Shortly after being bought out by General Dynamics, a lot of us oldtimers at my former company played this frequently. The winning managerial statement was: "We must leverage our synergies..." Several people jumped up and yelled "Bullshit!" It was (to quote the parent) freakinng hilarious...
I used to work as a chemical engineer, and switched careers to software engineering. I have two daughters and no sons. I did date a nurse though, a couple of decades ago...
There's only one problem with your theory. America is being taken over by people who have an apocalyptic vision AND America has a humongous stockpile of nuclear weapons. America's problem is everyone's problem.
Evolution is not an intelligent process. People personify Evolution as "trying" things and "experimenting", which tend to give it the appearance of making intelligent choices, but the truth is (as far as we understand it) that evolution "tries" (See? Now I'm personifying it) everything. What works sticks around to leave copies of itself, what doesn't work, doesn't. It's not a completely random process, as successes build upon successes, ergo the "whirlwind in the junkyard producing a 747" argument is invalid.
I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" for a much better explanation of the process.
Seriously. I did the same thing for my oldest daughter's class when she was in the 2d Grade. I brought a laptop with Borland's C++ Builder, and had a short looping "Hello Class" type C program. I talked about binary and used light switches as an analogy (on, off) and let the kids look at the code, alter the code by typing in their names in place of "Class", let them recompile and run the program.
The trick is to keep it simple, but not too simple. By the end of the class, I had at least three kids that could predict what the next binary number was going to be, and they all liked seeing their names appear on the screen after they got to "code". Make it fun, and the kids will love it.
I remember that several of the older compilers like Borland's Turbo Pascal, Turbo C and Microsoft C and MASM could run reverse execution through the debugger. They also had the "animate" feature that let you step through the code automatically, but slowly so you could watch each line of code as it was executed. I remember setting my PC up with two video cards: a monochrome Hercules card and an EGA card. A lot of the compilers from those days supported mutiple graphics card output - the code would appear on the monochrome monitor and the running executable would appear on the color monitor.
Being able to trace backwards ware extraordinarily useful, and it's one thing I miss in modern compilers. I always assumed that this capability was taken out with the advent of event-driven (GUI) programming. That's when a lot of this kind of functionality seemed to disappear.
The answer why is that the general rule of thumb in audio equipment is that the more gadgetry (and hence circuitry) you have in a single box, the worse the sound quality. Look at uber-high end stereo equipment and you'll only see one or two dials per component, if that. Do one thing and do it well. A Sony mid-fi tuner for $100 has a lot more "features" than a $5000 Linn hi-fi preamp/amp combo, but the Linn sounds *a lot* better.
Damn, that's where I've been getting my news about what's going on here in the US. Seriously. The BBC has had a much more objective take on the news than what is generally available here in the states. I will miss it if it goes the way of Fox News. And don't even get me started on Conservatives screwing with things like Red Dwarf...
High end audio equipment too has many FEWER features than your standard Best Buy components. The preamp on my hi-fi only has a source selector switch and a volume control. But even with this severe lack of features, it sounds like Pink Floyd is playing live in my living room.
Lack of features doesn't necessarily translate to poor quality.
I am in violent agreement with what you say. However, in 20 years of programming, the singular worst code I ever saw was written by a guy who had a MS in Computer Science from Virginia Tech who shall remain nameless because I'm a nice guy. Not only was his code at the Bubble Sort level, he got the wrong answers for the problem set! He was much better at marketing his own code than actually getting it to work. He ended up convincing Management that his code was the hottest thing going, and when he quit the company, the rest of us who were eventually brought in to "maintain" his code (and discovered what crap it truly was) were labelled idiots because we "didn't understand his genius."
Of course, the software he wrote took more than 8 hours to run. When our team (dedicated hackers and code monkeys) got through fixing it, we could run it and get the RIGHT answer in about 5 minutes.
Give me a geology major who loves to program any day!
As a software engineer with over 20 years of MS development experience, I always preferred Borland's tools over Microsofts's.
MS had what I considered to be great compilers with their C versions 6.0 and 7.0 and and nice assembler with MASM 5 and 6 (all text based). And the initial version of VB that generated Windows code was revolutionary. But they really dropped the ball after that. MFC was a fiasco from the start: thin OO wrappers around the Windows API. Borland was good from the get-go, and picked up the GUI ball with Delphi and C++ Builder. Borland created object frameworks that made sense, not like MFC. The only way to work efficiently with MFC was to have a copy of Petzold handy. The new.NET stuff (which I am working in and really don't like a lot; too much of what's going on is abstracted away from you, and not necessarily in a good way) is starting to adopt more of Borland's GUI design philosophy. Which is not surprising as Anders is working for MS now. I was initially thrilled with C#.NET, but after having to maintain and upgrade a large system in it, have revised my opinion: it's clunky and has a very "beta", not ready for primetime feel to it. Hopefully, it will eventually come in to its own.
I have also worked in KDevelop and XCode(Project Builder). I like them both. I gave up running MS at home a while ago. It keeps me employed but for personal use, I prefer Apple's XCode front to gcc.
Slashdot Mirror
Brought peace!
Cool!
Oh chill out; you knew somebody would say it...
John Whorfin: "Where are we going?"
Red Lectroids: "Planet 10!"
John Whorfin: "When?"
Red Lectroids: "Real soon!"
Talk Origins has an article debunking Barry Setterfield:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html/>
I was going to come up with a witty reply, but I got distracted by the story about Alan Kay...
The haggis is in the fire for sure...
Shortly after being bought out by General Dynamics, a lot of us oldtimers at my former company played this frequently. The winning managerial statement was: "We must leverage our synergies..." Several people jumped up and yelled "Bullshit!" It was (to quote the parent) freakinng hilarious...
Great book, bad movie...
That's no space station; it's a moon!
Because "Erik the Viking" (or insert your favorite old movie here) is not out on DVD yet.
I used to work as a chemical engineer, and switched careers to software engineering. I have two daughters and no sons. I did date a nurse though, a couple of decades ago...
There's only one problem with your theory. America is being taken over by people who have an apocalyptic vision AND America has a humongous stockpile of nuclear weapons. America's problem is everyone's problem.
Evolution is not an intelligent process. People personify Evolution as "trying" things and "experimenting", which tend to give it the appearance of making intelligent choices, but the truth is (as far as we understand it) that evolution "tries" (See? Now I'm personifying it) everything. What works sticks around to leave copies of itself, what doesn't work, doesn't. It's not a completely random process, as successes build upon successes, ergo the "whirlwind in the junkyard producing a 747" argument is invalid.
I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" for a much better explanation of the process.
Cheers!
Seriously. I did the same thing for my oldest daughter's class when she was in the 2d Grade. I brought a laptop with Borland's C++ Builder, and had a short looping "Hello Class" type C program. I talked about binary and used light switches as an analogy (on, off) and let the kids look at the code, alter the code by typing in their names in place of "Class", let them recompile and run the program.
The trick is to keep it simple, but not too simple. By the end of the class, I had at least three kids that could predict what the next binary number was going to be, and they all liked seeing their names appear on the screen after they got to "code". Make it fun, and the kids will love it.
I'm guessing September 11, 2001 happened. Everyone's stock took a huge hit.
I remember that several of the older compilers like Borland's Turbo Pascal, Turbo C and Microsoft C and MASM could run reverse execution through the debugger. They also had the "animate" feature that let you step through the code automatically, but slowly so you could watch each line of code as it was executed. I remember setting my PC up with two video cards: a monochrome Hercules card and an EGA card. A lot of the compilers from those days supported mutiple graphics card output - the code would appear on the monochrome monitor and the running executable would appear on the color monitor.
Being able to trace backwards ware extraordinarily useful, and it's one thing I miss in modern compilers. I always assumed that this capability was taken out with the advent of event-driven (GUI) programming. That's when a lot of this kind of functionality seemed to disappear.
"It's a trick. Get an axe."
The answer why is that the general rule of thumb in audio equipment is that the more gadgetry (and hence circuitry) you have in a single box, the worse the sound quality. Look at uber-high end stereo equipment and you'll only see one or two dials per component, if that. Do one thing and do it well. A Sony mid-fi tuner for $100 has a lot more "features" than a $5000 Linn hi-fi preamp/amp combo, but the Linn sounds *a lot* better.
Damn, that's where I've been getting my news about what's going on here in the US. Seriously. The BBC has had a much more objective take on the news than what is generally available here in the states. I will miss it if it goes the way of Fox News. And don't even get me started on Conservatives screwing with things like Red Dwarf...
High end audio equipment too has many FEWER features than your standard Best Buy components. The preamp on my hi-fi only has a source selector switch and a volume control. But even with this severe lack of features, it sounds like Pink Floyd is playing live in my living room.
Lack of features doesn't necessarily translate to poor quality.
I am in violent agreement with what you say. However, in 20 years of programming, the singular worst code I ever saw was written by a guy who had a MS in Computer Science from Virginia Tech who shall remain nameless because I'm a nice guy. Not only was his code at the Bubble Sort level, he got the wrong answers for the problem set! He was much better at marketing his own code than actually getting it to work. He ended up convincing Management that his code was the hottest thing going, and when he quit the company, the rest of us who were eventually brought in to "maintain" his code (and discovered what crap it truly was) were labelled idiots because we "didn't understand his genius."
Of course, the software he wrote took more than 8 hours to run. When our team (dedicated hackers and code monkeys) got through fixing it, we could run it and get the RIGHT answer in about 5 minutes.
Give me a geology major who loves to program any day!
he should stick one of these on it: http://ohlssonvox.8k.com/fdd_raid.htm
According to the Word:Mac help file:
"Microsoft Office 2004 features native AppleScript dictionaries for Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Entourage and Graph."
Really really?
.NET stuff (which I am working in and really don't like a lot; too much of what's going on is abstracted away from you, and not necessarily in a good way) is starting to adopt more of Borland's GUI design philosophy. Which is not surprising as Anders is working for MS now. I was initially thrilled with C#.NET, but after having to maintain and upgrade a large system in it, have revised my opinion: it's clunky and has a very "beta", not ready for primetime feel to it. Hopefully, it will eventually come in to its own.
As a software engineer with over 20 years of MS development experience, I always preferred Borland's tools over Microsofts's.
MS had what I considered to be great compilers with their C versions 6.0 and 7.0 and and nice assembler with MASM 5 and 6 (all text based). And the initial version of VB that generated Windows code was revolutionary. But they really dropped the ball after that. MFC was a fiasco from the start: thin OO wrappers around the Windows API. Borland was good from the get-go, and picked up the GUI ball with Delphi and C++ Builder. Borland created object frameworks that made sense, not like MFC. The only way to work efficiently with MFC was to have a copy of Petzold handy. The new
I have also worked in KDevelop and XCode(Project Builder). I like them both. I gave up running MS at home a while ago. It keeps me employed but for personal use, I prefer Apple's XCode front to gcc.
featured these.