No one ever said it had to be big. It could be the size of your mousepad, or your screen, and you'd only have to move your hands in ways they'd move already moving a mouse. A holodeck for your fingers, if you will.
The troops saved the troop-saving robot so the robot could save troops to be saved by the troop saving robot - that is, any troops except for the troop-saving-robot-saving troops.
Sounds just like a flow chart... And then you've got the problem - How do you print this out, etc.
But your idea doesn't seem to improve efficiency, as cool as it is. It's just trading jumping down for jumping INTO... no matter what, you're still jumping.
Cool idea? Yes.
Convenient way to visualize code? Yes.
Completely new desktop interface? No.
Improved Efficiency? Probably not.
That's because you're viewing a 3d interface on a 2d screen. If you could project this interface around you (holodeck, anyone?), you'd be able to use it just as well as the 2d one.
Humans deal with 3d quite well, obviously, on a daily basis.
"OH SHIT, I can't access outlook, I've got to go back in time!"
But seriously though - look a few posts down - the person found some serious gripes with a 3d interface. Here are mine:
Ok, a 2d interface is immediately intuitive. 2D screen, 2D Mousepad, 2D interface. Simple. But with a 3+D interface, we lose intuitive-ness (and therefore efficiency) in the name of a more advanced system. Some people navigate quite well in 3D, sure, but try handing a copy of blender (or any other modeling software) to someone and get them to navigate in 3D. Challenge them to make a series of coencentric spheres, even. Even if they can do it, it becomes WORK. And no one wants to do more work then they have to.
On a lighter note, the Star-Trek allusion at the end of the post makes me agree with the first poster. As our computers get faster and faster, we'll probably end up interfacing with them in more intimate ways - I don't mean to say that we'll all become like the Borg or anything, but even improvements like voice control (subvocalization? Or is that just a bad SF tech...?) or touchscreens, or heck, almost ANYTHING else. The Mouse + Keyboard can hardly be the most efficient way to interact with our computer, methinks.
Doesn't matter - They've got no choice. Very few of these bloggers are going to just say "Screw this" and get their own webhost/domain name. Most will just put up with "Gee, my lj has been laggy lately. Oh well."
Yea, I think it's radiation-proof as in radiation-RESISTANT. If a robot like this can only take 50 minutes, I'd assume that any other type of robot would just instantly be fried.
Still though, the story is more about ingenious servicemen & women coming up with a good solution to a sticky problem, with the robot as a sidenote. This post could've just as easily been titled "Troops make radiation robot safer."
I don't think anyone knows... simply because most programmers aren't that old, the management and IT fields have been able to contain them.
The article asks a question that might have an interesting answer in the future, but I'd have to say that as programmers no longer fit in other areas, they'll just continue to program until they retire. Until this point they could move on to something else.
I guess the real question asked here is - Will management and IT grow at a rate large enough to absorb aging programmers, or will either a. the programmers continue to program or b. a new sort of job is created for these aging programmers happen?
I definitely think that this is specifically targeted towards AIM and, to a lesser degree, AOL Mail. But it begs the question - Since AOL Mail NOT a free service, what will become of GMail?
But again, if google is trying to push their GTalk client, this is the way to do it.
So what if someone were to prepare some insanely elaborate specific defense, and then get "caught" for doing what he or she prepared the defense for, and took it to court that way... granted, it raises the stakes if you lose, but then he/she would be sure to be taken to court. If they weren't, then no loss, so meh...
IIRC, the turbo button actually slowed things down - games and other applications ran as fast as possible, so when running an old DOS game for example, the turbo button would bring the game down to playable speeds.
Wait, I thought DRM was supposed to improve sales and market share by avioding those pesky pirates... If we're releasing whole lines of products much later because they don't support DRM, doesn't that defeat the purpose?
"# The Focus of Technology Moves To People With Web 2.0." And the technology's been WHERE before? Focused on aliens?
"# Web 2.0 Represents Best Practices." Yea, that's because it's not the standard. Wait until everyone starts using it, and then it gets raped by developers. If people don't start using it, why do we care?
"# Web 2.0 Has Excellent Feng Shui."
"...critical mass and synergy, two vital value creation forces. Taken individually, Web 2.0 techniques like harnessing collective intelligence, radical decentralization, The Long Tail..."
What? Feng Shui? Synergy? In SOFTWARE? You lost me there...
# Quality Is Maximized, Waste Is Minimized. The software world is going through one of its cyclical crises as development jobs go overseas and older, more bloated ways of building software finish imploding as the latest software techniques become more agile and lightweight (sometimes called lean). The guys over at 37Signals say it best... Using Web 2.0 you can build better software with less people, less money, less abstractions, less effort, and with this increase in constraints you get cleaner, more satisfying software as the result. And simpler software is invariably higher quality.
Ok, aside from the obvious grammar nazi alert (FEWER people, FEWER abstractions), "Using Web 2.0 you can build better software with less people, less money, less abstractions, less effort, and with this increase in constraints you get cleaner, more satisfying software as the result." Ok, so we've got fewer people working on it ANYWAY. Great. We're still outsourcing, just outsourcing fewer jobs. Of course, that doesn't matter, because if we're really reducing the total number of people, there are fewer jobs at home too. I don't see how this combats outsourcing.
# Web 2.0 Has A Ballistic Trajectory. Never count out the momentum of a rapidly emerging idea. For example, I'm a huge fan of Eric Evans' Domain Driven Design but it's so obscure that it will probably never get off the ground in a big way. There's no buzz, excitement, or even a general marketplace for it. This is Web 2.0's time in the sun, deserved or not. You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization. Use this opportunity to seize the initiative, ride the wave, and build great software that matters.
Err... I may be living under a rock, but I really haven't heard a lot of hype about Web 2.0. TFA makes it seem like it's the household buzzword.
Don't get me wrong, I hope good technologies succeed. I just think that TFA is overhyping the abilities of Web 2.0, and he should look at the benefits in terms of actual users - 2/5ths of that article is comprised of discussion of Web 2.0's Feng Shui and Ballistic Trajectory. As a user, I don't see how these things improve my experience.
As a fairly uninformed reader with regards to this topic, I really wish TFA would focus more on concrete examples of what Web 2.0 can do.
This isn't that interesting to me. This reminds me of issues with web-pages being hacked or redirected to another site, or links hacked to goatse instead of a family photo album; this just seems to be the next iiteration of annoying attacks. I'm sure the guide is useful, but this shouldn't be some new big deal.
Also - ok, it's just a podcast, and they link to like, explicit racist music or music ripped off of a porn movie, or just annoying ranting of some random hacker. This doesn't seem to be too dire of an issue.
The OP doesn't seem too sure of this new security ploy - I don't know how they plan to implement this, but I think claiming to have a completely secure way of doing things doesn't help your security in the long run. Immune to today's typical attack, maybe, but if/when vista takes over as the OS of choice for most computers, its vulnerablilities will be found and exploited. I remember how SP2 was supposed to be some sort of security godsend, and when I first tried to install it it BSOD'd my computer every startup until I reformatted & reinstalled windows. That's slightly off topic, but it's an example of how good-intentioned 'security' fixes can do little more than break something that's been manually secured in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
No one ever said it had to be big. It could be the size of your mousepad, or your screen, and you'd only have to move your hands in ways they'd move already moving a mouse. A holodeck for your fingers, if you will.
The troops saved the troop-saving robot so the robot could save troops to be saved by the troop saving robot - that is, any troops except for the troop-saving-robot-saving troops.
Make sense?
Sounds just like a flow chart... And then you've got the problem - How do you print this out, etc. But your idea doesn't seem to improve efficiency, as cool as it is. It's just trading jumping down for jumping INTO... no matter what, you're still jumping. Cool idea? Yes. Convenient way to visualize code? Yes. Completely new desktop interface? No. Improved Efficiency? Probably not.
That's because you're viewing a 3d interface on a 2d screen. If you could project this interface around you (holodeck, anyone?), you'd be able to use it just as well as the 2d one. Humans deal with 3d quite well, obviously, on a daily basis.
So what, your fourth dimention is time?
"OH SHIT, I can't access outlook, I've got to go back in time!"
But seriously though - look a few posts down - the person found some serious gripes with a 3d interface. Here are mine:
Ok, a 2d interface is immediately intuitive. 2D screen, 2D Mousepad, 2D interface. Simple. But with a 3+D interface, we lose intuitive-ness (and therefore efficiency) in the name of a more advanced system. Some people navigate quite well in 3D, sure, but try handing a copy of blender (or any other modeling software) to someone and get them to navigate in 3D. Challenge them to make a series of coencentric spheres, even. Even if they can do it, it becomes WORK. And no one wants to do more work then they have to.
On a lighter note, the Star-Trek allusion at the end of the post makes me agree with the first poster. As our computers get faster and faster, we'll probably end up interfacing with them in more intimate ways - I don't mean to say that we'll all become like the Borg or anything, but even improvements like voice control (subvocalization? Or is that just a bad SF tech...?) or touchscreens, or heck, almost ANYTHING else. The Mouse + Keyboard can hardly be the most efficient way to interact with our computer, methinks.
~Ruff_ilb
(Sorry for the horrible spelling.)
Doesn't matter - They've got no choice. Very few of these bloggers are going to just say "Screw this" and get their own webhost/domain name. Most will just put up with "Gee, my lj has been laggy lately. Oh well."
Yea, I think it's radiation-proof as in radiation-RESISTANT. If a robot like this can only take 50 minutes, I'd assume that any other type of robot would just instantly be fried. Still though, the story is more about ingenious servicemen & women coming up with a good solution to a sticky problem, with the robot as a sidenote. This post could've just as easily been titled "Troops make radiation robot safer."
Hey, didn't they detonate like, 6-10 nukes in the center of the Earth?
Gee, I sure hope they didn't take the ENTIRE idea from the movie...
I see someone's internet access is 40 years old too. Time for an upgrade? (I kid, I kid)
I don't think anyone knows... simply because most programmers aren't that old, the management and IT fields have been able to contain them.
The article asks a question that might have an interesting answer in the future, but I'd have to say that as programmers no longer fit in other areas, they'll just continue to program until they retire. Until this point they could move on to something else.
I guess the real question asked here is - Will management and IT grow at a rate large enough to absorb aging programmers, or will either
a. the programmers continue to program or
b. a new sort of job is created for these aging programmers
happen?
GAOL, I'm all for it.
I definitely think that this is specifically targeted towards AIM and, to a lesser degree, AOL Mail. But it begs the question - Since AOL Mail NOT a free service, what will become of GMail?
But again, if google is trying to push their GTalk client, this is the way to do it.
So what if someone were to prepare some insanely elaborate specific defense, and then get "caught" for doing what he or she prepared the defense for, and took it to court that way... granted, it raises the stakes if you lose, but then he/she would be sure to be taken to court. If they weren't, then no loss, so meh...
Mitchell Baker declared "Wired" Magazine's Sexiest Woman Alive.
IIRC, the turbo button actually slowed things down - games and other applications ran as fast as possible, so when running an old DOS game for example, the turbo button would bring the game down to playable speeds.
Wait - DVD's had DRM?
News to me.
Wait, I thought DRM was supposed to improve sales and market share by avioding those pesky pirates... If we're releasing whole lines of products much later because they don't support DRM, doesn't that defeat the purpose?
Looks like they'll need some Prozac after this.
I think not - It went down the wrong way. That is, it's full of hot air.
"# The Focus of Technology Moves To People With Web 2.0."
And the technology's been WHERE before? Focused on aliens?
"# Web 2.0 Represents Best Practices."
Yea, that's because it's not the standard. Wait until everyone starts using it, and then it gets raped by developers. If people don't start using it, why do we care?
"# Web 2.0 Has Excellent Feng Shui."
"...critical mass and synergy, two vital value creation forces. Taken individually, Web 2.0 techniques like harnessing collective intelligence, radical decentralization, The Long Tail..."
What? Feng Shui? Synergy? In SOFTWARE? You lost me there...
# Quality Is Maximized, Waste Is Minimized. The software world is going through one of its cyclical crises as development jobs go overseas and older, more bloated ways of building software finish imploding as the latest software techniques become more agile and lightweight (sometimes called lean). The guys over at 37Signals say it best... Using Web 2.0 you can build better software with less people, less money, less abstractions, less effort, and with this increase in constraints you get cleaner, more satisfying software as the result. And simpler software is invariably higher quality.
Ok, aside from the obvious grammar nazi alert (FEWER people, FEWER abstractions), "Using Web 2.0 you can build better software with less people, less money, less abstractions, less effort, and with this increase in constraints you get cleaner, more satisfying software as the result." Ok, so we've got fewer people working on it ANYWAY. Great. We're still outsourcing, just outsourcing fewer jobs. Of course, that doesn't matter, because if we're really reducing the total number of people, there are fewer jobs at home too. I don't see how this combats outsourcing.
# Web 2.0 Has A Ballistic Trajectory. Never count out the momentum of a rapidly emerging idea. For example, I'm a huge fan of Eric Evans' Domain Driven Design but it's so obscure that it will probably never get off the ground in a big way. There's no buzz, excitement, or even a general marketplace for it. This is Web 2.0's time in the sun, deserved or not. You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization. Use this opportunity to seize the initiative, ride the wave, and build great software that matters.
Err... I may be living under a rock, but I really haven't heard a lot of hype about Web 2.0. TFA makes it seem like it's the household buzzword.
Don't get me wrong, I hope good technologies succeed. I just think that TFA is overhyping the abilities of Web 2.0, and he should look at the benefits in terms of actual users - 2/5ths of that article is comprised of discussion of Web 2.0's Feng Shui and Ballistic Trajectory. As a user, I don't see how these things improve my experience.
As a fairly uninformed reader with regards to this topic, I really wish TFA would focus more on concrete examples of what Web 2.0 can do.
This isn't that interesting to me. This reminds me of issues with web-pages being hacked or redirected to another site, or links hacked to goatse instead of a family photo album; this just seems to be the next iiteration of annoying attacks. I'm sure the guide is useful, but this shouldn't be some new big deal.
Also - ok, it's just a podcast, and they link to like, explicit racist music or music ripped off of a porn movie, or just annoying ranting of some random hacker. This doesn't seem to be too dire of an issue.
Forget that, I should just stop using IE altogether! How can I be attacked through a browser I don't have installed?
Oh, wait... I DON'T use IE.
Carry on.
The OP doesn't seem too sure of this new security ploy - I don't know how they plan to implement this, but I think claiming to have a completely secure way of doing things doesn't help your security in the long run. Immune to today's typical attack, maybe, but if/when vista takes over as the OS of choice for most computers, its vulnerablilities will be found and exploited. I remember how SP2 was supposed to be some sort of security godsend, and when I first tried to install it it BSOD'd my computer every startup until I reformatted & reinstalled windows. That's slightly off topic, but it's an example of how good-intentioned 'security' fixes can do little more than break something that's been manually secured in the first place.
The OP must be the person who accidentally listed the shares for 1 yen.
To FAR. I wonder which online deal site this was posted on first?
No, I need them for frisbees.