't have enough users to make it something that people think of. It uses native widgets.
Another poster said Choicepoint doesn't care about you because you are just a number - you don't pay for its services, the companies do. Right, makes sense.
But, reading your situation above, could someone bring a libel suit against Choicepoint? According to some random site I found, libel is a written defamation, and defamation is:
Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.
If a person or the news media says or writes something about you that is understood to lower your reputation, or that keeps people from associating with you, defamation has occurred.
In some ways its a stretch, as it isn't directly related to your "character," but its hard to deny that erroneous information doesn't lower your reputation. Companies charge higher interest rates or insurance premiums to "riskier" types of people; if your Choicepoint says you rent when you own and are single when you're married, then, hey, to an auto insurance company, you look riskier. Looks to me like your reputation was falsly lowered. Also, remember, average Joes don't need to show negligence like public figures do (that is, you don't need to prove that Choicepoint is knowingly publishing bad information, just that they are).
IANAL, nor a law student, so I have not studied libel case law to know if this would hold up, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Anyone have any thoughts?
I agree with some of the conclusions/suggestions like a more structured approach and software engineering techniques, but the fact remains that most software hobbyists (the principal contributors to open source software) *firmly* dislike process and red-tape. And they're right, since they're pursuing a hobby, they should be able to do what they like as they see fit.
Yeah, but you can't have your cake and eat it to. That's fine if people want to approach software in a hobbyist fashion, but they can't expect widespread usage of OSS if they approach it like a hobby.
Of course, there are plenty of OSS projects that use good software engineering techniques. As others have mentioned (as does the author), Apache and Mozilla come to mind (there are others). Linux also has a structured development process. I understand that those are the projects that OSS advocates push for widespread usage. But what about all those tools packaged with Linux distros? Many of them can be considered hobbyist projects. Are all those project secure? Looked at often?
Many people in this discussion have said repeatedly: still, when there are issues, OSS issues a patch so much more quickly. I'm sorry, but this is quite the double standard. How many posts on other articles have seen people saying "Microsoft can release all patches they want, the problem is that their product is inherently unsecure... not designed with security in mind."
In the end I think the author's conclusion is correct. Open source offers the potential of more secure software, because it is open. Anyone will (eventually) be able to run sophisticated security tests if they choose. Essentially what he is saying is that being OSS can be an asset, if people take advantage of it. But there is nothing inherently secure about OSS software
Take the word 'cum' off your resume (Graduated Cum Laude (GPA: 3.77)). No joke. Lots of people have their email filtering simply delete any inbound email with the word in it. Use 'Graduated with honors (GPA: 3.77)' instead.
At my University graduating cum laude and graduting with honors were two different things.
Cum Laude meant you reached a certain GPA level. Graduating with honors meant that you completed a senior thesis and a review panel gave you Honors (or high/highest honors).
That said, I understand your point. However, if the resume is in DOC or PDF format, will automatically get scanned?
A CS professor of mine told us this story: They were selling off old machines from the lab (that they undergrads use). A couple weeks later, they got a call from one of the buyers who wanted to know the password to root, so that he could use the machine.
Ever since then, the policy has been that the hard drive is removed from old machinces and smashed with a hammer; the system is sold without a hard drive.
This was a few years ago; I think they just hadn't thought out the implications of selling off the machines (students vitals, account passwords, etc).
I learned GW-BASIC as my first language, and then moved onto QBasic. Never learned C/C++ until high school because I lacked a compiler. Fast-forward to my college years, and I think I turned out to be a fine programmer - best grade in my Systems class. In fact, C is my favorite language.
The point isn't that BASIC is a worthwhile language (although sometimes I like to play with VB for old-times sake). It is that just because you've learned some bad things along the way (yes, I used goto but hey, I was teaching myself) doesn't mean you're done for.
This is a good time to say that despite how I feel about MS now, it is true that if wasn't for them putting BASIC with MS-DOS, I don't know if I ever would have become a CS person.
I think what is interesting about this isn't the immediate benefits (being able to format the code to your liking is more of a convenience), but what could be done with it down the road. With the code as XML, generating class diagrams and flow charts suddenly becomes easier. Round-trip engineering using UML diagrams isn't as messy. Cross-referencing for API documentation could be generated automatically. I like pounding out code as much as the next programmer, but for large projects, it would be nice if we didn't need a special word for refactoring - we just moved fields and classes around.
In some ways it can give you more control over your code. Mark all of your debug statements as debug or logging, and then tell your editor to hide them. Bug in the networking code? Have your editor show a flow chart of that code. Sure, a lot of that stuff is possible now, but tools have to bend over backward to get it to work, and they muck up your source code.
I probably sound like marketing hype, but to me it's interesting to think of the possiblities.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, typing cd ../.. works fine in the XP shell.
I do. I think Scandinavia is pretty well known, since it comes up a lot in history classes, etc. But Belgium, Netherlands & Luxembourg are pretty small, and according to the search I did, the term didn't come about until the 1940s. They don't really come up in conversation that much here.
I'm surprised that Brand Management (or whatever marketing folks handle that for them) are letting them get rid of such a well-known icon of Windows. ;-)
Besides, what's quicker, typing "for (int i = 0; i max; i++)" or dragging an "if" element from a toolbar and dropping it on an empty area of the form, activating and filling out its fields, and connecting it to the rest of the program flow?
Visual programming, or using models, or whatever name, will eventually come, but only when we are ready to jump to the next level - when we don't have to use if's explicitly. Yes, modelling ifs and fors and whiles would be extremely unwieldly. But eventually we will move to using constructs that exist at a higher level. These may be domain-specfic modelling languages - or not, I really don't know. But just as I hardly give a thought as to what is what register when, years from now programmers will not give much thought as to exactly when this list is iterated over, or how it is done. Just that each item in a group goes through a certain process.
Modelling languages will need great tool support to catch on. They will also need the ability to move from various levels of abstraction extremely easily, as this is one of the biggest problems of modelling today (too much makes it practically unusable).
Just by using themes. The Windows one comes close, but it is still pretty easy to tell - things aren't exactly alike. Better than that ugly blue-shaded crap though.
If SWT gains a critical mass, it could be interesting to see where it goes. It's mature, but just doesn't have enough users to make it something that people think of. It uses native widgets.
Another poster said Choicepoint doesn't care about you because you are just a number - you don't pay for its services, the companies do. Right, makes sense.
But, reading your situation above, could someone bring a libel suit against Choicepoint? According to some random site I found, libel is a written defamation, and defamation is:
Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.
If a person or the news media says or writes something about you that is understood to lower your reputation, or that keeps people from associating with you, defamation has occurred.
In some ways its a stretch, as it isn't directly related to your "character," but its hard to deny that erroneous information doesn't lower your reputation. Companies charge higher interest rates or insurance premiums to "riskier" types of people; if your Choicepoint says you rent when you own and are single when you're married, then, hey, to an auto insurance company, you look riskier. Looks to me like your reputation was falsly lowered. Also, remember, average Joes don't need to show negligence like public figures do (that is, you don't need to prove that Choicepoint is knowingly publishing bad information, just that they are).
IANAL, nor a law student, so I have not studied libel case law to know if this would hold up, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Anyone have any thoughts?
I agree with some of the conclusions/suggestions like a more structured approach and software engineering techniques, but the fact remains that most software hobbyists (the principal contributors to open source software) *firmly* dislike process and red-tape. And they're right, since they're pursuing a hobby, they should be able to do what they like as they see fit.
Yeah, but you can't have your cake and eat it to. That's fine if people want to approach software in a hobbyist fashion, but they can't expect widespread usage of OSS if they approach it like a hobby.
Of course, there are plenty of OSS projects that use good software engineering techniques. As others have mentioned (as does the author), Apache and Mozilla come to mind (there are others). Linux also has a structured development process. I understand that those are the projects that OSS advocates push for widespread usage. But what about all those tools packaged with Linux distros? Many of them can be considered hobbyist projects. Are all those project secure? Looked at often?
Many people in this discussion have said repeatedly: still, when there are issues, OSS issues a patch so much more quickly. I'm sorry, but this is quite the double standard. How many posts on other articles have seen people saying "Microsoft can release all patches they want, the problem is that their product is inherently unsecure... not designed with security in mind."
In the end I think the author's conclusion is correct. Open source offers the potential of more secure software, because it is open. Anyone will (eventually) be able to run sophisticated security tests if they choose. Essentially what he is saying is that being OSS can be an asset, if people take advantage of it. But there is nothing inherently secure about OSS software
At my University graduating cum laude and graduting with honors were two different things.
Cum Laude meant you reached a certain GPA level. Graduating with honors meant that you completed a senior thesis and a review panel gave you Honors (or high/highest honors).
That said, I understand your point. However, if the resume is in DOC or PDF format, will automatically get scanned?
Ever since then, the policy has been that the hard drive is removed from old machinces and smashed with a hammer; the system is sold without a hard drive.
This was a few years ago; I think they just hadn't thought out the implications of selling off the machines (students vitals, account passwords, etc).
Often is a bit too strong. IIRC, it's happened about four times in the course of our nation's history.
The point isn't that BASIC is a worthwhile language (although sometimes I like to play with VB for old-times sake). It is that just because you've learned some bad things along the way (yes, I used goto but hey, I was teaching myself) doesn't mean you're done for.
This is a good time to say that despite how I feel about MS now, it is true that if wasn't for them putting BASIC with MS-DOS, I don't know if I ever would have become a CS person.
I think what is interesting about this isn't the immediate benefits (being able to format the code to your liking is more of a convenience), but what could be done with it down the road. With the code as XML, generating class diagrams and flow charts suddenly becomes easier. Round-trip engineering using UML diagrams isn't as messy. Cross-referencing for API documentation could be generated automatically. I like pounding out code as much as the next programmer, but for large projects, it would be nice if we didn't need a special word for refactoring - we just moved fields and classes around.
In some ways it can give you more control over your code. Mark all of your debug statements as debug or logging, and then tell your editor to hide them. Bug in the networking code? Have your editor show a flow chart of that code. Sure, a lot of that stuff is possible now, but tools have to bend over backward to get it to work, and they muck up your source code.
I probably sound like marketing hype, but to me it's interesting to think of the possiblities.