A quick review of some other "groundbreaking" technology as patents granted to Zuckerberg et al:
U.S. Appl. No. 11/493,291, Mark Zuckerberg, System and Methods for Dynamically Generating a Privacy Summary, filed Jul. 25, 2006. cited by other.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/503,037, Mark Zuckerberg, System sand Methods for Providing Dynamically Selected Media Content to a User of an Electronic Device in a Social Network Environment, filed Aug. 11, 2006. cited by other.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/503,242, Mark Zuckerberg, System and Method for Dynamically Providing a News Feed About a User of a Social Network, filed Aug. 11, 2006. cited by other.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/499,093, Mark Zuckerberg, Systems and Methods for Dynamically Generating Segmented Community Flyers, filed Aug. 2, 2006. cited by other.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/580,210, Mark Zuckerberg, System and Method for Tagging Digital Media, filed Oct. 11, 2006. cited by other.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/156,091, Mark Zuckerberg, Systems and Methods for Auction Based Polling, filed May 28, 2008. cited by other.
Look out Apple, MS, IBM & Oracle; there's a new sheriff in town. I'm anxiously awaiting "Mark Zuckerberg, System and Method for World Domination and General Mastery of the Universe (in a Social Network)".
I'm thinking we'll all be SOL if someone decides to apply for a patent on "breathing". Apparently the "non-obvious subject matter" test (USPTO 35 U.S.C. 103 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm) does not apply anymore, or maybe the "greasing of the skids" is just more blatant now.
many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence
Yea, except those that do the purchasing. Though I'm sure it's been tried, "Call of Knitting: Black Yarn", "Mundane Borrowing Bicycle" or "Halo: Frolicking" probably just wouldn't sell very well.
No mystery to large enterprise database users. Oracle absolutely trounces every other DBMS out there for large BW applications in terms of performance and scalability, and naturally it performs best on Solaris.
Don't bother pointing out the M$ funded benchmarks that claim SQL Server out performs it, I've seen them and I don't buy it (actually, I haven't seen these in a while - could be that M$ has given up on that battle).
The organizations I work with have large farms of both SQL Server and Oracle DBMS systems. Both have their own teams of DBAs constantly working to optimize these systems, so both are tweaked for max performance. The fact is for the really large DBs Oracle is the only choice as the difference in performance between SQL Server and Oracle is not even close. As an example, I recently worked on a project that migrated a large DB from SQL Server to Oracle (the SQL Server team could not get it to perform well enough to satisfy the requirements). One of the queries (multi-table join on tables with one table containing billions of rows) that ran for 2-3 hours in SQL Server runs in under an hour on Oracle (on roughly equivalent hardware).
What is a mystery to me is why they run SQL Server at all. Maybe because M$ is cheaper? I don't usually deal with purchasing so I don't know the relative costs, but my experience in a recent engagement I had with a small shop installing SQL Server clued me in on how expensive Sql Server is. It might well be cheaper than Oracle, but it's by no means cheap.
I may take another look at Swing since I haven't used it much since I picked up SWT. I did prefer the programming model of Swing over SWT, but I felt the resulting GUIs were too sluggish and were giving Java in general a bad reputation for client side apps. As a side bar though, it's beginning to sound like JavaFX 2.0 with it's scene graph architecture is pretty promising and might well turn out be to better alternative to either SWT or Swing.
6502 is, hands-down, the easiest CPU to code Assembler in (6800 being a close, and somewhat related, second).
I disagree. I learned assembler on an IBM 360 before I started developing on microprocessors. With no multiply or divide instructions and no instructions to perform block moves or byte translation, not to mention the lack of powerful macro assembler capabilities, it was hard just to get any meaningful algorithms implemented without writing pages and pages of code. IBM ALC felt like a high level language compared to the 6502, 6800 or (god forbid) the 8080. I remember I missed the more powerful instructions so much, I developed my own 360 instruction set emulator so I could keep programming in ALC on my home machine.
My first exposure to programming was typing in the line PRINT "HELLO" on a Burroughs B6700 terminal and seeing it reply back HELLO. How it could do that intrigued me so much that I HAD to figure out how it worked. Perhaps that triggered some latent OCD I was unaware of at the time, but that was over 35 years ago and I haven't been the same since. The need to understand, all the way down to the level of how the electricity coming out of the wall socket was transformed into what seemed to me at the time, an intelligent machine, has driven me throughout the years. Though I understand much more now, and the "ghost in the machine" gave way to simple logic and algorithms, the curiosity that my first encounter inspired has never left me and I still have the need to understand how every new technology that's been layered on top continues to drive me on.
I've since tried to instill this same inspiration in other people, including my children and anyone else who will listen, but I've not met with much success. Most people I encounter who've come to programming over the last 25 or so year don't seem as "curious" about the inner workings of the machines. Perhaps it's because they grew up with already sophisticated computers and the "magic" is just taken for granted. Perhaps it just takes a particular form of OCD to appreciate it. I don't know. What I do know is that it's hard to get someone inspired using a language like standard BASIC because they won't get excited about something as simple as PRINT "HELLO". They expect, within a few minutes to be able to create some fantastic, world changing first person shooter, and when they find out how much work is involved they soon lose interest. Try to explain a modern language like Java, C# or even VB to them and they begin fidgeting and looking for the door.
The bottom line is, I don't think the language is that important - just about any language will do. Instilling the interest and desire to learn is the hard part and frankly, I've haven't figured out how to do that yet.
Oh, so you're such an amateur that Java does not enter your consciousness
Assuming here that he is talking about client-side apps, Java should stay out of his consciousness, far out. Should never enter it. Should not even be let close to the door of his consciousness.
For client-side, you are probably better off doing client-specific development. A lot of the vertical stuff simply doesn't fit very well with the html/js way of doing things. You'd be a moron do go that route in many situations. That leaves you with either a cross-platform toolkit like Qt or doing each client in platform native tools. The latter would typically be preferable since it would leave you with a working Windows client rather quickly, an OSX client "coming soon" and a Linux client "in the works". Qt would leave you with three sub-optimal client applications "coming soon".
In general, I agree with your comments, except that I think you are a little harsh (or unknowledgeable) on Java client side development. I've developed plenty of GUI client apps in Java that are every bit as performant as those developed in.Net, though you do have to know what you are doing (e.g. steer away from Swing and use SWT instead) and client side apps for Windows are certainly easier to develop in VS (or better yet - Powerbuilder), just as OSX apps are easier to develop in XCode. For the vast majority of enterprise applications (which is my space) though, the functionality provided with a cross platform tool like Qt is more than adequate. Unless you have a large budget and the inhouse skillset to support three development teams, developing completely separate applications is the last alternative I would choose. Again, I'm speaking from an enterprise development perspective. I would agree however for certain "vertical" applications that will be deployed to a wide number of users it may be worthwhile to develop completely different clients for each platform that create the best user experience on that platform, but I would certainly not label that as 'cross platform development'.
Methinks perhaps rereading my post might sharpen your comprehension skills.
When I referred to "cross platform tools" I very much had Java in mind (I spend about 60% of my days developing enterprise java applications that run across Windows, Mac and Solaris platforms - the rest I spend doing Windows (.Net or MFC) and/or Android and iOS development), but it's not the only choice (e.g. C/C++, python, perl, etc., etc...).
My point was that, unless the application is very small in scope it makes sense to develop one set of source code that is cross platform. If each platform implementation requires special functionality, then fine - develop that functionality as modules called by the mainline code, but keep as much code as possible platform independent.
Cross-platform? Lol... just when I think I've heard it all.
I wonder what kind of idiotic apps manager would say - Hmmm we need an application that runs on Windows, Mac and Linux. What tools should we use? - I know - three development teams developing completely separate apps using completely separate languages and tool chains!!! Brilliant!
I guess someone failed to tell him there are cross platform tools that would allow the app to be developed once and deployed to all platforms.
but you don't know sh*t about f*ck when it comes to software development if you are bitching about how bad C# or.Net or WPF is for developing applications.
You post would suggest that maybe you and/or your management are the ones who "don't know sh*t about f*ck"
ok troll I am not suggesting that apple is the end all be all, but its a fucking fact the apple II was the first PC in a nice consumer case for the masses sparking off the industry as we know it today
Well, yeah, Apple was officially first, but the TRS-80 followed by only 6 months, and outsold Apple II every year after its introduction.
People remember the Apple II selling like hotcakes, but in fact they didn't sell that well compared to other models. Especially after the Commodore 64 came out, which blew Apple away in sheer numbers of units sold.
You're right, the TRS-80 "owned" the market (around 75% as I recall) until the IBM PC came along. The only qualm I have with your post is that Apple doesn't even deserve the "officially first" title. The Commodore PET was announced in January 1977 and the Apple II wasn't announced until April. Additionally, the Commodore PET was far more an "appliance" computer than the Apple II. There was nothing to do but take it out of the box and plug it in. As I mentioned earlier, the Apple II required some "hooking up" and even when you got it hooked up, you were presented with a screen full of ? and @ characters with an asterisk at the bottom. You booted into the monitor (aka machine code debugger) rather than directly into BASIC like the TRS-80 and PET. This is admittedly a minor point, but details like this go to the matter of which machine appealed more to the techie vs the computer neophyte.
if you consider fiddle fucking umpteen dozen toggle switches just to get something to boot as something the masses could use you need your head examined
Then by your own measure, the TRS-80 model I or Commodore PET was the first personal computer because you simply had to take it out of the box, plug it together and turn it on. The Apple I was just a limited production circuit board so does not qualify. The Apple II did not come with a monitor and had to be connected to a monitor with NTSC composite video inputs (not common on most TVs of the time) or to a regular TV via RF modulator, which was beyond some folks technical abilities (remember the days when you had to help your parents figure out the VCR?).
The bottom line is Apple has their place in computing history, but they are (and were) not the end-all-be-all of everything as some here would suggest.
I was there at the time and recall looking at the PET, the Apple II and the TRS-80. I chose to get a TRS-80 because I was interested in writing software. The TRS-80 offered the largest opportunity because it had the best chance for commercial success due to the marketing reach of Radio Shack as well as it's appeal to business users who wanted something that looked like a business machine rather than a game console.
if anyone gets credit for ushering in the personal computer age its Apple
Right. Just forget about the Altair, the IMSAI and other 8080 based microcomputers. HP used the term "personal computer" way back in 1968 to refer to their HP 9100A. But, why not give Apple credit for this as well since they can do no wrong.
I agree 100% with your post. I remember trying to get our IT department to invest in some TRS80 Model II computers back in the late 70's/early 80's and everyone just laughed at me, considering these machines "toys". All of a sudden when IBM introduced the IBM-PC, microcomputers were legit business machines and everyone wanted IT to begin providing/supporting them.
The label "micro" or "mini" really had little to do with the size of the "box" they came in. Generally, microcomputers were computers that utilized a microprocessor (single chip) as the CPU, while minicomputers employed discrete logic or LSI (later VSLI).
I don't buy it (and believe me I won't!). There are lots of strange things that can be made edible (snails, bugs, pond-scum, dogs, cats, etc).
Why choose what is probably the most disgusting choice, excrement? And if you have to choose excrement, why does it have to be "human" excrement?
TFA even shows the scientist with a bag labelled "shit burgers"! This sounds totally like an attempt at simply getting some hits on You Tube.
Wow, how insightful. Would you mind telling me which additional functions can I have my light bulbs do that would be so much more convenient to do repeatedly from the couch.
As far as I know, not many people use remote control "clickers" to just power their television sets on or off.
dZ.
To your first point, how about changing brightness, setting timers, maybe even setting color, direction or strobe pattern (for the light's in your disco room) for a start. These are all possibilities with some of the newer LED bulbs just now entering the market.
To your second point, your right. They use them to change channels and volume as well. All available as buttons on the TV set.
Slashdot Mirror
A quick review of some other "groundbreaking" technology as patents granted to Zuckerberg et al:
U.S. Appl. No. 11/493,291, Mark Zuckerberg, System and Methods for Dynamically Generating a Privacy Summary, filed Jul. 25, 2006. cited by other . . . . . .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/503,037, Mark Zuckerberg, System sand Methods for Providing Dynamically Selected Media Content to a User of an Electronic Device in a Social Network Environment, filed Aug. 11, 2006. cited by other
U.S. Appl. No. 11/503,242, Mark Zuckerberg, System and Method for Dynamically Providing a News Feed About a User of a Social Network, filed Aug. 11, 2006. cited by other
U.S. Appl. No. 11/499,093, Mark Zuckerberg, Systems and Methods for Dynamically Generating Segmented Community Flyers, filed Aug. 2, 2006. cited by other
U.S. Appl. No. 11/580,210, Mark Zuckerberg, System and Method for Tagging Digital Media, filed Oct. 11, 2006. cited by other
U.S. Appl. No. 12/156,091, Mark Zuckerberg, Systems and Methods for Auction Based Polling, filed May 28, 2008. cited by other
Look out Apple, MS, IBM & Oracle; there's a new sheriff in town. I'm anxiously awaiting "Mark Zuckerberg, System and Method for World Domination and General Mastery of the Universe (in a Social Network)".
I'm thinking we'll all be SOL if someone decides to apply for a patent on "breathing". Apparently the "non-obvious subject matter" test (USPTO 35 U.S.C. 103 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm) does not apply anymore, or maybe the "greasing of the skids" is just more blatant now.
many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence
Yea, except those that do the purchasing. Though I'm sure it's been tried, "Call of Knitting: Black Yarn", "Mundane Borrowing Bicycle" or "Halo: Frolicking" probably just wouldn't sell very well.
No mystery to large enterprise database users. Oracle absolutely trounces every other DBMS out there for large BW applications in terms of performance and scalability, and naturally it performs best on Solaris.
Don't bother pointing out the M$ funded benchmarks that claim SQL Server out performs it, I've seen them and I don't buy it (actually, I haven't seen these in a while - could be that M$ has given up on that battle).
The organizations I work with have large farms of both SQL Server and Oracle DBMS systems. Both have their own teams of DBAs constantly working to optimize these systems, so both are tweaked for max performance. The fact is for the really large DBs Oracle is the only choice as the difference in performance between SQL Server and Oracle is not even close. As an example, I recently worked on a project that migrated a large DB from SQL Server to Oracle (the SQL Server team could not get it to perform well enough to satisfy the requirements). One of the queries (multi-table join on tables with one table containing billions of rows) that ran for 2-3 hours in SQL Server runs in under an hour on Oracle (on roughly equivalent hardware).
What is a mystery to me is why they run SQL Server at all. Maybe because M$ is cheaper? I don't usually deal with purchasing so I don't know the relative costs, but my experience in a recent engagement I had with a small shop installing SQL Server clued me in on how expensive Sql Server is. It might well be cheaper than Oracle, but it's by no means cheap.
In the olden days (Apple ][), "$" was hex.
How prescient. Now "$" means Apple.
Thanks for that.
I may take another look at Swing since I haven't used it much since I picked up SWT. I did prefer the programming model of Swing over SWT, but I felt the resulting GUIs were too sluggish and were giving Java in general a bad reputation for client side apps. As a side bar though, it's beginning to sound like JavaFX 2.0 with it's scene graph architecture is pretty promising and might well turn out be to better alternative to either SWT or Swing.
6502 is, hands-down, the easiest CPU to code Assembler in (6800 being a close, and somewhat related, second).
I disagree. I learned assembler on an IBM 360 before I started developing on microprocessors. With no multiply or divide instructions and no instructions to perform block moves or byte translation, not to mention the lack of powerful macro assembler capabilities, it was hard just to get any meaningful algorithms implemented without writing pages and pages of code. IBM ALC felt like a high level language compared to the 6502, 6800 or (god forbid) the 8080. I remember I missed the more powerful instructions so much, I developed my own 360 instruction set emulator so I could keep programming in ALC on my home machine.
But then again, he couldn't read anyway.
Oh, come on. Michael Keaton can't be that old!
My first exposure to programming was typing in the line PRINT "HELLO" on a Burroughs B6700 terminal and seeing it reply back HELLO. How it could do that intrigued me so much that I HAD to figure out how it worked. Perhaps that triggered some latent OCD I was unaware of at the time, but that was over 35 years ago and I haven't been the same since. The need to understand, all the way down to the level of how the electricity coming out of the wall socket was transformed into what seemed to me at the time, an intelligent machine, has driven me throughout the years. Though I understand much more now, and the "ghost in the machine" gave way to simple logic and algorithms, the curiosity that my first encounter inspired has never left me and I still have the need to understand how every new technology that's been layered on top continues to drive me on.
I've since tried to instill this same inspiration in other people, including my children and anyone else who will listen, but I've not met with much success. Most people I encounter who've come to programming over the last 25 or so year don't seem as "curious" about the inner workings of the machines. Perhaps it's because they grew up with already sophisticated computers and the "magic" is just taken for granted. Perhaps it just takes a particular form of OCD to appreciate it. I don't know. What I do know is that it's hard to get someone inspired using a language like standard BASIC because they won't get excited about something as simple as PRINT "HELLO". They expect, within a few minutes to be able to create some fantastic, world changing first person shooter, and when they find out how much work is involved they soon lose interest. Try to explain a modern language like Java, C# or even VB to them and they begin fidgeting and looking for the door.
The bottom line is, I don't think the language is that important - just about any language will do. Instilling the interest and desire to learn is the hard part and frankly, I've haven't figured out how to do that yet.
Oh, so you're such an amateur that Java does not enter your consciousness
Assuming here that he is talking about client-side apps, Java should stay out of his consciousness, far out. Should never enter it. Should not even be let close to the door of his consciousness.
For client-side, you are probably better off doing client-specific development. A lot of the vertical stuff simply doesn't fit very well with the html/js way of doing things. You'd be a moron do go that route in many situations. That leaves you with either a cross-platform toolkit like Qt or doing each client in platform native tools. The latter would typically be preferable since it would leave you with a working Windows client rather quickly, an OSX client "coming soon" and a Linux client "in the works". Qt would leave you with three sub-optimal client applications "coming soon".
In general, I agree with your comments, except that I think you are a little harsh (or unknowledgeable) on Java client side development. I've developed plenty of GUI client apps in Java that are every bit as performant as those developed in .Net, though you do have to know what you are doing (e.g. steer away from Swing and use SWT instead) and client side apps for Windows are certainly easier to develop in VS (or better yet - Powerbuilder), just as OSX apps are easier to develop in XCode. For the vast majority of enterprise applications (which is my space) though, the functionality provided with a cross platform tool like Qt is more than adequate.
Unless you have a large budget and the inhouse skillset to support three development teams, developing completely separate applications is the last alternative I would choose. Again, I'm speaking from an enterprise development perspective. I would agree however for certain "vertical" applications that will be deployed to a wide number of users it may be worthwhile to develop completely different clients for each platform that create the best user experience on that platform, but I would certainly not label that as 'cross platform development'.
Methinks perhaps rereading my post might sharpen your comprehension skills.
When I referred to "cross platform tools" I very much had Java in mind (I spend about 60% of my days developing enterprise java applications that run across Windows, Mac and Solaris platforms - the rest I spend doing Windows (.Net or MFC) and/or Android and iOS development), but it's not the only choice (e.g. C/C++, python, perl, etc., etc...).
My point was that, unless the application is very small in scope it makes sense to develop one set of source code that is cross platform. If each platform implementation requires special functionality, then fine - develop that functionality as modules called by the mainline code, but keep as much code as possible platform independent.
I wonder what kind of idiotic apps manager would say - Hmmm we need an application that runs on Windows, Mac and Linux. What tools should we use? - I know - three development teams developing completely separate apps using completely separate languages and tool chains!!! Brilliant!
I guess someone failed to tell him there are cross platform tools that would allow the app to be developed once and deployed to all platforms.
but you don't know sh*t about f*ck when it comes to software development if you are bitching about how bad C# or .Net or WPF is for developing applications.
You post would suggest that maybe you and/or your management are the ones who "don't know sh*t about f*ck"
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
Well, yeah, Apple was officially first, but the TRS-80 followed by only 6 months, and outsold Apple II every year after its introduction.
People remember the Apple II selling like hotcakes, but in fact they didn't sell that well compared to other models. Especially after the Commodore 64 came out, which blew Apple away in sheer numbers of units sold.
You're right, the TRS-80 "owned" the market (around 75% as I recall) until the IBM PC came along. The only qualm I have with your post is that Apple doesn't even deserve the "officially first" title. The Commodore PET was announced in January 1977 and the Apple II wasn't announced until April. Additionally, the Commodore PET was far more an "appliance" computer than the Apple II. There was nothing to do but take it out of the box and plug it in. As I mentioned earlier, the Apple II required some "hooking up" and even when you got it hooked up, you were presented with a screen full of ? and @ characters with an asterisk at the bottom. You booted into the monitor (aka machine code debugger) rather than directly into BASIC like the TRS-80 and PET. This is admittedly a minor point, but details like this go to the matter of which machine appealed more to the techie vs the computer neophyte.
a handful of fags toggling switches in their mothers basement
You shouldn't speak of Jobs and Woz in such derogatory terms.
if you consider fiddle fucking umpteen dozen toggle switches just to get something to boot as something the masses could use you need your head examined
Then by your own measure, the TRS-80 model I or Commodore PET was the first personal computer because you simply had to take it out of the box, plug it together and turn it on. The Apple I was just a limited production circuit board so does not qualify. The Apple II did not come with a monitor and had to be connected to a monitor with NTSC composite video inputs (not common on most TVs of the time) or to a regular TV via RF modulator, which was beyond some folks technical abilities (remember the days when you had to help your parents figure out the VCR?).
The bottom line is Apple has their place in computing history, but they are (and were) not the end-all-be-all of everything as some here would suggest.
I was there at the time and recall looking at the PET, the Apple II and the TRS-80. I chose to get a TRS-80 because I was interested in writing software. The TRS-80 offered the largest opportunity because it had the best chance for commercial success due to the marketing reach of Radio Shack as well as it's appeal to business users who wanted something that looked like a business machine rather than a game console.
if anyone gets credit for ushering in the personal computer age its Apple
Right. Just forget about the Altair, the IMSAI and other 8080 based microcomputers. HP used the term "personal computer" way back in 1968 to refer to their HP 9100A. But, why not give Apple credit for this as well since they can do no wrong.
Heil Jobs!
I agree 100% with your post. I remember trying to get our IT department to invest in some TRS80 Model II computers back in the late 70's/early 80's and everyone just laughed at me, considering these machines "toys". All of a sudden when IBM introduced the IBM-PC, microcomputers were legit business machines and everyone wanted IT to begin providing/supporting them.
The label "micro" or "mini" really had little to do with the size of the "box" they came in. Generally, microcomputers were computers that utilized a microprocessor (single chip) as the CPU, while minicomputers employed discrete logic or LSI (later VSLI).
There are lots of strange things that can be made edible (snails, bugs, pond-scum, dogs, cats, etc).
Why choose what is probably the most disgusting choice, excrement? And if you have to choose excrement, why does it have to be "human" excrement?
TFA even shows the scientist with a bag labelled "shit burgers"! This sounds totally like an attempt at simply getting some hits on You Tube.
will there be a beverage made from urine?
Already there... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQB8mSwPDdo
I can just see an innocent looking Barbie pink corvette equipped with weapons ala Kitt from Knight Rider. Hasselhoff cannot be far behind.
Wow, how insightful. Would you mind telling me which additional functions can I have my light bulbs do that would be so much more convenient to do repeatedly from the couch.
As far as I know, not many people use remote control "clickers" to just power their television sets on or off.
dZ.
To your first point, how about changing brightness, setting timers, maybe even setting color, direction or strobe pattern (for the light's in your disco room) for a start. These are all possibilities with some of the newer LED bulbs just now entering the market.
To your second point, your right. They use them to change channels and volume as well. All available as buttons on the TV set.
If I want to turn the light on in a room, why make it more complicated than flipping a switch on the wall?
That's exactly what I said about TVs years ago. There was a perfectly good switch on the front of the TV so why would anyone want a stupid "clicker"?