When Con-Agra rolls out such zero-emissions factories everywhere (As William McDonough writes of in Cradle to Cradle [slashdot.org]) I will happily invest in their stock and buy their products.
Umm... why? Seriously, I'm not trolling. Are you against the company for what its current actions are, or are you against them because they hold values that are incompatible with your own which produce actions with which you don't agree?
If the former, then you better be prepared to monitor them and ensure that they stay in line by your standard. Then, when they (inevitably) get on your bad side, be prepared to find an alternative. Also, don't assume that because their current actions agree with you, that you're going to find these people to be agreeable. It just doesn't follow.
If the latter, then congratulations! You get it! But on that note, just because they change their actions (by using zero-emissions technology), you shouldn't assume that they now hold values compatible with your own. It's just luck that the market is supporting renewable fuel sources.
I guess the point I'm making here is that people in general seem to hold things against companies at a personal level and they assume that "the company" will care and respond, like another human being would. But, by and large, they usually don't care. They're not even listening most of the time.
Unless you've got the skill to get a large boycott underway, the clout to get a bill into the legislature and get funding for it, or the private enterprise contacts to get corporate change introduced, you're just wasting your time and energy.
The best way to change the world is to get with the program, get embedded into organizations, and effect change by using the system. It's the long term view, it can suck, and it doesn't produce results overnight. However, it does work.
Hmm... I just looked. Looks like you already work for the man. Good going!
Well, I don't know your dad, but he could just as well throw up a shingle and market himself as an independent consultant. (It doesn't sound like he's busy anyway.) That circumvents the HR folks entirely because he's not looking to be an employee. Of course, being a consultant has its downsides, but at least he could stand a chance of getting back in the game.
If he's really got good experience with critical skill sets, he should be able to find something. I wouldn't count on being cash flush in today's market though; expectations need to be tempered.
Actually, Microsoft is already aware of this possibility. Just check out this/. story for further details.
Rest assured that the mighty MS will not fall over something this stupid.
PCs are not going anywhere, thanks to Microsoft, Apple, Compaq, Dell, et al. I, for one, am glad for that. If PCs do ever disappear then a major component of the decentralized freedom of information we all enjoy today would disappear. That's a far more important benefit to the PC+Internet combination than many people care to admit. It's also a freedom that could be easily throttled on a completely DRM controlled platform like could be provided on any console.
I didn't mod this (obviously since I'm posting), but I do know that moderating can be tricky sometimes.
I once modded a comment as "Troll" because the comment concluded with some wise ass remark about their not being real thought put into posts on/. (or some such). I resented the remark because I usually try to keep my posts relatively intelligent, useful, accurate, etc. Hell, I even spell check my posts so I don't develop sloppy habits just because I'm posting on/.
Anyway, no one understood the mod I made, so I got battered in meta-moderation. Well, if that wasn't bad enough, I think I also pissed off the local deities, because I got whacked with a couple of subsequent "Off Topic" mods to a couple of posts I made. It's not a big deal, but it was interesting timing.
Anyway, in this case, maybe the mod is just a prick, but it's sometimes hard to tell.
Now the question I want answered is will Doom 3 scare me again?
You really ought to give Return to Castle Wolfenstein a spin. If Doom scared you, you then RtCW will having you turning the lights back up during the game.
Maybe you two ought to hook up and create a MP3 CRC signature -> ID3/2 tag database and application, eh?
There are probably only so many copies of a song out there on the net in MP3 format. Your database would allow multiple CRC signatures to exist for a given set of ID3 tags. Then your application would inventory the users entire collection of MP3s, search your database for matches, assign the ID3 tags to the files for the files with matches, and rename the files acccording to the ID3 tags (if requested). Then for all the MP3 file signatures that didn't have a match in the database, you would give the user a chance to find them manually in the database and (if they don't exist already), allow the user to enter them. Hmm.... you could even allow the user to prime the song names, etc. by allowing them to find the songs in freedb's CDDB database first, then have them enter the rest of the information (which may not amount to much, you might be able to get most or all of the data from the CDDB entry).
In short, write a program for this and stop acting like a data entry monkey!
What the heck is a "legitimate fork"? Does this mean that there are "rogue forks"? And, yes, I know what a "fork" is (IT and otherwise), but I've never heard of a legitimate fork.
What strikes me here is that if we're now going to call forks legitimate and rogue (or whatever), that implies that there's some authority in charge of authorizing or blessing these forks. Part of the beauty of OS is that a given project always stands the risk of losing mindshare with its user base to forks which may do a better job of fulfilling the needs of the community. Calling them "legitimate" or rogue or whatever you will, seems to be irrelevant.
IANAL, but to successfully hold a trademark (in the US at least), you have to prevent it becoming part of everyday language. If your trademark becomes part of everyday language, you no longer have a trademark. Then every yahoo (pun intended) in town can use your trademarked symbol.
That's the law. They *HAVE* to defend their trademark. If they do not, they lose it. Their trademark is worth a lot to them. Name recognition is very important.
First of all, Perl is not the be-all and end-all of scripting languages. So, even if all Perl code is hard to maintain (which depends on who wrote it and how skilled they were at making programs maintainable), Perl isn't the only option. Python is specifically designed to be readable. It has very few readability warts. Try it; you might like it. It has some downsides compared to Perl (verbosity, rigidity, etc.), but it has upsides as well (readability is a big one).
Second of all, for many people, scripting languages also include VB and Java because those are (for the most part) VM style execution architectures. The mainstream thinking has simply evolved as more and more people use them. For many people, "scripting languages" means everything which isn't their favorite programming language (usually C) or simply everything that doesn't talk directly to the OS and/or hardware. It's a matter of perspective.
One could say "a scripting language is any language which executes the program from the actual source code". What language does this anymore? Java executes from.class files and not.java files. Perl, Python, and VB all do something similar, and so on. Possible TCL is the only one that still executes from source and I only say that because I don't know anything about TCL; I'm probably wrong about that.
So, to say a language is a "scripting language" is no longer meaningful.
When choosing a programming language, I think that we ought to be measuring the type and levels of abstraction available in a language and how well that level matches the target problem domain. Obviously, if there is a high degree of agreement between the two, then the language in question is appropriate. But good luck in measuring that one!
Finally, who said scripting languages aren't "fast"? Fast for what purpose? Do you mean to tell me that you can do "fast" numerical processing in your Java programs (which you clearly consider to be a non-scripting language)? Is that fast? Compared to what? Compared to Perl ? So what! Compared to Fortran? Not bloody likely! There is a such thing as "fast enough"; and that's exactly why hardcode software engineers suffer the existence of any non-assembler language. Good engineering is about balancing trade-offs. No design in existence is going to be cheap to produce, "fast", and easy to maintain. Something always has to give. The question is, did your choices appropriately accomodate the customer's and the system's needs?
Unfortunately, choice of programming language in a project will continue to be (largely) a cultural one. That means language discrimination will ALWAYS occur when hiring programmers. And that's why programmers play "acronym bingo" on their resumes; it's because the market requires it of them.
Whether Linux is cheap in long run doesn't matter
on
Linux in High School Labs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It doesn't matter if Linux is cheaper in the long run to schools. Why not? Because the cost of Linux vs. Windows on paper is clearly going to favor Linux in terms of the up front costs. Since those are the costs which get line items on the budget, that's what matters.
Once it gets in the door, it's game over.
It's arguably true that having computers in classrooms doesn't add a lot to education anyway. The long term benefit of computers in the classroom may be more a result of having students set up, maintain, and program those systems than from any so-called educational software.
Frankly, I don't understand why vendors like Microsoft aren't tripping over themselves to give away software to school districts. They can't be making much money from schools anyway, they don't get good press for sticking it to school districts, and having students see that software in use is good advertising.
Whatever...
Of course, all of the above assumes that school districts start evaluating software based purely on cost instead of the "pain in the ass factor". This subtlety is pretty much the only reason Apple still gets chosen above all others in many school districts. Of course, savings on PITA factor also translates to money, but I don't see how most school districts care about that anyway since their IT departments are grossly understaffed anyway. It's not like they budget for "PITA time" anyway.
Damn the venture capitalists for catching clue! Damn them!
I'm no VC lover, in fact I've never dealt with them. But let's face it, they were only part of the problem.
Every time some jackass decided they were going to remarket distressed merchandise or "upsurp Microsoft" or some other hair-brained idea, 50 jackass programmers who just wanted an excuse to write a {14 tier Java application | 10000 line monolithic Perl or C state machine | your stupid architecture choice here} application would pop out of the woodwork to develop the stupid idea.
No one seemed to stop and say "this is stupid", "why are we doing this?", or even "WTF am I going to do when the scam is up?".
I am SO glad that the #$%^!.COMs tanked. There was very little real value there that got lost.
It sounds like everyone in the high tech industry is doing something they hate for a few extra bucks.
That is the impression I get on/. and at work. I would guess that fully 80% of the people in IT are only there for the money.
I don't blame them; everyone needs to earn a living.
But you know what? Those people don't last. "Burn out" is just another way of saying "abused myself too much and can't take it anymore". Frankly, I'm smug around such people. I love this stuff, and when other people look ready to cry, put on their tinfoil hat, and crawl under their desk; I'm just getting warmed up.
Give me the technology, give me users, and give me a budget. I work wonders. I get off on making the technology work and on making users happy. Everything else doesn't matter in this job. And yes, that means big projects too. Just because you may happen to work in a bureaucracy doesn't mean you can't be effective and be happy with your work.
Develop some peace of mind. Give yourself the space you need to act like a compassionate human being. Then maybe everyone will stop being so stupid.
But it's not them who will have changed.
Linux is Open Source but Open Source isn't Linux
on
Talk to the GNUWin II Team
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have to agree.
The parent also makes the mistake that just because something is Open Source, that is has to run on Linux. Open source is open source and open source that runs on a proprietary system is still a good thing. One could argue that you shouldn't be using a proprietary system in the first place, but that's not relevant to the question of whether open source programs should be developed for use on proprietary systems.
If you don't expose users to open source programs, then how can they ever become supporters of open source? If all you use is proprietary software, you won't know that there are other options.
Ok, I'll bite. I actually had something similar for my Amiga 500. It was the only way I was able to back up my "massive" 80 MB hard drive. IIRC, it worked from the parallel port.
You know, using a VCR for this sort of thing wasn't too bad of an idea for a home user. Granted, there were limitations, but the cost factor was great for me at the time.
...but the program has a reason for allowing you to do that. Quake, Autocad, etc. are examples of programs that are primarily visual and need a command line for finer grain tasks.
This requires the program in question to have an object model that the console can address. Otherwise, what will your command line do? It's currently possible to make a hotkey to bring up a command window anywhere in your current session, even in Windows. What's not commonly available though, is the ability for the command line to affect the currently running program meaningfully (like Quake does). What's even further away is the ability to control all applications from the command line consistently from anywhere in the OS. One application might only speak LISP, and the next will speak Lua, and the next might only "speak" ActiveX (where any ActiveX capable language can access it), etc.
So, the bottom line here is that it's virtually impossible to put this sort of thing together on an OS level, given today's technology. You could put together an "OS-wide" command line using today's technolgy, but you will not be able to leverage every program you use in that way.
I do agreee that CLI and GUI should go hand in hand, but the fact that they don't is mostly related to the corresponding cultures assuming that they can't work together. Note that I don't think the marriage of CLI and GUI are a technical problem; it's (once again) a cultural problem.
This is the same David Mertz that has written a number of Python and XML articles for IBM's developerWorks. It would be nice to see his material get more exposure.
David, thanks for your great articles and good luck with the book!
How do I know? Because it worked for Bruce Eckel. Is there really a debate about it?
The question now is: will it work for all different genres of books. I suspect we'll see some lines drawn in the sand where high margin entertainment titles are concerned.
Also, we'll probably see a rash of lawsuits or lobbying by the textbook industry to help them maintain the monopoly they have. After all, we wouldn't want continually improving and affordable materials to fall into the hands of our students. Oh! The horror!
I agree with you. And let's take this one step further...
While we're all forced to play "keyword bingo" on our resumes because of the keyword driven searches that companies will use to attempt to find qualified IT personnel, what's really going to matter when you hit the job interview is what you bring to the table for that employer. In other words, if you have specific and valuable experience within a given industry (e.g. geological survey, financial services, etc.), then you're going to have a much better chance than the next guy over who "just knows Perl/VB/whatever".
I think people should pay attention to the technologies too, but I really think you'll be doing yourself a tremendous favor by learning about and concentrating on a given industry. It's the ultimate compliment to not only pander to your customers' needs, but their interests too.
I haven't had to do this, but it seems to me like you could get a long ways with a scanner, some OCR software, and a search engine or some shell/Perl scripts.
Is this really that hard or do your needs go far beyond the capabilities of what I just described?
I think you've got this one in the bag if we're only talking about 2 miles or less. For most people, that's all the distance for which they're going to reasonably be able to make time. For someone who's walking 4 mi./hour (which is fast), a 2 mile walk is half an hour. If you keep in mind that one also has to come back home, you're actually committing to an hour of walking. *IF* that's all we're talking about, then it's GAME OVER, I shut up, and we all agree that you've sealed this up.
BUT....
How close to reality is that for most people? I'm guessing it's not even close. There are two factors I'm considering that make this true. First of all, most people don't live within 2 miles of work. I don't have the statistics, but I'm dead certain of this. I betting the average is more like 9 miles. Even if we all could walk that far everyday, we don't have time (at least I don't). Secondly, there are many times where a quick trip to the store is warranted (e.g. for milk). Now, assuming I'm not perfect and didn't remember to get it on the way home (ideal of course) and assuming that the store is even within 2 miles of me (which it is not), why should I have to commit to an hour of my time usage just to get the item?
I understand (and agree) that Americans exercise far too little. However, depriving everyone of efficient transportation in the current system is not the solution. That system exists to give us time to do other things and everyone will be loath to give that time back to less efficient transportation methods.
Now, one could argue at this point that the reason we have a transportation system with such sprawl is because we do have efficient transportation, etc. etc. etc. and there would be some truth to that. But then if we're forced to build everything within walking distance of everyone, then other inefficiencies creep into the system. For instance, instead of that one grocery store that stands now, there might need to be 5 of them of smaller size. And those stores need their own product distributions, etc. etc.
The real problem that the Segway attempts to solve is the economics of the single occupant vehicle. If everyone who could were to stop driving a car and took up with a Segway instead, that would represent a *major* savings in roadways, parking ramps, and fuel consumption. And wouldn't it be nice if it worked out that way? I think so!
The Segway doesn't address the problem of exercise because it's not designed for that. Apples and oranges. The responsibility people have is to utilize the most cost effective method of transportation they have available to them. That will translate to less pollution, higher productivity, and higher satisfaction. Walking may or may not fit that bill for some people, but it's definitely not a case of "one size fits all".
the segway competes with walking. it does not effect other scales of transportation.
I'm not going to involve myself in the name calling in this discussion, but I do think it's worth noting that the Segway does not really compete with walking. In fact, the Segway is meant to enable a new scale of transportation, primarily urban, mechanized, and (where appropriate) indoor in nature. If you lived just a few miles from work and could get there reasonably safely in a smaller-than-car vehicle, then the Segway could really be a good thing for you. Is it as fast or durable as a car? No, it's not designed to be. But, for single occupancy transportation that can be brought indoors, it has few equals.
One could easily argue that you should be using a bike instead if this is what you need (and that would be more exercise) but, let's face it, not everyone who can use a bike is doing it. So, let's at least offer them a transportation option that isn't so space and energy hungry. Why not?
Slashdot Mirror
When Con-Agra rolls out such zero-emissions factories everywhere (As William McDonough writes of in Cradle to Cradle [slashdot.org]) I will happily invest in their stock and buy their products.
Umm... why? Seriously, I'm not trolling. Are you against the company for what its current actions are, or are you against them because they hold values that are incompatible with your own which produce actions with which you don't agree?
If the former, then you better be prepared to monitor them and ensure that they stay in line by your standard. Then, when they (inevitably) get on your bad side, be prepared to find an alternative. Also, don't assume that because their current actions agree with you, that you're going to find these people to be agreeable. It just doesn't follow.
If the latter, then congratulations! You get it! But on that note, just because they change their actions (by using zero-emissions technology), you shouldn't assume that they now hold values compatible with your own. It's just luck that the market is supporting renewable fuel sources.
I guess the point I'm making here is that people in general seem to hold things against companies at a personal level and they assume that "the company" will care and respond, like another human being would. But, by and large, they usually don't care. They're not even listening most of the time.
Unless you've got the skill to get a large boycott underway, the clout to get a bill into the legislature and get funding for it, or the private enterprise contacts to get corporate change introduced, you're just wasting your time and energy.
The best way to change the world is to get with the program, get embedded into organizations, and effect change by using the system. It's the long term view, it can suck, and it doesn't produce results overnight. However, it does work.
Hmm... I just looked. Looks like you already work for the man. Good going!
Well, I don't know your dad, but he could just as well throw up a shingle and market himself as an independent consultant. (It doesn't sound like he's busy anyway.) That circumvents the HR folks entirely because he's not looking to be an employee. Of course, being a consultant has its downsides, but at least he could stand a chance of getting back in the game.
If he's really got good experience with critical skill sets, he should be able to find something. I wouldn't count on being cash flush in today's market though; expectations need to be tempered.
Actually, Microsoft is already aware of this possibility. Just check out this /. story for further details.
Rest assured that the mighty MS will not fall over something this stupid. PCs are not going anywhere, thanks to Microsoft, Apple, Compaq, Dell, et al. I, for one, am glad for that. If PCs do ever disappear then a major component of the decentralized freedom of information we all enjoy today would disappear. That's a far more important benefit to the PC+Internet combination than many people care to admit. It's also a freedom that could be easily throttled on a completely DRM controlled platform like could be provided on any console.
I laughed, I cried. I give up. :+} I'm sure the moderator was simply mod-trolling or just being funny. I'm sure they'll get whacked in meta-moderation.
I didn't mod this (obviously since I'm posting), but I do know that moderating can be tricky sometimes.
/. (or some such). I resented the remark because I usually try to keep my posts relatively intelligent, useful, accurate, etc. Hell, I even spell check my posts so I don't develop sloppy habits just because I'm posting on /.
I once modded a comment as "Troll" because the comment concluded with some wise ass remark about their not being real thought put into posts on
Anyway, no one understood the mod I made, so I got battered in meta-moderation. Well, if that wasn't bad enough, I think I also pissed off the local deities, because I got whacked with a couple of subsequent "Off Topic" mods to a couple of posts I made. It's not a big deal, but it was interesting timing.
Anyway, in this case, maybe the mod is just a prick, but it's sometimes hard to tell.
Now the question I want answered is will Doom 3 scare me again?
You really ought to give Return to Castle Wolfenstein a spin. If Doom scared you, you then RtCW will having you turning the lights back up during the game.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/sheet/gameId,6/
It's an older game by now, but so what? This probably isn't the only one either. Google is your friend.
Maybe you two ought to hook up and create a MP3 CRC signature -> ID3/2 tag database and application, eh?
There are probably only so many copies of a song out there on the net in MP3 format. Your database would allow multiple CRC signatures to exist for a given set of ID3 tags. Then your application would inventory the users entire collection of MP3s, search your database for matches, assign the ID3 tags to the files for the files with matches, and rename the files acccording to the ID3 tags (if requested). Then for all the MP3 file signatures that didn't have a match in the database, you would give the user a chance to find them manually in the database and (if they don't exist already), allow the user to enter them. Hmm.... you could even allow the user to prime the song names, etc. by allowing them to find the songs in freedb's CDDB database first, then have them enter the rest of the information (which may not amount to much, you might be able to get most or all of the data from the CDDB entry).
In short, write a program for this and stop acting like a data entry monkey!
Now get busy...
What the heck is a "legitimate fork"? Does this mean that there are "rogue forks"? And, yes, I know what a "fork" is (IT and otherwise), but I've never heard of a legitimate fork.
What strikes me here is that if we're now going to call forks legitimate and rogue (or whatever), that implies that there's some authority in charge of authorizing or blessing these forks. Part of the beauty of OS is that a given project always stands the risk of losing mindshare with its user base to forks which may do a better job of fulfilling the needs of the community. Calling them "legitimate" or rogue or whatever you will, seems to be irrelevant.
IANAL, but to successfully hold a trademark (in the US at least), you have to prevent it becoming part of everyday language. If your trademark becomes part of everyday language, you no longer have a trademark. Then every yahoo (pun intended) in town can use your trademarked symbol.
That's the law. They *HAVE* to defend their trademark. If they do not, they lose it. Their trademark is worth a lot to them. Name recognition is very important.
I disagree with a lot of what you're saying.
.class files and not .java files. Perl, Python, and VB all do something similar, and so on. Possible TCL is the only one that still executes from source and I only say that because I don't know anything about TCL; I'm probably wrong about that.
First of all, Perl is not the be-all and end-all of scripting languages. So, even if all Perl code is hard to maintain (which depends on who wrote it and how skilled they were at making programs maintainable), Perl isn't the only option. Python is specifically designed to be readable. It has very few readability warts. Try it; you might like it. It has some downsides compared to Perl (verbosity, rigidity, etc.), but it has upsides as well (readability is a big one).
Second of all, for many people, scripting languages also include VB and Java because those are (for the most part) VM style execution architectures. The mainstream thinking has simply evolved as more and more people use them. For many people, "scripting languages" means everything which isn't their favorite programming language (usually C) or simply everything that doesn't talk directly to the OS and/or hardware. It's a matter of perspective.
One could say "a scripting language is any language which executes the program from the actual source code". What language does this anymore? Java executes from
So, to say a language is a "scripting language" is no longer meaningful.
When choosing a programming language, I think that we ought to be measuring the type and levels of abstraction available in a language and how well that level matches the target problem domain. Obviously, if there is a high degree of agreement between the two, then the language in question is appropriate. But good luck in measuring that one!
Finally, who said scripting languages aren't "fast"? Fast for what purpose? Do you mean to tell me that you can do "fast" numerical processing in your Java programs (which you clearly consider to be a non-scripting language)? Is that fast? Compared to what? Compared to Perl ? So what! Compared to Fortran? Not bloody likely! There is a such thing as "fast enough"; and that's exactly why hardcode software engineers suffer the existence of any non-assembler language. Good engineering is about balancing trade-offs. No design in existence is going to be cheap to produce, "fast", and easy to maintain. Something always has to give. The question is, did your choices appropriately accomodate the customer's and the system's needs?
Unfortunately, choice of programming language in a project will continue to be (largely) a cultural one. That means language discrimination will ALWAYS occur when hiring programmers. And that's why programmers play "acronym bingo" on their resumes; it's because the market requires it of them.
It doesn't matter if Linux is cheaper in the long run to schools. Why not? Because the cost of Linux vs. Windows on paper is clearly going to favor Linux in terms of the up front costs. Since those are the costs which get line items on the budget, that's what matters.
Once it gets in the door, it's game over.
It's arguably true that having computers in classrooms doesn't add a lot to education anyway. The long term benefit of computers in the classroom may be more a result of having students set up, maintain, and program those systems than from any so-called educational software.
Frankly, I don't understand why vendors like Microsoft aren't tripping over themselves to give away software to school districts. They can't be making much money from schools anyway, they don't get good press for sticking it to school districts, and having students see that software in use is good advertising.
Whatever...
Of course, all of the above assumes that school districts start evaluating software based purely on cost instead of the "pain in the ass factor". This subtlety is pretty much the only reason Apple still gets chosen above all others in many school districts. Of course, savings on PITA factor also translates to money, but I don't see how most school districts care about that anyway since their IT departments are grossly understaffed anyway. It's not like they budget for "PITA time" anyway.
Damn the venture capitalists for catching clue! Damn them!
.COMs tanked. There was very little real value there that got lost.
I'm no VC lover, in fact I've never dealt with them. But let's face it, they were only part of the problem.
Every time some jackass decided they were going to remarket distressed merchandise or "upsurp Microsoft" or some other hair-brained idea, 50 jackass programmers who just wanted an excuse to write a {14 tier Java application | 10000 line monolithic Perl or C state machine | your stupid architecture choice here} application would pop out of the woodwork to develop the stupid idea.
No one seemed to stop and say "this is stupid", "why are we doing this?", or even "WTF am I going to do when the scam is up?".
I am SO glad that the #$%^!
BTW - I'm not trolling. I mean it.
It sounds like everyone in the high tech industry is doing something they hate for a few extra bucks.
/. and at work. I would guess that fully 80% of the people in IT are only there for the money.
That is the impression I get on
I don't blame them; everyone needs to earn a living.
But you know what? Those people don't last. "Burn out" is just another way of saying "abused myself too much and can't take it anymore". Frankly, I'm smug around such people. I love this stuff, and when other people look ready to cry, put on their tinfoil hat, and crawl under their desk; I'm just getting warmed up.
Give me the technology, give me users, and give me a budget. I work wonders. I get off on making the technology work and on making users happy. Everything else doesn't matter in this job. And yes, that means big projects too. Just because you may happen to work in a bureaucracy doesn't mean you can't be effective and be happy with your work.
That the problem is you, not your users.
Develop some peace of mind. Give yourself the space you need to act like a compassionate human being. Then maybe everyone will stop being so stupid.
But it's not them who will have changed.
I have to agree.
The parent also makes the mistake that just because something is Open Source, that is has to run on Linux. Open source is open source and open source that runs on a proprietary system is still a good thing. One could argue that you shouldn't be using a proprietary system in the first place, but that's not relevant to the question of whether open source programs should be developed for use on proprietary systems.
If you don't expose users to open source programs, then how can they ever become supporters of open source? If all you use is proprietary software, you won't know that there are other options.
Ok, I'll bite. I actually had something similar for my Amiga 500. It was the only way I was able to back up my "massive" 80 MB hard drive. IIRC, it worked from the parallel port.
;+)
You know, using a VCR for this sort of thing wasn't too bad of an idea for a home user. Granted, there were limitations, but the cost factor was great for me at the time.
Ah, the good ole days.
I mentioned it on purpose.
...but the program has a reason for allowing you to do that. Quake, Autocad, etc. are examples of programs that are primarily visual and need a command line for finer grain tasks.
This requires the program in question to have an object model that the console can address. Otherwise, what will your command line do? It's currently possible to make a hotkey to bring up a command window anywhere in your current session, even in Windows. What's not commonly available though, is the ability for the command line to affect the currently running program meaningfully (like Quake does). What's even further away is the ability to control all applications from the command line consistently from anywhere in the OS. One application might only speak LISP, and the next will speak Lua, and the next might only "speak" ActiveX (where any ActiveX capable language can access it), etc.
So, the bottom line here is that it's virtually impossible to put this sort of thing together on an OS level, given today's technology. You could put together an "OS-wide" command line using today's technolgy, but you will not be able to leverage every program you use in that way.
I do agreee that CLI and GUI should go hand in hand, but the fact that they don't is mostly related to the corresponding cultures assuming that they can't work together. Note that I don't think the marriage of CLI and GUI are a technical problem; it's (once again) a cultural problem.
This is the same David Mertz that has written a number of Python and XML articles for IBM's developerWorks. It would be nice to see his material get more exposure.
David, thanks for your great articles and good luck with the book!
How do I know? Because it worked for Bruce Eckel. Is there really a debate about it?
The question now is: will it work for all different genres of books. I suspect we'll see some lines drawn in the sand where high margin entertainment titles are concerned.
Also, we'll probably see a rash of lawsuits or lobbying by the textbook industry to help them maintain the monopoly they have. After all, we wouldn't want continually improving and affordable materials to fall into the hands of our students. Oh! The horror!
I agree with you. And let's take this one step further...
While we're all forced to play "keyword bingo" on our resumes because of the keyword driven searches that companies will use to attempt to find qualified IT personnel, what's really going to matter when you hit the job interview is what you bring to the table for that employer. In other words, if you have specific and valuable experience within a given industry (e.g. geological survey, financial services, etc.), then you're going to have a much better chance than the next guy over who "just knows Perl/VB/whatever".
I think people should pay attention to the technologies too, but I really think you'll be doing yourself a tremendous favor by learning about and concentrating on a given industry. It's the ultimate compliment to not only pander to your customers' needs, but their interests too.
I haven't had to do this, but it seems to me like you could get a long ways with a scanner, some OCR software, and a search engine or some shell/Perl scripts.
Is this really that hard or do your needs go far beyond the capabilities of what I just described?
I think you've got this one in the bag if we're only talking about 2 miles or less. For most people, that's all the distance for which they're going to reasonably be able to make time. For someone who's walking 4 mi./hour (which is fast), a 2 mile walk is half an hour. If you keep in mind that one also has to come back home, you're actually committing to an hour of walking. *IF* that's all we're talking about, then it's GAME OVER, I shut up, and we all agree that you've sealed this up.
BUT....
How close to reality is that for most people? I'm guessing it's not even close. There are two factors I'm considering that make this true. First of all, most people don't live within 2 miles of work. I don't have the statistics, but I'm dead certain of this. I betting the average is more like 9 miles. Even if we all could walk that far everyday, we don't have time (at least I don't). Secondly, there are many times where a quick trip to the store is warranted (e.g. for milk). Now, assuming I'm not perfect and didn't remember to get it on the way home (ideal of course) and assuming that the store is even within 2 miles of me (which it is not), why should I have to commit to an hour of my time usage just to get the item?
I understand (and agree) that Americans exercise far too little. However, depriving everyone of efficient transportation in the current system is not the solution. That system exists to give us time to do other things and everyone will be loath to give that time back to less efficient transportation methods.
Now, one could argue at this point that the reason we have a transportation system with such sprawl is because we do have efficient transportation, etc. etc. etc. and there would be some truth to that. But then if we're forced to build everything within walking distance of everyone, then other inefficiencies creep into the system. For instance, instead of that one grocery store that stands now, there might need to be 5 of them of smaller size. And those stores need their own product distributions, etc. etc.
The real problem that the Segway attempts to solve is the economics of the single occupant vehicle. If everyone who could were to stop driving a car and took up with a Segway instead, that would represent a *major* savings in roadways, parking ramps, and fuel consumption. And wouldn't it be nice if it worked out that way? I think so!
The Segway doesn't address the problem of exercise because it's not designed for that. Apples and oranges. The responsibility people have is to utilize the most cost effective method of transportation they have available to them. That will translate to less pollution, higher productivity, and higher satisfaction. Walking may or may not fit that bill for some people, but it's definitely not a case of "one size fits all".
the segway competes with walking. it does not effect other scales of transportation.
I'm not going to involve myself in the name calling in this discussion, but I do think it's worth noting that the Segway does not really compete with walking. In fact, the Segway is meant to enable a new scale of transportation, primarily urban, mechanized, and (where appropriate) indoor in nature. If you lived just a few miles from work and could get there reasonably safely in a smaller-than-car vehicle, then the Segway could really be a good thing for you. Is it as fast or durable as a car? No, it's not designed to be. But, for single occupancy transportation that can be brought indoors, it has few equals.
One could easily argue that you should be using a bike instead if this is what you need (and that would be more exercise) but, let's face it, not everyone who can use a bike is doing it. So, let's at least offer them a transportation option that isn't so space and energy hungry. Why not?
I don't see the problem here.