I think you hit on the real problem there. It's not that there *are* ads, it's that the ads are stupid and annoying. I'm seeing progress from IBM and some others in making the ads more fun and relevant, but there is still a long way to go. And internet advertisers will eventually have to realize that just because you *can* animate an ad, doesn't mean you *should* animate an ad. I've seen magazine ads for Carlton Draught that made me laugh my ass off as well as remember their name - no animation required.
I do not personally know BG, but as I read the email, I really thought he was trying to "play" the part of the n00b for Jim and the others. I have often seen this technique used by otherwise brilliant programmers to explain a bad interface to a designer. Maybe it wasn't really him, but if I were in his shoes, I would have written the email the same way.
I'm not sure about the math, but when I was working on my Master's degree, an old tech from Bell labs told us that the reason DSL can't go very far is that load coils are placed in the copper lines to prevent capacitance over long distances. These coils also had the effect of wiping out everything but ~300 - ~3300 Hz. DSL's range is limited because the frequencies it uses can't reach past these load coils. Once that distance is reached, the only thing left is the 3-4 kHz that is required for a single voice call.
The article was about workstations, not servers. Yes, the data should be stored indefinitely, but not on the workstations. Workstation hdds SHOULD be destroyed at end of life.
As for the 3-5 year old backup tapes that were taped over, I can see how that was pure incompetence. I'm not saying that there was no malicious intent, but I could certainly see how a simple mistake could be responsible. I've worked at places where placing a box of backup tapes on the wrong shelf was all it took to get years of data wiped out. And TFA mentioned that the White House email system was archaic, so it seems that no one thought getting the system working right was a priority until now. Again, I'm not saying there was definitely no malicious intent, I'm just saying we shouldn't underestimate human stupidity.
I don't quite understand the "demand more than they are worth" argument. If someone asks for more than they are worth, then you don't hire them. If someone asks for more than you are willing to pay AND they are the only one even remotely qualified for the job, then it isn't really an employee demand, it's a market demand. You pay up or you don't got the job done. You should be happy to have an employee on board that can spot market trends and price themselves accordingly.
I am sick of hearing employers (particularly farmers and restaurant owners) complain about not having enough people to fill jobs. If they would pay more, they would keep more workers. Sure, it will damage their bottom line, but they can't keep paying bottom dollar for back-breaking labor when all of their potential workers can do easier work for better pay elsewhere.
If they want developers to use it, they need to get a handle on their evangelists. I was at a free MS seminar in the fall that included a presentation of Silverlight. The MS employee giving the talk actually told us that we needed to wait for version 2.0 if we wanted to do anything other than play videos with it.
Those look fantastic, but how easy are they to use? The thing that end users seem to like most about SharePoint is that it is so tightly wrapped into Office that they don't even have to think about it. With a couple of clicks, someone can create a new SharePoint site to share a document without ever leaving MS Word. This is the type of integration that is needed for a FOSS platform to challenge SharePoint.
Unless you really need some of the features of PeopleSoft, like multi-language support, I would advise against it for such a small company. It's cost can be enormous, even if it is on Linux. It was designed for much larger institutions and even though I'm sure it would work fine for your HR needs, it is probably overkill. I spent 2 years as PeopleSoft developer and I would never use it for my own company.
I have to agree with you. I installed Ubuntu 5.x and 6.x on my home system and never could get everything to work, even after a bit of tweaking. I installed Mandriva and everything worked immediately. What annoyed me most about Ubuntu was that the help files and man pages weren't included with the ISO and were only available online. I know space is precious in a single ISO, but they could at least include *something*.
So, why do we have to wait for Sun or IBM or Apple? I mean, a group of hobbyists tied together by the internet have created an OS that can compete with the largest software company in the world. Why can't we create our own cross-platform plug-in that can do the same thing? I've seen plenty of open-source apps (Gimp, Blender, OpenOffice) that rival their proprietary counterparts, or at least are "good enough" for the common user. So where is the web-plugin-that-can-do-almost-anything-ala-Flash? Have I missed it? Is there an OSS effort to create such a thing? I would gladly support it, as it would make my life as a web app developer easier in the long run.
-----
"Anything sounds impressive if you put quotes around it and a famous name behind it." --Genghis Khan
I've heard good feedback on books by Amit Kalani (sp?). He's written a few of the non-MS Press exam prep books. Even though they are exam preps, they still have loads of good information that can help you learn, and they are a better reference than MSDN. Whatever you do, stay away from the.NET 2.0 Foundation book from MS Press. I used it to study for the 70-536 exam and while it contained lots of important information, there were LOADS of errors both in the text and the example code.
Yes, it is very easy to implement, even with custom controls. The JSON stuff that you mentioned is built around the.NET postback process and not tied to any individual controls. So any control that posts back to the server (like a series of buttons with a server-side click event) can easily be converted to an "AJAX" control simply by dropping a ScriptManager on the page and wrapping the control in an UpdatePanel.
I've been doing development on Windows for about 8 years now - Mostly with ASP and ASP.NET. My number one complaint about Microsoft is their documentation. For instance, the.NET class library reference has many entries for methods simply state, "This method returns an int." To be fair, many topics are covered in great detail, but there are many more that are barely mentioned, if at all. A few years ago, I actually found an article on MSDN that stated that the Excel object properties and methods in Office Web Objects were practically undocumented. That's what irritates me more than anything. Microsoft has $ billions on hand, but can't seem to document their programming tools as well as PHP.
Re:It's the all encompassing .com that's the probl
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
That's great from an organizational standpoint, but most people have trouble remembering even the simple URLs we have now. Moving to this system would force people to use a search engine to find everything, and since the search engine URL would be too long to remember, they would just stick to MSN or live.com or whatever happens to be on their system when they buy it. I know a lot of people do that already, but this system would make it worse.
Never underestimate the power of stupidity to undermine even the most brilliant plans.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think The Librarian would post AC.
I think you hit on the real problem there. It's not that there *are* ads, it's that the ads are stupid and annoying. I'm seeing progress from IBM and some others in making the ads more fun and relevant, but there is still a long way to go. And internet advertisers will eventually have to realize that just because you *can* animate an ad, doesn't mean you *should* animate an ad. I've seen magazine ads for Carlton Draught that made me laugh my ass off as well as remember their name - no animation required.
HP experiments with recursive packaging...
More importantly, developers should take a few minutes to learn how to size their solution to the expected capacity.
Many bone-headed American companies will delete any resume they receive that isn't in Word format (doc or docx).
It's a cookbook! A COOKBOOK!
I do not personally know BG, but as I read the email, I really thought he was trying to "play" the part of the n00b for Jim and the others. I have often seen this technique used by otherwise brilliant programmers to explain a bad interface to a designer. Maybe it wasn't really him, but if I were in his shoes, I would have written the email the same way.
I'm stateless.
I'm not sure about the math, but when I was working on my Master's degree, an old tech from Bell labs told us that the reason DSL can't go very far is that load coils are placed in the copper lines to prevent capacitance over long distances. These coils also had the effect of wiping out everything but ~300 - ~3300 Hz. DSL's range is limited because the frequencies it uses can't reach past these load coils. Once that distance is reached, the only thing left is the 3-4 kHz that is required for a single voice call.
That doesn't really help if the email tied to that account was at Netscape.net.
As for the 3-5 year old backup tapes that were taped over, I can see how that was pure incompetence. I'm not saying that there was no malicious intent, but I could certainly see how a simple mistake could be responsible. I've worked at places where placing a box of backup tapes on the wrong shelf was all it took to get years of data wiped out. And TFA mentioned that the White House email system was archaic, so it seems that no one thought getting the system working right was a priority until now. Again, I'm not saying there was definitely no malicious intent, I'm just saying we shouldn't underestimate human stupidity.
I am sick of hearing employers (particularly farmers and restaurant owners) complain about not having enough people to fill jobs. If they would pay more, they would keep more workers. Sure, it will damage their bottom line, but they can't keep paying bottom dollar for back-breaking labor when all of their potential workers can do easier work for better pay elsewhere.
My people call it cr0n.
I love the original Dune movie. Granted, I read the book first. Otherwise, I don't think I would have understood anything.
If they want developers to use it, they need to get a handle on their evangelists. I was at a free MS seminar in the fall that included a presentation of Silverlight. The MS employee giving the talk actually told us that we needed to wait for version 2.0 if we wanted to do anything other than play videos with it.
Those look fantastic, but how easy are they to use? The thing that end users seem to like most about SharePoint is that it is so tightly wrapped into Office that they don't even have to think about it. With a couple of clicks, someone can create a new SharePoint site to share a document without ever leaving MS Word. This is the type of integration that is needed for a FOSS platform to challenge SharePoint.
Unless you really need some of the features of PeopleSoft, like multi-language support, I would advise against it for such a small company. It's cost can be enormous, even if it is on Linux. It was designed for much larger institutions and even though I'm sure it would work fine for your HR needs, it is probably overkill. I spent 2 years as PeopleSoft developer and I would never use it for my own company.
I have to agree with you. I installed Ubuntu 5.x and 6.x on my home system and never could get everything to work, even after a bit of tweaking. I installed Mandriva and everything worked immediately. What annoyed me most about Ubuntu was that the help files and man pages weren't included with the ISO and were only available online. I know space is precious in a single ISO, but they could at least include *something*.
So, why do we have to wait for Sun or IBM or Apple? I mean, a group of hobbyists tied together by the internet have created an OS that can compete with the largest software company in the world. Why can't we create our own cross-platform plug-in that can do the same thing? I've seen plenty of open-source apps (Gimp, Blender, OpenOffice) that rival their proprietary counterparts, or at least are "good enough" for the common user. So where is the web-plugin-that-can-do-almost-anything-ala-Flash? Have I missed it? Is there an OSS effort to create such a thing? I would gladly support it, as it would make my life as a web app developer easier in the long run.
-----
"Anything sounds impressive if you put quotes around it and a famous name behind it." --Genghis Khan
No, I think (s)he wanted to abolish sanity.
I've heard good feedback on books by Amit Kalani (sp?). He's written a few of the non-MS Press exam prep books. Even though they are exam preps, they still have loads of good information that can help you learn, and they are a better reference than MSDN. Whatever you do, stay away from the .NET 2.0 Foundation book from MS Press. I used it to study for the 70-536 exam and while it contained lots of important information, there were LOADS of errors both in the text and the example code.
Yes, it is very easy to implement, even with custom controls. The JSON stuff that you mentioned is built around the .NET postback process and not tied to any individual controls. So any control that posts back to the server (like a series of buttons with a server-side click event) can easily be converted to an "AJAX" control simply by dropping a ScriptManager on the page and wrapping the control in an UpdatePanel.
This supports my theory that 40% of all people are assholes.
I've been doing development on Windows for about 8 years now - Mostly with ASP and ASP.NET. My number one complaint about Microsoft is their documentation. For instance, the .NET class library reference has many entries for methods simply state, "This method returns an int." To be fair, many topics are covered in great detail, but there are many more that are barely mentioned, if at all. A few years ago, I actually found an article on MSDN that stated that the Excel object properties and methods in Office Web Objects were practically undocumented. That's what irritates me more than anything. Microsoft has $ billions on hand, but can't seem to document their programming tools as well as PHP.
That's great from an organizational standpoint, but most people have trouble remembering even the simple URLs we have now. Moving to this system would force people to use a search engine to find everything, and since the search engine URL would be too long to remember, they would just stick to MSN or live.com or whatever happens to be on their system when they buy it. I know a lot of people do that already, but this system would make it worse. Never underestimate the power of stupidity to undermine even the most brilliant plans.