...tattoo it on an enemy and seal him in the drum....or reduce it to a microdot (then try and FIND it in the drum)....encode it as a self-replicating protein sequence. Wait, no that might be a bad idea...
How much data? Burn it to ROM chips.
Alternative, if it needs to be moved in the future, make sure the device it's on can do some sort of basic serial communication (after all, once you have serial communication, now all you have to deal with is programming the protocols). Include paper copies of the protocols.
Odd alternatives...
Have it engraved on something.
Print it out in bar codes.
Store it on film.
Amber? Lucky? That was a HORRIBLE color. The REAL green phosphor was a beautiful emerald green with soothing properties and so crisp. I cry every day, I miss it so much...
"2) We can get OFF the moon. The big gotcha with any other landing. Go to Mars? Yeah, could probably get there and land now. Getting off is the hard part. Don't have that problem with the moon."
With the right girl, I could get off on Mars. Oh wait, you mean off OF Mars - nevermind...
>> I said they were successful because they saw software as a viable business and acted/invested accordingly. > That is where you are wrong. Whether you want to believe it or not. Other people also saw that selling an OS without selling the hardware could be a viable business. Yet those other companies did NOT survive.
Actually some of those companies DID survive - for many years. Your bias against Microsoft notwithstanding, the companies that DID fail FAILED because they were POOR BUSINESSES. In business, stronger businesses succeed, weaker businesses fail. This doesn't mean Microsoft has better products (lots of companies put out inferior products, not just in the computer industry either), but industry leaders are leaders because they have made sound BUSINESS decisions.
Some people call what Microsoft does ruthless and underhanded. Sorry. In addition to my IS degree, I have a business degree. Some of Microsofts actions are questionable, but ultimately they shoot themselves in the foot for those actions. The rest of the whole "Microsoft forces the world to use their product" crusade is a lie. If users wanted to use Mac OS X or Linux they would - AND DO - use those systems. The rest of us use Windows (some of us even competently) and it works fine for us. Deal with it. Microsoft's business tactics are those of a major player marketing their product agressively to turn a profit - and everybody complains when they succeed. Ignorance is bliss...
Microsoft bought MS-DOS - who cares. If you think any software developed out there is done without somebody's compiler, or without additional purchased libraries, or without use of patents licensed from other companies, then you are delusional. No significant product developed for the software market and sold by a corporation is a solely in-house development - not Microsoft's, not Apple's, not even most open source software that is given away.
>> The genius was recognizing that the computer market was evolving to a point where hardware and operating systems could and would be decoupled. >Again, Bill Gates BOUGHT the OS from someone else. YAWN - Nice mantra. NOBODY CARES!!!
> By your "logic", Edison would have been a "genius" for buying an electric light bulb from someone else who built one. Edison's product is HARDWARE. Your analogy is flawed. Then again, I expected no less from you.
There's at least a few good COBOL programs - I wrote some and I am SERIOUSLY anal retentive where structured programming/modular design and so forth are concerned.
My list of things essential for all programs:
Strict adherence to structured programming: sequence, iteration, decision + modularity (what I always called the DNA of a programs).
Planning: I always PLANNED programs completely (or when working for an analyst, refused to code anything that wasn't well planned). This meant flowcharts and desk checking.
Like I said - anal retentive. Those programs were written 20 years ago. They've been recompiled on newer equipment for over 20 years with no modifications (planning meant knowing we would have a year 2000). That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be modified (there are better database technologies) but they do still work. It's been recompiled five times.
Living in Missouri, let me see if I can address these issues...
The laptop probably has no local information, but DOES connect to a server that does. But that isn't really the issue either. If you're making *false* IDs, you'd have to print an ID with information you entered. If you wanted it in the state database, you'd have to login to it, since having it on the laptop wouldn't solve your problem. It mentions the trouble with logging in.
The issue of why it is on a laptop may be related to one of repair - tech support for MDR may bring a laptop for substitution while the main unit is being serviced, or the laptop may be used for overflow work (somebody can work at a table that isn't normally set up for heavy months, like December).
Exactly. Nobody seems to care how things got to the level they take for granted.
"Tech-savvy" is a joke. Let's see, these kids can operate devices designed, built, and sold to the masses of people who have trouble making change at your local store.
That's not savvy people, that's willingness to buy and use tools. Any idiot can buy a hammer, it doesn't mean he should bring it to school unless they're gonna actually be teaching him to use it properly.
That said, the current thinking of schools seems overwhelmingly to be, "lecture, assign homework, test, repeat." Dumb. This doesn't begin to initiate critical thinking skills, creativity, or other problem-solving skills.
WAY BACK when I was taught (OK, so I'm 40), books were extra tools except for reading classes where they were obviously required. Teaching involved a quick explanation, then everybody gave a try at the solution to a problem. You weren't upbraided if you were wrong, merely corrected. If you were right, you may or may not get praised. But now we have to worry about self-esteem.
Which is funny too. WAY BACK nobody worried about your self-esteem and only a handful in my age bracket turned out to be ax murderers and usually that's around middle age. (sharpen, sharpen, sharpen) But the kids in SCHOOL didn't kill each other once a month around the country.
Now that we have these excellent self-esteem policies, there are metal detectors and gun fights and widespread mayhem on campus. Maybe it's me, but I think a little punishment at a younger age was worth it.
Side note - how do kids get into school past the metal detectors with braces...?
The point is that when I taught college courses (14 years) I did it by making people write down what I say, practice what skills had to be mastered, and many passed tests better (and gee, what a self-esteem booster for those that REALLY deserved it).
Sorry, but if you haven't actually *worked* in education and are familiar with its costs, you simply don't know what you are talking about. I worked as an instructor for a community college in Florida. At that college, we had an IT budget of 1.5 million just to handle our students needs (granted, that's four campuses that totalled 20,000 students). Finding instructors to teach beginning programming languages was so difficult that they were paid *double* what other instructors were paid, even if they were adjuncts.
The economy of running a school is exactly like that of another business, especially when states try to separate themselves from the in-state contribution.
Poor students, however, can easily find financial aid. I know - I saw enough poor students do it. I have friends who went to state schools and got financial aid - pell grants and local scholarships. I'm not talking just the teenie-boppers here, but also a 35-year old who wanted to change careers.
I'm not saying it will be easy, but it is ridiculous to say that this excludes poor students. Furthermore, some schools actually provide slots of zero-tuition for poor students who can show they're worthy academically speaking.
Expecting Engineering and Medicine to cost the same as Liberal Arts is absurd. On top of that, it should be noted that Liberal Arts people who actually study Music or Theater may not be able to run their computers, but if YouTube is any indication, we geeks can't act or play instruments (no matter what your friends tell you or how much beer you consume). So, taking cheap shots at other majors is pretty lame people. When you can do *everything*, get back to me.
The antiphishing aspect is really best handled by the browser I think.
Why are still running systems with the assumption that programs and data must exist on the same drive? Why don't our installed programs run from a read-only drive that can only be made read-write by the flip of a switch on the computer itself, and why can't that immediately force the computer offline?
Nearly all patches are for security issues. So, here's a thought - if the OS can't be impacted by outside manipulation in any meaningful way, why bother to patch? If a patch needs to be delivered, download it to the data side encrypted with the registered product code and have the user install in the offline mode by entering that code to do an MD5 and decryption.
I run a prototype system like this. It gets checked once a month for modification for the apps and OS in a byte-for-byte comparison. In seven months, nothing has modified it. This, even though there is no software firewall, no antivirus software, no antiadware, no antispyware software of any kind.
To be fair, I download patches to another machine to verify their safety, then I install them to the machine. Installing my apps and Windows XP required some substantial (and likely unmarketable) modifications on my part. But the system loads far faster than the "normal" machine and stays clean. We have reached the point where we are so stuck in a rut thinking that modifying the Von Neuman architecture is unthinkable. This is unrealistic. We need to revisit so things we used to do, and consider some things that we used to think were ridiculous. At the risk of using a cliche, we have to "think outside the box."
Oh PLEASE! Quit being so melodramatic. Everybody pays taxes to the government that go to feeding children who don't have enough to eat. Churches are full of people who will help. Friends and family will help.
If you have no ethics, no morality, no humanity, then you are SCUM-SUCKING IDIOTS just like the bosses who ask you to do illegal things.
It no wonder the country goes to he** in a handbasket with an attitude like that. What kind of example do you set for your children when you LIE, CHEAT, and STEAL moron?!?!!
When I was a child and my father was out of work and unable to find another job for an extended period, my family and my parents friends made sure we had at least enough to get by. Sure it was tough, but I learned it was better to suffer a little rather than to take the easy road and to steal.
Anyone who plays the "he might have a family to feed" card is PATHETIC!
OK, seriously. While there are those of us who want a general purpose OS that we can configure and so forth to near infinite ends, does the mass market public need or want this? Wouldn't most people be happier with a computing appliance that contained slots for their top ten application suites (productivity, internet, music/sound, video, photo editing, DVD/CD work, already running out...) These could be added to a ROM with a basic interface needed to enjoy the experience. The appliance turns on and the OS is new, can't get a virus. That only leaves data files. The OS could keep track by scanning files as they are opened and closed before they actually are allowed access to other files. All user prefs could be stored in a folder, let's see, call it user prefs. The machine could boot to play games (or you COULD play them on the game console appliance, once they figure out that I don't need a media center in my game console).
Lemme think, I know I've heard this idea before... Oh yeah, the idea of building smaller, leaner, faster, working items - that'd be shell scripting on your beloved *nix (mine too). And the OS in a ROM cart, a take off of the old, but venerable computers like the C-64. Computing wasn't easy then, but it could be now. But if we did that, the Geek Squad, et al would all be looking for new jobs.
What a ludicrous statement. Yes universities provide education in law and medicine, but there is a broader amount of education going on. A doctor must be able to adapt to new diseases, diagnose combinations of diseases, differentiate between the unique symptoms a person comes in with. Medical technicians are trained at a vocational school.
And lawyers - lawyers must not only know the law, but be prepared to go to trial and apply psychology, dispute or prove evidence, make use of precendents, and adapt to variables that cannot be trained. A paralegal can be trained to search for cases and to find possibly relevant material with great competency, but the lawyer must decide how it can be applied to the case.
Do people go to college to get jobs? Sure. Few people have the luxury to attend college for purely edifying reasons. Do colleges play to that? Sure. Unfortunately, many schools are required to provide educational tracks that are narrow in order to receive their funding or in order to stay fiscally viable.
Many universites and colleges are even DIRECTLY tied to technical schools. They provide those services as well and they are forced to offer similar tracks at the tech school part that are offered in the academic part.
The reality is that some colleges are caving to student demands for fiscal reasons, but medicine and law aren't good examples. I'd hate to be operated on by a "tech school surgeon."
So when you bought this machine, do you REALLY think you paid more than $40 for that copy of Windows? Does it suck that you'd have to buy another copy? Sure. But if I decided to go with another mobo, especially a non-eMachines board, I'd pay for the generic OEM CD which is much more convenient (actually installable on whatever mobo or system I might switch to).
Or I might use Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD.
I might even get desperate and use a Mac! (Seriously, it's a good machine, just more money than I want to spend.)
The argument about Windows being more popular because so many more people use it is poorly thought out.
Windows is required by home users who need to do business with the US government, since many of those sites require not just IE, but features unique to Windows. Many businesses similarly force customers to use IE and Windows.
Also, employees of businesses that use Windows and its applications cannot always use open source alternatives. Open Office is extremely good, but I have repeatedly run into incompatibilities that forced me back to using MS Office for work related things.
I also have attended college and they require the use of IE (online components of Blackboard don't display correctly under Firefox) and require MS Word for papers because of problems Open Office documents saved in MS Word format created in grading of papers.
Many colleges won't support Mac OS X, and many sites require the latest versions of IE, something Microsoft hasn't (to my knowledge) provided for Mac OS X. Now that V7 of IE is out, MS doesn't even make IE available for some Windows users. This isn't wholly unjustified, but it is important to note that Firefox is available on more platforms and has a significant user base on Windows based machines.
I have never been a Mac user, even though I have great respect for the design of Mac OS X. I have used Windows 2000 and Windows XP (and all previous MS operating systems clear back to DOS and Xenix). I have seen and used Vista (though I am largely unimpressed). Windows 2000 and Windows XP are reasonably good - certainly as good as Microsoft has created (once patched through their respective latest patches).
Considering that the availability of Windows is widespread on many brands of IBM compatible machines while Mac OS X has been available only on Apple Mac machines, it is ridiculous to say that Windows is better because of the number of users. This is like saying AT&T is better because more people in a given area use AT&T when in reality it is the primary local service provider for that area. Make your product ubiquitous and people will buy it. Make a product somewhat exclusive and only a few people will seek it out and buy it.
Even now, Mac OS X faces challenges to becoming as mainstream as Windows because Microsoft has gone to great lengths to make things incompatible. Even now, they seek to replace Acrobat, further reducing compatibility. However, it should also be noted that many of Apple's best software are not yet available for Windows. Now that Apple has changed hardware platforms, some of these apps might be ported, however I doubt it will be Apple's priority to do so.
Each platform has unique flaws and strengths. However, debating the superiority of an operating system based upon the quantity of users is faulty logic.
I disagree. The amount of hardware is not relevant because Microsoft isn't doing the driver development for various vendors as a rule. If you provide a set of APIs that are strong and valid, then manufacturers can make drivers for anything. In fact, Windows already supports a dizzying array of products.
Remember, I/O is handled through ports, and drivers are only character based, block based, or both. There are no other choices. Whatever your "port" (real port, virtual port, messgae queue, etc.) the process is pretty much direct.
It's not the legions of hardware that destabilizes Windows so much today, it's the legions of old software that users won't part with.
Now I do agree with one aspect mentioned by somebody - Microsoft does shoddy work. Their apps are bloated, their code is sloppy, their desire to be in the public's hands before the product is ready is infamous. Worse, every time they overhaul a product, they mess it up (anybody know how to change the links bar into a drop down menu on the command bar in IE7?). I've taken to using Firefox and OO portable whenever I do my own stuff, but sadly I'm forced to use MS Office and IE for certain business projects - the compatibility just isn't there quite (especially on Firefox).
In fact, compare most of the open source software made for Windows to most any equivalent M$ product, and you find better written software. Some of it has problems, but I spent the day correcting a glitch in Office 2000 that crashed Word every three words you typed.
Microsoft is in a position to make a very usuable system that uses far less HDD space, but they don't.
I agree about a single format book reader for less than $200 (more like $50). But as a former professor for 15 years, let me offer this advice: lose the textbook entirely. Write everything you need to know down in your notes and you will be a better student. If universities would do this, we'd progress far faster. I'm not saying that research shouldn't be acquired from books and other sources, but class lectures should cover the material you need to learn and should not include the words "it's in your textbook". I've seen too many textbooks with gross errors. Take notes, participate in discussions and labs, do research and *you will learn*.
Not so. I work for a newspaper. As readership declines (generally as the older people who were used to newspapers die off)so do opportunities to convince advertisers that you can distribute advertising effectively. Further, one of the major publishers of inserts is also electronically publishing. This will impact press operators (as several national advertisers use multiple print houses - it would no longer be necessary to do that). It will impact shippers because the inserts will be transmittable through the internet. It will impact paper throwers (often hired as external contractors) who will no longer be needed. People aren't thinking this out - once the technology to carry a reader that is useful and durable exists, the younger generation will look for information sources they prefer. If that reader device connects directly to the internet, many content providers will need to charge per user. Many currently free sources of news will go away and many old sources of news that cannot adapt (like mine!!) will disappear.
The problem is that schools have long been doing it wrong. It used to be you *started* with assembler and worked your way up. This way, you were forced to see the consequences of things like improper looping, improper memory addressing, frivolous use of storage, etc.
Learning any high-level language before assembler makes any true understanding of interpreters or compilers *meaningless*.
Similarly, OOP people seem to think that learning OOP languages without learning procedural languages first is some benefit. That's ridiculous. It's like saying, "skip all that algebra crap, send me straight to calculus." ALL object-oriented languages are built on extending the capabilities of procedural languages, and adding a layer that improves productivity for complex tasks.
Just as assembler improved on binary entry, and high-level procedural languages improved on assembler, OOP languages improve on procedural languages. Certain tasks call for certain types of languages. Nobody would write an OS in COBOL or RPG, but C/C++/C#/Java et al will never approach the simplicity for data processing of records. Database languages are the only thing that can surpass the likes of COBOL or RPG - and even then it's sketchy since these languages interface with database engines so easily.
Zip drives/disks. The old PPA one worked well, and I'm sure new ones could take advantage of higher capacity disks. It may be higher cost up front, but the ability to replace the disks cheaply makes it a good fit.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're lucky. What if prospective employers looked at your page?
I, for one, DO deny that Pollack, Rothko, or Picasso had ANY artistic talent or creativity. They have all the talent of four year old children.
If that's your example, the "tlented" programmers at Microsoft will go down in History...
...tattoo it on an enemy and seal him in the drum. ...or reduce it to a microdot (then try and FIND it in the drum). ...encode it as a self-replicating protein sequence. Wait, no that might be a bad idea...
How much data? Burn it to ROM chips. Alternative, if it needs to be moved in the future, make sure the device it's on can do some sort of basic serial communication (after all, once you have serial communication, now all you have to deal with is programming the protocols). Include paper copies of the protocols. Odd alternatives... Have it engraved on something. Print it out in bar codes. Store it on film.
Amber? Lucky? That was a HORRIBLE color. The REAL green phosphor was a beautiful emerald green with soothing properties and so crisp. I cry every day, I miss it so much...
"2) We can get OFF the moon. The big gotcha with any other landing. Go to Mars? Yeah, could probably get there and land now. Getting off is the hard part. Don't have that problem with the moon."
With the right girl, I could get off on Mars. Oh wait, you mean off OF Mars - nevermind...
>> It doesn't disprove a thing.
> Yes, it does.
Oh please. Saying one or the other is JUVENILE!
>> I said they were successful because they saw software as a viable business and acted/invested accordingly.
> That is where you are wrong. Whether you want to believe it or not.
Other people also saw that selling an OS without selling the hardware could be a viable business. Yet those other companies did NOT survive.
Actually some of those companies DID survive - for many years. Your bias against Microsoft notwithstanding, the companies that DID fail FAILED because they were POOR BUSINESSES. In business, stronger businesses succeed, weaker businesses fail. This doesn't mean Microsoft has better products (lots of companies put out inferior products, not just in the computer industry either), but industry leaders are leaders because they have made sound BUSINESS decisions.
Some people call what Microsoft does ruthless and underhanded. Sorry. In addition to my IS degree, I have a business degree. Some of Microsofts actions are questionable, but ultimately they shoot themselves in the foot for those actions. The rest of the whole "Microsoft forces the world to use their product" crusade is a lie. If users wanted to use Mac OS X or Linux they would - AND DO - use those systems. The rest of us use Windows (some of us even competently) and it works fine for us. Deal with it. Microsoft's business tactics are those of a major player marketing their product agressively to turn a profit - and everybody complains when they succeed. Ignorance is bliss...
Microsoft bought MS-DOS - who cares. If you think any software developed out there is done without somebody's compiler, or without additional purchased libraries, or without use of patents licensed from other companies, then you are delusional. No significant product developed for the software market and sold by a corporation is a solely in-house development - not Microsoft's, not Apple's, not even most open source software that is given away.
>> The genius was recognizing that the computer market was evolving to a point where hardware and operating systems could and would be decoupled.
>Again, Bill Gates BOUGHT the OS from someone else.
YAWN - Nice mantra. NOBODY CARES!!!
> By your "logic", Edison would have been a "genius" for buying an electric light bulb from someone else who built one.
Edison's product is HARDWARE. Your analogy is flawed. Then again, I expected no less from you.
There's at least a few good COBOL programs - I wrote some and I am SERIOUSLY anal retentive where structured programming/modular design and so forth are concerned.
My list of things essential for all programs:
Strict adherence to structured programming: sequence, iteration, decision + modularity (what I always called the DNA of a programs).
Planning: I always PLANNED programs completely (or when working for an analyst, refused to code anything that wasn't well planned). This meant flowcharts and desk checking.
Like I said - anal retentive. Those programs were written 20 years ago. They've been recompiled on newer equipment for over 20 years with no modifications (planning meant knowing we would have a year 2000). That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be modified (there are better database technologies) but they do still work. It's been recompiled five times.
Some community colleges have math labs, where you can learn the material and get one-on-one help.
Living in Missouri, let me see if I can address these issues...
The laptop probably has no local information, but DOES connect to a server that does. But that isn't really the issue either. If you're making *false* IDs, you'd have to print an ID with information you entered. If you wanted it in the state database, you'd have to login to it, since having it on the laptop wouldn't solve your problem. It mentions the trouble with logging in.
The issue of why it is on a laptop may be related to one of repair - tech support for MDR may bring a laptop for substitution while the main unit is being serviced, or the laptop may be used for overflow work (somebody can work at a table that isn't normally set up for heavy months, like December).
Exactly. Nobody seems to care how things got to the level they take for granted.
"Tech-savvy" is a joke. Let's see, these kids can operate devices designed, built, and sold to the masses of people who have trouble making change at your local store.
That's not savvy people, that's willingness to buy and use tools. Any idiot can buy a hammer, it doesn't mean he should bring it to school unless they're gonna actually be teaching him to use it properly.
That said, the current thinking of schools seems overwhelmingly to be, "lecture, assign homework, test, repeat." Dumb. This doesn't begin to initiate critical thinking skills, creativity, or other problem-solving skills.
WAY BACK when I was taught (OK, so I'm 40), books were extra tools except for reading classes where they were obviously required. Teaching involved a quick explanation, then everybody gave a try at the solution to a problem. You weren't upbraided if you were wrong, merely corrected. If you were right, you may or may not get praised. But now we have to worry about self-esteem.
Which is funny too. WAY BACK nobody worried about your self-esteem and only a handful in my age bracket turned out to be ax murderers and usually that's around middle age. (sharpen, sharpen, sharpen) But the kids in SCHOOL didn't kill each other once a month around the country.
Now that we have these excellent self-esteem policies, there are metal detectors and gun fights and widespread mayhem on campus. Maybe it's me, but I think a little punishment at a younger age was worth it.
Side note - how do kids get into school past the metal detectors with braces...?
The point is that when I taught college courses (14 years) I did it by making people write down what I say, practice what skills had to be mastered, and many passed tests better (and gee, what a self-esteem booster for those that REALLY deserved it).
Rant over....
What self-respecting Time Lord *wouldn't* be a doctor?
Sorry, but if you haven't actually *worked* in education and are familiar with its costs, you simply don't know what you are talking about. I worked as an instructor for a community college in Florida. At that college, we had an IT budget of 1.5 million just to handle our students needs (granted, that's four campuses that totalled 20,000 students). Finding instructors to teach beginning programming languages was so difficult that they were paid *double* what other instructors were paid, even if they were adjuncts.
The economy of running a school is exactly like that of another business, especially when states try to separate themselves from the in-state contribution.
Poor students, however, can easily find financial aid. I know - I saw enough poor students do it. I have friends who went to state schools and got financial aid - pell grants and local scholarships. I'm not talking just the teenie-boppers here, but also a 35-year old who wanted to change careers.
I'm not saying it will be easy, but it is ridiculous to say that this excludes poor students. Furthermore, some schools actually provide slots of zero-tuition for poor students who can show they're worthy academically speaking.
Expecting Engineering and Medicine to cost the same as Liberal Arts is absurd. On top of that, it should be noted that Liberal Arts people who actually study Music or Theater may not be able to run their computers, but if YouTube is any indication, we geeks can't act or play instruments (no matter what your friends tell you or how much beer you consume). So, taking cheap shots at other majors is pretty lame people. When you can do *everything*, get back to me.
I agree with the idea of a security culture of sorts, but I must say that it is possible to make the system capable of completely blocking:
Virus/trojan horse/backdoor mods/etc
Spyware
Adware
The antiphishing aspect is really best handled by the browser I think.
Why are still running systems with the assumption that programs and data must exist on the same drive? Why don't our installed programs run from a read-only drive that can only be made read-write by the flip of a switch on the computer itself, and why can't that immediately force the computer offline?
Nearly all patches are for security issues. So, here's a thought - if the OS can't be impacted by outside manipulation in any meaningful way, why bother to patch? If a patch needs to be delivered, download it to the data side encrypted with the registered product code and have the user install in the offline mode by entering that code to do an MD5 and decryption.
I run a prototype system like this. It gets checked once a month for modification for the apps and OS in a byte-for-byte comparison. In seven months, nothing has modified it. This, even though there is no software firewall, no antivirus software, no antiadware, no antispyware software of any kind.
To be fair, I download patches to another machine to verify their safety, then I install them to the machine. Installing my apps and Windows XP required some substantial (and likely unmarketable) modifications on my part. But the system loads far faster than the "normal" machine and stays clean. We have reached the point where we are so stuck in a rut thinking that modifying the Von Neuman architecture is unthinkable. This is unrealistic. We need to revisit so things we used to do, and consider some things that we used to think were ridiculous. At the risk of using a cliche, we have to "think outside the box."
Oh PLEASE! Quit being so melodramatic. Everybody pays taxes to the government that go to feeding children who don't have enough to eat. Churches are full of people who will help. Friends and family will help.
If you have no ethics, no morality, no humanity, then you are SCUM-SUCKING IDIOTS just like the bosses who ask you to do illegal things.
It no wonder the country goes to he** in a handbasket with an attitude like that. What kind of example do you set for your children when you LIE, CHEAT, and STEAL moron?!?!!
When I was a child and my father was out of work and unable to find another job for an extended period, my family and my parents friends made sure we had at least enough to get by. Sure it was tough, but I learned it was better to suffer a little rather than to take the easy road and to steal.
Anyone who plays the "he might have a family to feed" card is PATHETIC!
Lemme think, I know I've heard this idea before... Oh yeah, the idea of building smaller, leaner, faster, working items - that'd be shell scripting on your beloved *nix (mine too). And the OS in a ROM cart, a take off of the old, but venerable computers like the C-64. Computing wasn't easy then, but it could be now. But if we did that, the Geek Squad, et al would all be looking for new jobs.
And lawyers - lawyers must not only know the law, but be prepared to go to trial and apply psychology, dispute or prove evidence, make use of precendents, and adapt to variables that cannot be trained. A paralegal can be trained to search for cases and to find possibly relevant material with great competency, but the lawyer must decide how it can be applied to the case.
Do people go to college to get jobs? Sure. Few people have the luxury to attend college for purely edifying reasons. Do colleges play to that? Sure. Unfortunately, many schools are required to provide educational tracks that are narrow in order to receive their funding or in order to stay fiscally viable.
Many universites and colleges are even DIRECTLY tied to technical schools. They provide those services as well and they are forced to offer similar tracks at the tech school part that are offered in the academic part.
The reality is that some colleges are caving to student demands for fiscal reasons, but medicine and law aren't good examples. I'd hate to be operated on by a "tech school surgeon."
Or I might use Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD.
I might even get desperate and use a Mac! (Seriously, it's a good machine, just more money than I want to spend.)
The argument about Windows being more popular because so many more people use it is poorly thought out.
Windows is required by home users who need to do business with the US government, since many of those sites require not just IE, but features unique to Windows. Many businesses similarly force customers to use IE and Windows.
Also, employees of businesses that use Windows and its applications cannot always use open source alternatives. Open Office is extremely good, but I have repeatedly run into incompatibilities that forced me back to using MS Office for work related things.
I also have attended college and they require the use of IE (online components of Blackboard don't display correctly under Firefox) and require MS Word for papers because of problems Open Office documents saved in MS Word format created in grading of papers.
Many colleges won't support Mac OS X, and many sites require the latest versions of IE, something Microsoft hasn't (to my knowledge) provided for Mac OS X. Now that V7 of IE is out, MS doesn't even make IE available for some Windows users. This isn't wholly unjustified, but it is important to note that Firefox is available on more platforms and has a significant user base on Windows based machines.
I have never been a Mac user, even though I have great respect for the design of Mac OS X. I have used Windows 2000 and Windows XP (and all previous MS operating systems clear back to DOS and Xenix). I have seen and used Vista (though I am largely unimpressed). Windows 2000 and Windows XP are reasonably good - certainly as good as Microsoft has created (once patched through their respective latest patches).
Considering that the availability of Windows is widespread on many brands of IBM compatible machines while Mac OS X has been available only on Apple Mac machines, it is ridiculous to say that Windows is better because of the number of users. This is like saying AT&T is better because more people in a given area use AT&T when in reality it is the primary local service provider for that area. Make your product ubiquitous and people will buy it. Make a product somewhat exclusive and only a few people will seek it out and buy it.
Even now, Mac OS X faces challenges to becoming as mainstream as Windows because Microsoft has gone to great lengths to make things incompatible. Even now, they seek to replace Acrobat, further reducing compatibility. However, it should also be noted that many of Apple's best software are not yet available for Windows. Now that Apple has changed hardware platforms, some of these apps might be ported, however I doubt it will be Apple's priority to do so.
Each platform has unique flaws and strengths. However, debating the superiority of an operating system based upon the quantity of users is faulty logic.
I disagree. The amount of hardware is not relevant because Microsoft isn't doing the driver development for various vendors as a rule. If you provide a set of APIs that are strong and valid, then manufacturers can make drivers for anything. In fact, Windows already supports a dizzying array of products.
Remember, I/O is handled through ports, and drivers are only character based, block based, or both. There are no other choices. Whatever your "port" (real port, virtual port, messgae queue, etc.) the process is pretty much direct.
It's not the legions of hardware that destabilizes Windows so much today, it's the legions of old software that users won't part with.
Now I do agree with one aspect mentioned by somebody - Microsoft does shoddy work. Their apps are bloated, their code is sloppy, their desire to be in the public's hands before the product is ready is infamous. Worse, every time they overhaul a product, they mess it up (anybody know how to change the links bar into a drop down menu on the command bar in IE7?). I've taken to using Firefox and OO portable whenever I do my own stuff, but sadly I'm forced to use MS Office and IE for certain business projects - the compatibility just isn't there quite (especially on Firefox).
In fact, compare most of the open source software made for Windows to most any equivalent M$ product, and you find better written software. Some of it has problems, but I spent the day correcting a glitch in Office 2000 that crashed Word every three words you typed.
Microsoft is in a position to make a very usuable system that uses far less HDD space, but they don't.
I agree about a single format book reader for less than $200 (more like $50). But as a former professor for 15 years, let me offer this advice: lose the textbook entirely. Write everything you need to know down in your notes and you will be a better student. If universities would do this, we'd progress far faster. I'm not saying that research shouldn't be acquired from books and other sources, but class lectures should cover the material you need to learn and should not include the words "it's in your textbook". I've seen too many textbooks with gross errors. Take notes, participate in discussions and labs, do research and *you will learn*.
Not so. I work for a newspaper. As readership declines (generally as the older people who were used to newspapers die off)so do opportunities to convince advertisers that you can distribute advertising effectively. Further, one of the major publishers of inserts is also electronically publishing. This will impact press operators (as several national advertisers use multiple print houses - it would no longer be necessary to do that). It will impact shippers because the inserts will be transmittable through the internet. It will impact paper throwers (often hired as external contractors) who will no longer be needed. People aren't thinking this out - once the technology to carry a reader that is useful and durable exists, the younger generation will look for information sources they prefer. If that reader device connects directly to the internet, many content providers will need to charge per user. Many currently free sources of news will go away and many old sources of news that cannot adapt (like mine!!) will disappear.
The problem is that schools have long been doing it wrong. It used to be you *started* with assembler and worked your way up. This way, you were forced to see the consequences of things like improper looping, improper memory addressing, frivolous use of storage, etc. Learning any high-level language before assembler makes any true understanding of interpreters or compilers *meaningless*. Similarly, OOP people seem to think that learning OOP languages without learning procedural languages first is some benefit. That's ridiculous. It's like saying, "skip all that algebra crap, send me straight to calculus." ALL object-oriented languages are built on extending the capabilities of procedural languages, and adding a layer that improves productivity for complex tasks. Just as assembler improved on binary entry, and high-level procedural languages improved on assembler, OOP languages improve on procedural languages. Certain tasks call for certain types of languages. Nobody would write an OS in COBOL or RPG, but C/C++/C#/Java et al will never approach the simplicity for data processing of records. Database languages are the only thing that can surpass the likes of COBOL or RPG - and even then it's sketchy since these languages interface with database engines so easily.
Zip drives/disks. The old PPA one worked well, and I'm sure new ones could take advantage of higher capacity disks. It may be higher cost up front, but the ability to replace the disks cheaply makes it a good fit.
I taught my mother VB from John Smiley's Learn To Program books. Highly recommended. My mother was 71 at the time.