Nahhh.. Never happen. Smaller more portable devices are coming and filling in the gaps and taking market share, but there will always be power users who need as much power as can be fit in a form factor about the size of a PC and that power will keep increasing just as it always has.
Pundits just WANT the PC to go away because they realize they screwed up in that early product cycle by giving all the power to the users. Users have the ability to change anything or do anything they want and can un-cripple anything they do to that class of devices. They want to introduce something shiny and new that is locked down and sealed box like smart phones where they can cripple them and sell the features back to you piecemill.
By the same measure the era of the Vacuum Tube Computer, the Super Computer, etc. has never ended either.
They are, however, generally niche market products. The same will happen for desktops and laptops - and eventually tablets and cell phones. The era of the PC - especially the Windows PC - is coming to an end as tablets and cell phones take over.
And of course Microsoft, which has no successful overing in the tablet and cell phone market, will say that such a thing is not happening - their bottom line depends on it for the time being (forever, for that matter, if they had their way). Need less to say, it is happening.
And yes, we'll continue to use laptops and desktops to do certain things - engineers will continue to use them for AutoCAD (though AutoDesk has released an Android version too, if that tells you anything), as well as for mixing/editing video and sound.
Still, expect that devices like the Motorola Atrix will take over - you'll drop them on your desk, and the monitor and keyboard (and potentially extra CPUs) will come to life to give you an experience similar to your laptop/desktop experience - with seamless flow between the two modes. (And Linux, more likely than not, will be behind it all!)
The SR-71 and its kin where great during the Cold War simply b/c they could be nearly any where in the world with little time and highly unplanned - meaning, the Soviets couldn't strategically cover their nukes to keep the SR-71 from seeing them - not enough time between knowing when the plane took off, where it was going, and when it got there to do anything about it. This is just the next step in that evolution - and you cut down the time dramatically...
For instance - launch the vehicle to near-orbit, speed it to site within an hour, spew out a bunch of drones that could then carpet the area - or even surveillance kinetic weapons that drop in fast, send back all kinds of photography, and dead drop a target at the same time.
My local and state taxes are high because the federal government has stopped handing out block grants for many programs they previously were.
So perhaps the Federal Gov't shouldn't have been funding those to start with. Perhaps the local & state gov't shouldn't be either. But you won't know until you review the programs and decide. Perhaps they should be run independently of government as self-funding programs. But if you really want them, then go ahead and pay for them and stop complaining just because the other 90% of us decided (or it was decided on our behalf) that we don't want to pay for them.
It's not good to making up your own definition for things. Deficit spending (which you state is always bad) is pretty the same, if not exactly the same, as borrowing (which you imply can be good), assuming the spending is covered by borrowing (as it is in the US).
Furthermore, for a government, running a surplus can be bad, as it could be inefficient allocation of investment.
Well, "Deficit Spending" is more or less "running in the red", while "borrowing" is not necessarily "running in the red" - you may "borrow" while you're "running in the black".
"Borrowing" has nothing to do with "Deficit Spending" as you may have the cash on hand, but prefer to borrow instead for Cash Flow reasons, or you can afford the periodic expenditure of the borrowing (again you're in the black) but not a lump sump payment up front. Your total liabilities might exceed your assets (on the balance sheet) but you are still typically operating in the black.
"Deficit Spending" on the other hand is spending when you cannot afford to do so - it's spending the $1.25 for every $1.00 that you bring in - whether you are taking a loan (borrowing) or not. "Deficit Spending" reduces your savings until there is nothing left, at which time you have to "borrow" to continue spending at the same level.
And therein lies the rub - right now we are borrowing more and more in order to maintain the level of spending that the Entitlements (Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, Obamacare) demand - especially going forward as more and more "Baby Boomers" retire, and the governmental income goes down (as a result) because the Entitlement spending is based on having a certain ratio of payers to beneficiaries - a ratio that we have not had in a long time, and even the income levels during the 1990's will not cover.
And no - the Entitlements are not a right. Yes, you may have paid in, and you may have incorrectly assumed you would one day receive. But (as many have pointed out), many are receiving far more than they paid in for; and the programs only work while there is enough to pay for them - which there is no longer.
"how do you pass a pointer to the "12345" to a function which converts strings to integers?" Easy, pass a pointer to the string and the function is smart enough to start after the count.
You'd know that if you'd written some real programs instead of just sitting through an algorithms class.
Except that doesn't work in a address+length world. You have to build the pointer in address+length format, but you can't do that without traversing it.
TEA PARTY: Yes, but NOT the things we benefit off of.
This is totally false. The Tea Party is willing to cut things they benefit from, or will benefit - Social Security for one, but other programs too.
Find one instance of the Tea Party meeting a real cut they did not like. Even the military is game, in moderation.
The Tea Party is formed on the basis of smaller government and reduced spending. Rational people understand that means cutting programs that affect them, and they are fine with it. Joke about the Tea Party and rationality all you like, but in the end they are the only ones consistently holding the rational position given the problem with debt that we have,
And perhaps to a degree they are the only ones that agree that no matter what we do in reform, we ultimately can't afford to keep many programs (like Social Security) around as the numbers will never add up enough to pay for those programs.
Seriously, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, etc where primarily dreamed up and enacted when you had multiple (>10) people paying in for every beneficiary. However, that's no longer the case (now 1-4) and will only get worse as the "Baby Boomer" generation retires (where it will inverse, multiple beneficiaries for each person paying in). It's simply not sustainable.
Now, I'm not saying that programs that don't cover people that absolutely can't afford to pay for their basis needs don't need to exist - those below poverty line, that can't work, etc. But those programs should also be limited to a small portion of people, and should not be "promoted" as retirement income - they're their for only those that truly need it, and that's it. Such a program is feasible to pay for since there will always be a limit on how many people are involved in receiving benefits from the program.
Talk to the Software Freedom Law Center, and an employment lawyer. You may also want to review your employment contract with both of them as well, and request a copy of the company's Intellectual Property policy as related to the employment contract - including any changes to it between when you were interviewed and when you were let go. Be prepared, though, to find things not to your liking.
Personally, one thing I always do during an interview is check on the company's IP policies. All companies I have worked for have thus far can be summarized by the following:
any work done on using company resources (time, equipment, etc.) belongs to the company
However, some employers (and academic institutions) take anything you create in any manner while you are employed with them (or are a student at the institution).
So the answer is "don't use a smart phone". Pardon me but I think we should be trying to find a way to make technology better and improve our lives, not simply reject advancements that can improve our lives.
To give you a real world example I use my Android phone's mapping software. I am now living in a world where I will never be lost ever again. Don't even have to wonder where the nearest branch of is or how to walk from here to . The down side is that both my phone and the phone company knows where I am and at least the latter keeps logs. In fact sometimes I keep logs, e.g. for geotagging photos I take. Rather than give that up how about we find a way to encrypt the data on the phone and change the law to ban the phone company from keeping logs.
FYI - even with a dumb-phone the phone company knows where you are. Somethings like that have no relation to being a smart phone. The nice thing about the smart phone is that you also easily know where you are on the maps.
then why did you buy a smartphone in the first place?
Primarily for better contact functionality, and I like knowing it runs Linux (why I didn't get the iPhone). I didn't get a smart phone for Internet access, data plans, etc.
Now I do access the Internet, apps, etc - but that's not why I got it. And I still don't keep the sensitive information on it, or in the Cloud for that matter. Sensitive information stays on my laptop (also Linux).
Go see a band perform a song live, twice. I guarantee you there will be differences in the music.
Of course there will be. They're timing will be slightly different; they may have a different operator on the audio board; etc.
But I would also say a band - at least anything non-classical - would likely be the worst use of testing the sound systems primarily b/c they all tune the systems towards bass and overblast the volume.
So really, you have a really really bad comparison. Conversely, take a symphonic such as Beethoven's 5th or the William Tell Overture, or one of J.S. Bach's organ pieces - like Toccata & Fugue - and you'll really see the speakers hum through the various ranges. About the best you can do for bands is a big band/marching band (e.g. John Phillip Sousa's Stars and Stripes Forever), but again - that's more towards a symphonic. Even Metallica's S&M performances are lousy for testing speakers with comparatively as they just don't do the same ranges, or keep volume within well balanced meaning.
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
Well, to be brutally honest - from the FLOSS/Linux aspect, yes - Torvalds had no intent of competition with Microsoft. Most Linux distributions don't either.
However, that hasn't stopped Microsoft from trying to pick a fight with the Linux/FLOSS community - or rather, numerous fights as others have kindly pointed out.
The funny thing is, that they're picking a fight that they can't ultimately win. When it comes to competition, you have to have two (or more) entities involved that see each other as competitors to make the Competition thing work, and for one of them to eventually "win" the competition claim - e.g. Netscape vs. IE. However, only Microsoft sees itself in competition with Linux/FLOSS - the Linux/FLOSS community could (for 90% of those involved) care less. This makes competition hard as they have to constantly remind people about it, and pick a fight - a very one sided thing. The Linux/FLOSS community has responded defensively as appropriate but has still mostly ignored Microsoft as a competitor. Like with Google (which (at least historically) publically claims not to be in competition with Microsoft), it's a losing battle for Microsoft since the other side is not fighting back - Microsoft expends the resources, great resources, and gets very little benefit if any.
There's a big difference between "It will run on ARM" and "We spent some not insignificant time optimizing the platform on ARM." I'm generally not a huge fan of MSFT but it will be nice and somewhat revolutionary to be able to have the same exact OS/applications on the desktop/laptop and tablet platforms. AFAIK no one else has compatible binaries between those two platforms. As always, the implementation may be garbage, but it sounds like they've got some pretty revolutionary stuff going on. I hope it works out for us (consumers).
Microsoft won't have compatible binaries either, at least not without also bundling an battery+CPU+Memory expensive Virtual Machine as well. So you'll have to buy separate versions for WinNT/Intel and WinNT/ARM. And no,.Net will not resolve the issue - most of the builds are generally tied to a specific compiler, not built to CLR byte-code like most binary Java applications are to the Java byte-code.
Yes, WinNT/ARM will mean leaving behind all your applications, etc that you have on WinNT/Intel. But then, the interface won't be friendly for them either.
So supporting new processor architecture (ARM) and introducing completely new application model (HTML5/JS) and user interface (touch) is just a Service Pack to you? Do then ever any OS upgrades qualify as non-SP?
WinNT has supported ARM for a long time. Just not publically. So nothing new there. The Metro interface that will be used by Win8 is hogwash and will probably be another WinME/Vista - both good products in many respects, but completely public failures for many reasons.
isn't this an admission that their current method of security, security by obscurity(closed source), isn't as secure as opening up the source?
No, this isn't even about security. It's about saying 'yes we are collecting data, this is the code we are using to collect that data' so people can see what data they are collecting. Had google done the same thing people would have seen that their code was collecting more information than they said it was.
So, then it's showing the Open Source has better PRIVACY provability than Closed Source, no?
Yep..if someone in the USA tries to offer you an UNPAID internship, just report them to the IRS. They'll be hounded quite well.
Why? From the IRS's perspective not only are they robbing you of an income, but they are also skirting on the taxes that would have otherwise been paid, and thereby they are (more importantly to the IRS) also robbing the government of the tax income that would have otherwise been received.
and that means they really need a Computer Engineering/Software Engineering degree.
Not necessarily. Some people (though not all or many) can teach it to themselves through the use of various methods. And, despite this, they actually know what they're doing.
In context - "blind programmers" rarely do more than type out code, etc as specified by some other individual - code monkeys really. Yes, they may be able to do self study to better themselves and get out of that "blind programmer" job; but they would be far more beneficial to the world if they were not a "blind programmer" to start with in that case - in which case, a CE/SE degree would do them best.
What isn't public knowledge is what plans Nokia has in 3-4yrs time when hopefully it's a three way split between iOS/WP7-8/Android.
It will probably always be a two way split of Android/iOS, with Android taking a larger share. WebOS/Maemo will likely take a distance third and fourth (don't know which will be which), and WinPhone7/8 will be a far distance fifth or lower behind that. MS just doesn't get that no one wants WP7/8.
We need a lot of programmers (2 year tech degree) and a few computer scientists (4 year degree and beyond).
A "good" programmer just needs to be able to hit the write keys to implement someone else's design. That's why we hire the young kids willing to do the job for the least amount of money. Old programmers are future Borders employees.
Wrong. Absolutely Wrong.
For starters, Computer Science is only good if you want to stay in the theoretical - e.g. doctoral work. For anything else (e.g. a real job) it's a joke and useless as it does not have the balance between theory and pragmatics that is really necessary to succeed in the field. I never recommend CS to anyone that wants to actually do something outside of Academics - I only recommend Computer Engineering and Software Engineering degrees for people that want real jobs.
Second, as otherwise noted, "blind" programmers are useless. They need to be able to understand what they are working on to do it right - and that means they really need a Computer Engineering/Software Engineering degree.
However, to get kids interested in going for Computer Science/Computer Engineering/Software Engineering then the high school programming classes need to inspire the kids - create something that "scratches their itch" and helps them solve the problem - create a competitive environment between the students - so the class is not so much strict adherence to solving the problem, but also how one does it - the presentation, the user interface, etc; with strict adherence being the minimum required (e.g. a C+/B- grade).
Correct, but in this case, does 'the organization' operate at a profit? I think they operate at a loss, which means the taxpayer will be covering the costs.
The taxpayer *should* cover the costs, since the taxpayers created this out-of-control system of government-granted entitlements in the first place, and they keep reelecting politicians who protect it.
If the government built a dam above your house, and then it ruptured, would it be fair to make you eat the costs of your destroyed property? Of course not. The taxpayers would be expected to foot the bill for the mistake. Maybe next time they'd take care to elect a government that provided better oversight.
Agreed. Government should bear the costs for failures in the systems it operates, e.g. picking up the fees and reimbursing awards related to invalidated patents/patent claims. That should be part of the budget in the US PTO; only then will Congress get the picture and probably solve the real problem.
I suspect as this same thing happens with infrastructure, you will find the same. Most businesses use some external provider, and the “real IT” jobs are mainly at places providing infrastructure to others, or handling really unusual cases.
It's typically cyclic following whoever is currently leading IT, especially at small firms. One guy comes in and says "I'll cut costs, we'll do it all in-house"; only the next guy comes along and says "I'll cut costs, we'll out-source it", and it goes round and round, meanwhile the organization is spending a ton of money switching back and forth and never really getting what they wanted in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Nahhh.. Never happen. Smaller more portable devices are coming and filling in the gaps and taking market share, but there will always be power users who need as much power as can be fit in a form factor about the size of a PC and that power will keep increasing just as it always has. Pundits just WANT the PC to go away because they realize they screwed up in that early product cycle by giving all the power to the users. Users have the ability to change anything or do anything they want and can un-cripple anything they do to that class of devices. They want to introduce something shiny and new that is locked down and sealed box like smart phones where they can cripple them and sell the features back to you piecemill.
By the same measure the era of the Vacuum Tube Computer, the Super Computer, etc. has never ended either.
They are, however, generally niche market products. The same will happen for desktops and laptops - and eventually tablets and cell phones. The era of the PC - especially the Windows PC - is coming to an end as tablets and cell phones take over.
And of course Microsoft, which has no successful overing in the tablet and cell phone market, will say that such a thing is not happening - their bottom line depends on it for the time being (forever, for that matter, if they had their way). Need less to say, it is happening.
And yes, we'll continue to use laptops and desktops to do certain things - engineers will continue to use them for AutoCAD (though AutoDesk has released an Android version too, if that tells you anything), as well as for mixing/editing video and sound.
Still, expect that devices like the Motorola Atrix will take over - you'll drop them on your desk, and the monitor and keyboard (and potentially extra CPUs) will come to life to give you an experience similar to your laptop/desktop experience - with seamless flow between the two modes. (And Linux, more likely than not, will be behind it all!)
Surveillance.
The SR-71 and its kin where great during the Cold War simply b/c they could be nearly any where in the world with little time and highly unplanned - meaning, the Soviets couldn't strategically cover their nukes to keep the SR-71 from seeing them - not enough time between knowing when the plane took off, where it was going, and when it got there to do anything about it. This is just the next step in that evolution - and you cut down the time dramatically...
For instance - launch the vehicle to near-orbit, speed it to site within an hour, spew out a bunch of drones that could then carpet the area - or even surveillance kinetic weapons that drop in fast, send back all kinds of photography, and dead drop a target at the same time.
So perhaps the Federal Gov't shouldn't have been funding those to start with. Perhaps the local & state gov't shouldn't be either. But you won't know until you review the programs and decide. Perhaps they should be run independently of government as self-funding programs. But if you really want them, then go ahead and pay for them and stop complaining just because the other 90% of us decided (or it was decided on our behalf) that we don't want to pay for them.
It's not good to making up your own definition for things. Deficit spending (which you state is always bad) is pretty the same, if not exactly the same, as borrowing (which you imply can be good), assuming the spending is covered by borrowing (as it is in the US).
Furthermore, for a government, running a surplus can be bad, as it could be inefficient allocation of investment.
Well, "Deficit Spending" is more or less "running in the red", while "borrowing" is not necessarily "running in the red" - you may "borrow" while you're "running in the black".
"Borrowing" has nothing to do with "Deficit Spending" as you may have the cash on hand, but prefer to borrow instead for Cash Flow reasons, or you can afford the periodic expenditure of the borrowing (again you're in the black) but not a lump sump payment up front. Your total liabilities might exceed your assets (on the balance sheet) but you are still typically operating in the black.
"Deficit Spending" on the other hand is spending when you cannot afford to do so - it's spending the $1.25 for every $1.00 that you bring in - whether you are taking a loan (borrowing) or not. "Deficit Spending" reduces your savings until there is nothing left, at which time you have to "borrow" to continue spending at the same level.
And therein lies the rub - right now we are borrowing more and more in order to maintain the level of spending that the Entitlements (Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, Obamacare) demand - especially going forward as more and more "Baby Boomers" retire, and the governmental income goes down (as a result) because the Entitlement spending is based on having a certain ratio of payers to beneficiaries - a ratio that we have not had in a long time, and even the income levels during the 1990's will not cover.
And no - the Entitlements are not a right. Yes, you may have paid in, and you may have incorrectly assumed you would one day receive. But (as many have pointed out), many are receiving far more than they paid in for; and the programs only work while there is enough to pay for them - which there is no longer.
"how do you pass a pointer to the "12345" to a function which converts strings to integers?" Easy, pass a pointer to the string and the function is smart enough to start after the count.
You'd know that if you'd written some real programs instead of just sitting through an algorithms class.
Except that doesn't work in a address+length world. You have to build the pointer in address+length format, but you can't do that without traversing it.
Of course, MSVC doesn't follow standards and doesn't have this type nor stdint.h/inttypes.h at all.
From what I understand, MSVC in VS2010 does have stdint.h. I don't know how complete it is, but they at least finally added it.
The trouble is, C is a systems programming language, so it is imperative that the language allow direct access to bit-level implementation.
Lisp was used as both a systems and application programming language, and it seems not to have these problems.
But you need an AI to program Lisp, so your point is?
TEA PARTY: Yes, but NOT the things we benefit off of.
This is totally false. The Tea Party is willing to cut things they benefit from, or will benefit - Social Security for one, but other programs too.
Find one instance of the Tea Party meeting a real cut they did not like. Even the military is game, in moderation.
The Tea Party is formed on the basis of smaller government and reduced spending. Rational people understand that means cutting programs that affect them, and they are fine with it. Joke about the Tea Party and rationality all you like, but in the end they are the only ones consistently holding the rational position given the problem with debt that we have,
And perhaps to a degree they are the only ones that agree that no matter what we do in reform, we ultimately can't afford to keep many programs (like Social Security) around as the numbers will never add up enough to pay for those programs.
Seriously, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, etc where primarily dreamed up and enacted when you had multiple (>10) people paying in for every beneficiary. However, that's no longer the case (now 1-4) and will only get worse as the "Baby Boomer" generation retires (where it will inverse, multiple beneficiaries for each person paying in). It's simply not sustainable.
Now, I'm not saying that programs that don't cover people that absolutely can't afford to pay for their basis needs don't need to exist - those below poverty line, that can't work, etc. But those programs should also be limited to a small portion of people, and should not be "promoted" as retirement income - they're their for only those that truly need it, and that's it. Such a program is feasible to pay for since there will always be a limit on how many people are involved in receiving benefits from the program.
Personally, one thing I always do during an interview is check on the company's IP policies. All companies I have worked for have thus far can be summarized by the following:
any work done on using company resources (time, equipment, etc.) belongs to the company
However, some employers (and academic institutions) take anything you create in any manner while you are employed with them (or are a student at the institution).
So the answer is "don't use a smart phone". Pardon me but I think we should be trying to find a way to make technology better and improve our lives, not simply reject advancements that can improve our lives.
To give you a real world example I use my Android phone's mapping software. I am now living in a world where I will never be lost ever again. Don't even have to wonder where the nearest branch of is or how to walk from here to . The down side is that both my phone and the phone company knows where I am and at least the latter keeps logs. In fact sometimes I keep logs, e.g. for geotagging photos I take. Rather than give that up how about we find a way to encrypt the data on the phone and change the law to ban the phone company from keeping logs.
FYI - even with a dumb-phone the phone company knows where you are. Somethings like that have no relation to being a smart phone. The nice thing about the smart phone is that you also easily know where you are on the maps.
Primarily for better contact functionality, and I like knowing it runs Linux (why I didn't get the iPhone). I didn't get a smart phone for Internet access, data plans, etc.
Now I do access the Internet, apps, etc - but that's not why I got it. And I still don't keep the sensitive information on it, or in the Cloud for that matter. Sensitive information stays on my laptop (also Linux).
...keep that kind of data on my Android phone to start with. That's how.
Of course there will be. They're timing will be slightly different; they may have a different operator on the audio board; etc.
But I would also say a band - at least anything non-classical - would likely be the worst use of testing the sound systems primarily b/c they all tune the systems towards bass and overblast the volume.
So really, you have a really really bad comparison. Conversely, take a symphonic such as Beethoven's 5th or the William Tell Overture, or one of J.S. Bach's organ pieces - like Toccata & Fugue - and you'll really see the speakers hum through the various ranges. About the best you can do for bands is a big band/marching band (e.g. John Phillip Sousa's Stars and Stripes Forever), but again - that's more towards a symphonic. Even Metallica's S&M performances are lousy for testing speakers with comparatively as they just don't do the same ranges, or keep volume within well balanced meaning.
Quoting Linus Torvalds:
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
Well, to be brutally honest - from the FLOSS/Linux aspect, yes - Torvalds had no intent of competition with Microsoft. Most Linux distributions don't either.
However, that hasn't stopped Microsoft from trying to pick a fight with the Linux/FLOSS community - or rather, numerous fights as others have kindly pointed out.
The funny thing is, that they're picking a fight that they can't ultimately win. When it comes to competition, you have to have two (or more) entities involved that see each other as competitors to make the Competition thing work, and for one of them to eventually "win" the competition claim - e.g. Netscape vs. IE. However, only Microsoft sees itself in competition with Linux/FLOSS - the Linux/FLOSS community could (for 90% of those involved) care less. This makes competition hard as they have to constantly remind people about it, and pick a fight - a very one sided thing. The Linux/FLOSS community has responded defensively as appropriate but has still mostly ignored Microsoft as a competitor. Like with Google (which (at least historically) publically claims not to be in competition with Microsoft), it's a losing battle for Microsoft since the other side is not fighting back - Microsoft expends the resources, great resources, and gets very little benefit if any.
Funny thing competition is, isn't it?
There's a big difference between "It will run on ARM" and "We spent some not insignificant time optimizing the platform on ARM." I'm generally not a huge fan of MSFT but it will be nice and somewhat revolutionary to be able to have the same exact OS/applications on the desktop/laptop and tablet platforms. AFAIK no one else has compatible binaries between those two platforms. As always, the implementation may be garbage, but it sounds like they've got some pretty revolutionary stuff going on. I hope it works out for us (consumers).
Microsoft won't have compatible binaries either, at least not without also bundling an battery+CPU+Memory expensive Virtual Machine as well. So you'll have to buy separate versions for WinNT/Intel and WinNT/ARM. And no, .Net will not resolve the issue - most of the builds are generally tied to a specific compiler, not built to CLR byte-code like most binary Java applications are to the Java byte-code.
Yes, WinNT/ARM will mean leaving behind all your applications, etc that you have on WinNT/Intel. But then, the interface won't be friendly for them either.
$89.6 quadrillion
*** "mathematical modeling" means "we pulled some big numbers out of our posteriors."
They've gotta have some huge posteriors!
Cheers,
Of course. They didn't become Fat Cats for nothing.
Windows8 is windows 7 sp3.
So supporting new processor architecture (ARM) and introducing completely new application model (HTML5/JS) and user interface (touch) is just a Service Pack to you? Do then ever any OS upgrades qualify as non-SP?
WinNT has supported ARM for a long time. Just not publically. So nothing new there. The Metro interface that will be used by Win8 is hogwash and will probably be another WinME/Vista - both good products in many respects, but completely public failures for many reasons.
isn't this an admission that their current method of security, security by obscurity(closed source), isn't as secure as opening up the source?
No, this isn't even about security. It's about saying 'yes we are collecting data, this is the code we are using to collect that data' so people can see what data they are collecting. Had google done the same thing people would have seen that their code was collecting more information than they said it was.
So, then it's showing the Open Source has better PRIVACY provability than Closed Source, no?
Yep..if someone in the USA tries to offer you an UNPAID internship, just report them to the IRS. They'll be hounded quite well.
Why? From the IRS's perspective not only are they robbing you of an income, but they are also skirting on the taxes that would have otherwise been paid, and thereby they are (more importantly to the IRS) also robbing the government of the tax income that would have otherwise been received.
So, do you really want the taxman at your door?
Agreed.
and that means they really need a Computer Engineering/Software Engineering degree.
Not necessarily. Some people (though not all or many) can teach it to themselves through the use of various methods. And, despite this, they actually know what they're doing.
In context - "blind programmers" rarely do more than type out code, etc as specified by some other individual - code monkeys really. Yes, they may be able to do self study to better themselves and get out of that "blind programmer" job; but they would be far more beneficial to the world if they were not a "blind programmer" to start with in that case - in which case, a CE/SE degree would do them best.
It will probably always be a two way split of Android/iOS, with Android taking a larger share. WebOS/Maemo will likely take a distance third and fourth (don't know which will be which), and WinPhone7/8 will be a far distance fifth or lower behind that. MS just doesn't get that no one wants WP7/8.
We need a lot of programmers (2 year tech degree) and a few computer scientists (4 year degree and beyond).
A "good" programmer just needs to be able to hit the write keys to implement someone else's design. That's why we hire the young kids willing to do the job for the least amount of money. Old programmers are future Borders employees.
Wrong. Absolutely Wrong.
For starters, Computer Science is only good if you want to stay in the theoretical - e.g. doctoral work. For anything else (e.g. a real job) it's a joke and useless as it does not have the balance between theory and pragmatics that is really necessary to succeed in the field. I never recommend CS to anyone that wants to actually do something outside of Academics - I only recommend Computer Engineering and Software Engineering degrees for people that want real jobs.
Second, as otherwise noted, "blind" programmers are useless. They need to be able to understand what they are working on to do it right - and that means they really need a Computer Engineering/Software Engineering degree.
However, to get kids interested in going for Computer Science/Computer Engineering/Software Engineering then the high school programming classes need to inspire the kids - create something that "scratches their itch" and helps them solve the problem - create a competitive environment between the students - so the class is not so much strict adherence to solving the problem, but also how one does it - the presentation, the user interface, etc; with strict adherence being the minimum required (e.g. a C+/B- grade).
Correct, but in this case, does 'the organization' operate at a profit? I think they operate at a loss, which means the taxpayer will be covering the costs.
The taxpayer *should* cover the costs, since the taxpayers created this out-of-control system of government-granted entitlements in the first place, and they keep reelecting politicians who protect it.
If the government built a dam above your house, and then it ruptured, would it be fair to make you eat the costs of your destroyed property? Of course not. The taxpayers would be expected to foot the bill for the mistake. Maybe next time they'd take care to elect a government that provided better oversight.
Agreed. Government should bear the costs for failures in the systems it operates, e.g. picking up the fees and reimbursing awards related to invalidated patents/patent claims. That should be part of the budget in the US PTO; only then will Congress get the picture and probably solve the real problem.
I suspect as this same thing happens with infrastructure, you will find the same. Most businesses use some external provider, and the “real IT” jobs are mainly at places providing infrastructure to others, or handling really unusual cases.
It's typically cyclic following whoever is currently leading IT, especially at small firms. One guy comes in and says "I'll cut costs, we'll do it all in-house"; only the next guy comes along and says "I'll cut costs, we'll out-source it", and it goes round and round, meanwhile the organization is spending a ton of money switching back and forth and never really getting what they wanted in the first place.