But I'm a little more optimistic about the future. Game consoles are quickly reaching a tecnological apex. Once consoles are consistently putting out HDTV or better video and Dolby 5.1 audio or better, they're going to have very little else to improve upon.
It'll happen more quickly than you think. I can't wait until it does as then game makers will have to concentrate on playability as much as they do now on FX.
In the meantime, vendors like Sony really *need* to provide backwards compatibility for all games. That's been the primary fly in my ointment over the years. Sure, I want the shiny new console with the new games. But I also want my old games. Those, after all, represent most of the investment we all make as gamers. The console is just a delivery mechanism.
There's nothing "wrong" with belief. But if you seek to have that experience which lies at the root of all religion, a mystical experience if you will, then belief will only get in the way.
What I think you're describing is someone who simply has a world-view which they do not attempt to force on others. I'll agree that's better than the ardent believer who attempts to convert everyone in their path.
And I'll agree that too much questioning of your beliefs is destructive. You will eventually need to discard the beliefs entirely and have the experience described above, or you will simply have to become comfortable in your beliefs. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's 'just' a world-view, not an experience.
(Granted, world-views/perspectives are what hold whole societies together and are important in their own right, but that's not relevant to individual experience in a meaningful way.)
..to have faith without belief (and therefore without religion). Belief is something your mind expresses. Faith, to me, is just something you've experienced; something ineffable.
And beyond that, words don't really matter at all.
I'm not attacking you personally, but I have found that anyone who is 'comfortable' with their beliefs has simply stopped examining those beliefs. Being comfortable with your beliefs is like being comfortable with syphilis. Belief is a sort of disease that comes from the ego's need to protect itself from reality.
Am I trying to prove God doesn't exist? No. Am I trying to prove that he does exist? No. I'm just asking: why do we need to prove anything about God?
When you lay aside everything you think you know and think about it at that basic level, it really is quite mystifying.
There is truth in the religious experience, it didn't come from thin air. I have felt this much. But just how much of what we're told is authentic and how much is contrived to meet current political/power needs?
To my way of thinking, the only barrier to the zone is physical deprivation of some sort (e.g. sleep) or fear. Sometimes, working on the problem can be hard because you've let it intimidate you. If that happens, then it's time to turn off the computer and work on the problem on paper. Go back to the computer when you've developed some idea of how to start.
"The zone" isn't artificial, but it may come more naturally to some than others. Consider yourself lucky.
I agree that you need to read "Design Patterns" for some ideas. In particular, I recommend in-depth study of the Strategy pattern as it seems tailor made to plug-ins.
When you consider the book's intended audience (managers), then you might appear to be an "Einstein". In fact, it's a sign of "Einstein-ity" if you know just how much of a *real* Einstein that you are not.
In reality, your manager may be just as smart as you, or even smarter. But because of the technical nature of our work, we often get the "witch doctor" mystique to go with the job. That's useful, because it can give us the leeway we need to get the job done.
Don't abuse it.
Re:But smart people won't ignore the topic...
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 2
Apparently, you missed the "I agree that we should use the frameworks we are provided in order to get the highest productivity" part of my statement.
I'm not an idiot. In fact, my customers do depend on me for high quality and highly maintainable solutions. I'm pretty good at making my customers happy too.
Besides all that though, I agree with you, especially on the fact that the fundamentals are hard. The fundamentals keep getting harder too as folks find more and more ways in which to apply those implementations. Think about the linked list example. Now think about the linked list example in a multi-threaded situation. Now think about the linked list example in a multi-threaded *and* garbage collected situation. All of those are very different problems which add permutations of complications onto a very basic idea; the implementation of which becomes more complicated with each new dimension of functionality.
BTW - You could relax your finger a bit on that flamethrower. You're coming across as an over-reactive moron yourself since you don't appear to have read my whole post. I doubt that you are in fact an idiot, so why not put your best foot forward?
But smart people won't ignore the topic...
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's well and fine to say that we should use the algorithms "that smart people like Knuth have invented", but that's not enough if you're going to make your living as a genuine developer. I agree that we should use the frameworks we are provided in order to get the highest productivity, but if you can't take some pleasure in the construction of an elegant piece of code (algorithmic or otherwise), then you're just a technician who can easily be replaced when the next fad rolls out.
You can put people like Knuth on a pedestal if you like, and that is certainly warranted in his case. But real progress will only be realized when you disregard people like him and do something of your own.
It's a bad/stupid thing (depending on your perspective) because this ruling is effective with TODAY'S technology. That means that there won't necessarily be any evidence that the notice was really served, that it was secure, etc. Do you really trust POP/IMAP/HTTP enough for this purpose? Do you really? This probably has implications for contracts too. I would be very careful about this, or you'll get what you wish for (example below).
You: "Your honor, I am not bound by this contract because this email did not come from me. It was forged."
The judge: "Prove it."
You: [Blank stare.]
It would be pretty easy to drum up a whole stack of lawsuits based on forged mail. Hell, you could fake contracts of all sorts and pretend people owe you something in the hopes that they'll pay you something just to go away and not have to show up in court.
I doubt any self-respecting law firm is going to use this as their primary means of serving papers anyway, despite the ruling.
Also, think of this: if the party in question is so elusive that you are totally unable to serve them in person, then what real means of enforcement do you have in dragging them to court? So maybe you can get their site shut down? What if they're not the hosting company? What redress really occurred then?
No sir, I don't like it. Between this and e-voting, I smell real trouble.
Actually, the whole reason for IP is that sharing IP does decrease its economic value, but only for the owner of the IP. Obviously, if everyone already has a copy of package X which I wrote, then I'm not going to be able to sell it. However, if I can control the distribution of package X, then I have a chance to make money on it.
It would also be valid to counter-argue that the uncontrolled distribution of package X would increase its *overall* economic value. Perhaps that value would be so great, that my objections to its distribution would be petty. But think about that a second: IP laws don't guarantee the larger good first. The guarantee the individual rights first, *THEN* the larger good.
Your argument about the airplanes is obviously true in the physical sense. But when it comes to the bottom line, it doesn't hold up. Supply and demand are real phenomenon in a market economy and IP law simply gives people an economic reason to develop new IP.
Just out of curiosity, how much were they trying to charge for the compiler? When I was taking COBOL classes in school, I'd have hocked my eye teeth for a decent compiler so I didn't have to live in the damn lab just to use the VMS system.
If software is reasonably priced enough not to make the average person determined to steal it, then the software producers still win, even if they take a reduced margin because their sales were through OEM.
I've often wondered when warezing would finally become something that is actually disdained by the mainstream, rather than implicitly supported. It looks like we may finally be arriving there.
You know, the strange thing is that I think that computer games were the leader here. They're the ones that pioneer new distribution and pricing models.
Macromedia needs to demonstrate how Flash is appropriate to be the presentation layer of an n-tier system before this will work. They have to go beyond field level validations to be really useful. Do they have a way to make my validations data driven? Can it talk to a database to get the most current information before it goes to the client? How does it handle backend errors? How will it support transactions? Will it support over the wire encryption of my credit card?
Etc. etc.. Also I think that re-using the Flash trademark for this new purpose is a bad idea. Whatever you may think of Flash, it's not associated with the concept of being a stable and useful front end for transactional systems. Flash should be left alone to be what it is, and that's all. Now, if they want to leverage the existing installed based of Flash plugins to trojan in the new transactional abilities, that's another story, but that won't poison their existing customers' mindshare (unless they screw up deployment of the new abilities).
You know, I wasn't going to do it your way, I was going to just pay up. I think/. deserves it for the bandwidth if nothing else.
You think I actually got to do that though?
Nope.
They have my address, my phone number, my dog's name (no shit!), my credit card, etc. and they still wouldn't take my damn card. Why not? Because they couldn't VERIFY it! Never mind that Amazon takes it. They want to put a temporary charge on the card with a verification number in the charge description, and then have me use that verification number to prove to them that the card isn't fraudulent/cancelled/from Mars.
Cripes, I hate this crap. I try to support something I use and they just get in the way!
...doesn't hold water in my opinion. The "hood" really isn't welded shut in Windows. If that were true, then I wouldn't be able to upgrade Windows OS components, install new programs, write new software for Windows use, etc. Indeed, the only thing Microsoft doesn't give you that open source/free software does is the source code. To go back to the automotive analogy, if users drove "Linux cars", then those cars would ship with their design/manufacturing specifications for use by consumers.
The whole phenomenon of open intellectual property within an industry is, to my knowledge, unique to software. Automotive companies don't do it, chemical companies don't do it, etc.
I applaud the open source/free software movements for this uniqueness, but I don't think we should take it for granted, or even expect it by default. It's truly a unique thing.
Actually, it's perfect for searches about that size, and bigger even. When you talk about fast find (at least the later versions), you're actually talking about the Windows Index Server in drag. Index Server is a fairly robust piece of work that allows sites to implement (as a part of Commerce Server, SQL Server, and others) full text searches across the media. It's componentized nature makes it convenient to use from VB/VBS/ASP/other COM capable languages. Not too bad actually...
The joke was about Fast Find though which, IMO, is the most crufty unfriendly piece of sh*t ever incorporated into MS Office. In Office 95, 97, and 2000 (haven't tried Office XP yet) it's something I systematically eradicate on every machine I see. It's known for firing up it's re-indexing while the user is already using the machine, and it's also known for not being controllable by the user (i.e. the user can't tell it when to re-index).
And that simply emphasizes (yet again) that the problem with most programming languages/IDEs isn't the languages or the tools; it's usually the culture of the users of that language or tool.
I could go on and on, but I will just contain the rant.
Slashdot Mirror
But I'm a little more optimistic about the future. Game consoles are quickly reaching a tecnological apex. Once consoles are consistently putting out HDTV or better video and Dolby 5.1 audio or better, they're going to have very little else to improve upon.
It'll happen more quickly than you think. I can't wait until it does as then game makers will have to concentrate on playability as much as they do now on FX.
In the meantime, vendors like Sony really *need* to provide backwards compatibility for all games. That's been the primary fly in my ointment over the years. Sure, I want the shiny new console with the new games. But I also want my old games. Those, after all, represent most of the investment we all make as gamers. The console is just a delivery mechanism.
There's nothing "wrong" with belief. But if you seek to have that experience which lies at the root of all religion, a mystical experience if you will, then belief will only get in the way.
What I think you're describing is someone who simply has a world-view which they do not attempt to force on others. I'll agree that's better than the ardent believer who attempts to convert everyone in their path.
And I'll agree that too much questioning of your beliefs is destructive. You will eventually need to discard the beliefs entirely and have the experience described above, or you will simply have to become comfortable in your beliefs. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's 'just' a world-view, not an experience.
(Granted, world-views/perspectives are what hold whole societies together and are important in their own right, but that's not relevant to individual experience in a meaningful way.)
..to have faith without belief (and therefore without religion). Belief is something your mind expresses. Faith, to me, is just something you've experienced; something ineffable.
And beyond that, words don't really matter at all.
I'm not attacking you personally, but I have found that anyone who is 'comfortable' with their beliefs has simply stopped examining those beliefs. Being comfortable with your beliefs is like being comfortable with syphilis. Belief is a sort of disease that comes from the ego's need to protect itself from reality.
Am I trying to prove God doesn't exist? No. Am I trying to prove that he does exist? No. I'm just asking: why do we need to prove anything about God?
When you lay aside everything you think you know and think about it at that basic level, it really is quite mystifying.
There is truth in the religious experience, it didn't come from thin air. I have felt this much. But just how much of what we're told is authentic and how much is contrived to meet current political/power needs?
To my way of thinking, the only barrier to the zone is physical deprivation of some sort (e.g. sleep) or fear. Sometimes, working on the problem can be hard because you've let it intimidate you. If that happens, then it's time to turn off the computer and work on the problem on paper. Go back to the computer when you've developed some idea of how to start.
"The zone" isn't artificial, but it may come more naturally to some than others. Consider yourself lucky.
...which one do you like better? :+) (I don't have either so I'm curious).
I agree that you need to read "Design Patterns" for some ideas. In particular, I recommend in-depth study of the Strategy pattern as it seems tailor made to plug-ins.
When you consider the book's intended audience (managers), then you might appear to be an "Einstein". In fact, it's a sign of "Einstein-ity" if you know just how much of a *real* Einstein that you are not.
In reality, your manager may be just as smart as you, or even smarter. But because of the technical nature of our work, we often get the "witch doctor" mystique to go with the job. That's useful, because it can give us the leeway we need to get the job done.
Don't abuse it.
Apparently, you missed the "I agree that we should use the frameworks we are provided in order to get the highest productivity" part of my statement.
I'm not an idiot. In fact, my customers do depend on me for high quality and highly maintainable solutions. I'm pretty good at making my customers happy too.
Besides all that though, I agree with you, especially on the fact that the fundamentals are hard. The fundamentals keep getting harder too as folks find more and more ways in which to apply those implementations. Think about the linked list example. Now think about the linked list example in a multi-threaded situation. Now think about the linked list example in a multi-threaded *and* garbage collected situation. All of those are very different problems which add permutations of complications onto a very basic idea; the implementation of which becomes more complicated with each new dimension of functionality.
BTW - You could relax your finger a bit on that flamethrower. You're coming across as an over-reactive moron yourself since you don't appear to have read my whole post. I doubt that you are in fact an idiot, so why not put your best foot forward?
It's well and fine to say that we should use the algorithms "that smart people like Knuth have invented", but that's not enough if you're going to make your living as a genuine developer. I agree that we should use the frameworks we are provided in order to get the highest productivity, but if you can't take some pleasure in the construction of an elegant piece of code (algorithmic or otherwise), then you're just a technician who can easily be replaced when the next fad rolls out.
You can put people like Knuth on a pedestal if you like, and that is certainly warranted in his case. But real progress will only be realized when you disregard people like him and do something of your own.
It's a bad/stupid thing (depending on your perspective) because this ruling is effective with TODAY'S technology. That means that there won't necessarily be any evidence that the notice was really served, that it was secure, etc. Do you really trust POP/IMAP/HTTP enough for this purpose? Do you really? This probably has implications for contracts too. I would be very careful about this, or you'll get what you wish for (example below).
You: "Your honor, I am not bound by this contract because this email did not come from me. It was forged."
The judge: "Prove it."
You: [Blank stare.]
It would be pretty easy to drum up a whole stack of lawsuits based on forged mail. Hell, you could fake contracts of all sorts and pretend people owe you something in the hopes that they'll pay you something just to go away and not have to show up in court.
I doubt any self-respecting law firm is going to use this as their primary means of serving papers anyway, despite the ruling.
Also, think of this: if the party in question is so elusive that you are totally unable to serve them in person, then what real means of enforcement do you have in dragging them to court? So maybe you can get their site shut down? What if they're not the hosting company? What redress really occurred then?
No sir, I don't like it. Between this and e-voting, I smell real trouble.
This confused me too.
.NET, but is instead talking about the alternative domain name root at http://www.new.net/
I don't think he's talking about Microsoft's
Actually, the whole reason for IP is that sharing IP does decrease its economic value, but only for the owner of the IP. Obviously, if everyone already has a copy of package X which I wrote, then I'm not going to be able to sell it. However, if I can control the distribution of package X, then I have a chance to make money on it.
It would also be valid to counter-argue that the uncontrolled distribution of package X would increase its *overall* economic value. Perhaps that value would be so great, that my objections to its distribution would be petty. But think about that a second: IP laws don't guarantee the larger good first. The guarantee the individual rights first, *THEN* the larger good.
Your argument about the airplanes is obviously true in the physical sense. But when it comes to the bottom line, it doesn't hold up. Supply and demand are real phenomenon in a market economy and IP law simply gives people an economic reason to develop new IP.
Just out of curiosity, how much were they trying to charge for the compiler? When I was taking COBOL classes in school, I'd have hocked my eye teeth for a decent compiler so I didn't have to live in the damn lab just to use the VMS system.
If software is reasonably priced enough not to make the average person determined to steal it, then the software producers still win, even if they take a reduced margin because their sales were through OEM.
I've often wondered when warezing would finally become something that is actually disdained by the mainstream, rather than implicitly supported. It looks like we may finally be arriving there.
You know, the strange thing is that I think that computer games were the leader here. They're the ones that pioneer new distribution and pricing models.
Macromedia needs to demonstrate how Flash is appropriate to be the presentation layer of an n-tier system before this will work. They have to go beyond field level validations to be really useful. Do they have a way to make my validations data driven? Can it talk to a database to get the most current information before it goes to the client? How does it handle backend errors? How will it support transactions? Will it support over the wire encryption of my credit card?
Etc. etc.. Also I think that re-using the Flash trademark for this new purpose is a bad idea. Whatever you may think of Flash, it's not associated with the concept of being a stable and useful front end for transactional systems. Flash should be left alone to be what it is, and that's all. Now, if they want to leverage the existing installed based of Flash plugins to trojan in the new transactional abilities, that's another story, but that won't poison their existing customers' mindshare (unless they screw up deployment of the new abilities).
You know, I wasn't going to do it your way, I was going to just pay up. I think /. deserves it for the bandwidth if nothing else.
You think I actually got to do that though?
Nope.
They have my address, my phone number, my dog's name (no shit!), my credit card, etc. and they still wouldn't take my damn card. Why not? Because they couldn't VERIFY it! Never mind that Amazon takes it. They want to put a temporary charge on the card with a verification number in the charge description, and then have me use that verification number to prove to them that the card isn't fraudulent/cancelled/from Mars.
Cripes, I hate this crap. I try to support something I use and they just get in the way!
I hope they find something besides PayPal...
http://www.pygame.org/
...doesn't hold water in my opinion. The "hood" really isn't welded shut in Windows. If that were true, then I wouldn't be able to upgrade Windows OS components, install new programs, write new software for Windows use, etc. Indeed, the only thing Microsoft doesn't give you that open source/free software does is the source code. To go back to the automotive analogy, if users drove "Linux cars", then those cars would ship with their design/manufacturing specifications for use by consumers.
The whole phenomenon of open intellectual property within an industry is, to my knowledge, unique to software. Automotive companies don't do it, chemical companies don't do it, etc.
I applaud the open source/free software movements for this uniqueness, but I don't think we should take it for granted, or even expect it by default. It's truly a unique thing.
Appreciate it.
Isn't that pretty much how it works anyway? What, with the fact that most websites seems so well tested.
*cough*
...does have those features. Crawl out from under your rock and have a look.
Actually, it's perfect for searches about that size, and bigger even. When you talk about fast find (at least the later versions), you're actually talking about the Windows Index Server in drag. Index Server is a fairly robust piece of work that allows sites to implement (as a part of Commerce Server, SQL Server, and others) full text searches across the media. It's componentized nature makes it convenient to use from VB/VBS/ASP/other COM capable languages. Not too bad actually...
The joke was about Fast Find though which, IMO, is the most crufty unfriendly piece of sh*t ever incorporated into MS Office. In Office 95, 97, and 2000 (haven't tried Office XP yet) it's something I systematically eradicate on every machine I see. It's known for firing up it's re-indexing while the user is already using the machine, and it's also known for not being controllable by the user (i.e. the user can't tell it when to re-index).
Like duh!
*cough*
(Please think about it before you roast me.)
And that simply emphasizes (yet again) that the problem with most programming languages/IDEs isn't the languages or the tools; it's usually the culture of the users of that language or tool.
I could go on and on, but I will just contain the rant.
Nice call broody.
:+)
Happy?