Obviously any tuning must involve data collection on what is going on in a process. This means that some kind of logging must go on in the software.
Anyone who has ever created a logging interface understands that a log will slow down a system. And so, even if one were to run the GA and have it show things, it will still mean that later that GA should be removed or swithced off. Otherwise the workings of the GA and its requisite log will slow down the system.
So, use a GA,and then intellegently remove it after you decide what it has shown how it will actually increase performance.
It is very common to do one build with logging enabled, and another that does not have logging at all. And then you link in both. At the whim of the engineers (because this is usually done in real-time systems that are designed by degreed engineers) the one can be turned on.
or you can design a system with lists of modules that each have two versions, a logging one and a non-logging one. Then you use a function pointer based calling method and switch the modules between logging and non-logging at your whim.
When you say things like Wont work you shut yourself off from possibly useful tools. Naturally you will need an intellegent person to oversee the use of this tool of Genetic Algorithms. You could be that person.
Most startup routines runs once and never run again until the system is restarted. Thus optimization of code is often only done for things that run repeatedly.
The genetic algorithm also could have a way to tell it what code is merely startup or intialization code and what is code that runs repeatedly. Otherwise the algorithm could be working on code that doesn't really matter as far as overall long term performance goes.
I still think that the best way to deal with the efficiency issue is to use a Profiler and perform code reviews.
I have given up dual boot. I use my old machine to play video games and my new one to do everything else.
It isn't one or the other, it is both.
Even if you are into opensource, there are still a lot of fun 'toy' things to do with an MS box, like you said SIMs or some such.
I have simply given up thinking that I can do any real development on an MS box. Why? Because it costs too much.
But with all of those games that I bought before on my machine that I already paid for, I use the MS box. It can run at the same time. I just don't ever hook it to the internet, firefox or otherwise.
Only if I need to reload the OS, then I will because then I will download all patches, etc.
I don't even connect to it with my other machines. No way, no how.
Anyone who makes their living doing graphics will obviously feel much more secure in paying for a copy of a graphics package that they can use to do their art.
And what is wrong with that?
However, if you are running a server, or doing software development and you have been sucked into the quicksand of interfaces that maliciously change at the whim of some A-hole company, then you decide to do it differently.
Here is what I do: evaluate the need. Assess the available tools Make a decision based upon my resources.
I can't keep throwing money down into the rathole of propriotory tools for SW development. I know what they are worth.
A program such as Corel or Photoshop, on the other hand, is worth the money.
Why? Because there is so much more that I can do with it than I can with The Gimp.
I love The Gimp. However, I know what it is good for and what it is not good for.
Same thing about music recording. I would rather use a harddrive recorder from, say, Tascam or Roland than deal with Planet CCRMA. Why? Because wehen I am in music mode I don't want to have to be in softwae configuration mode. It is a totally different state of mind. I am doing one thing one time and a different thing another time.
I am sure that that Planet CCRMA and The Gimp will progress. And I hope that they do. They are both awesome. However, when I am being creative I don't want to also have to be technical.
So, pay for things that you think will help, tools that are worth the money.
This system would shoot AM radio in the head. It would destroy any chance of using Ham radio near it. It would be a disaster.
I know that you can hook up an AM radio transmitter to a rail road track and broadcast the whole lenght of the thing. This is very illegal because it bleeds on any one else using the same frequencies.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. We have a clear case of people trying to create something new just because they can. They don't seem to care if they tinkle on any other form of RF communication.
Coax or Fiber makes much more sense. But because power companies are run by very rich and powerful people, they will try to get on the bandwagon of providing bandwidth to the home.
If we are going to use RF frequencies in the open air, without the benifit of shielding then we should persue P2P wireless and a bittorrent type of system. Each person would have a node and the node would both transmit and recieve. People would know where you are based upon location, and then the data would be funneled to you with low-power transmitters that would work P2P.
there would be no need for a central hub. There might also be no way for any utility to charge you for this.
That is exactly why this kind of a system doesn't get built.
And at a neighboor hood you could have it all funnel into a local broadband internet for a bunch of houses. The antennas would be directional and beam directly between each other.
Let's all hope that this idea of using the unshielded powerlines to transmit data is shot down by the FCC.
It is so common to support multiple processors that I don't see why Windows can't do it.
I would imagine that they would have the majority of their code written in a language like C or C++ and that they could just set a compiler flag for the different processor.
I am sure that the gnu compiler will do it.
What if they compile Windows with the Gnu compiler.
Why not do it?
I know why they don't, because they have their own. They won't use anyone elses.
Another reason why open source rocks!
Or they could use the Diab compiler.
Seriously, if you have a real compiler company or organization there isn't that much to do to recompile code to work with a new operating system or a new processor as long as you maintain proper build standards and adhere to very comman methodologies that have been around for at least 20 years.
This just shows how the Windows built on quicksand development tools are of poor quality even for them.
This is a case of where antitrust would have helped them actually do something good. But because they use a compiler that they make themselves they can't seem to make it work for all processors.
Engineering can be applied to anything. Because it is not typically applied to SWEngineering means not that there is not SW engineering, but that people get away with not applying engineering principles to software.
Why? Because they get rich anyway.
No, I did not read the article all through. When I saw that it was ten years old I figured that it was not worth reading. Shame on me.
If the content providers provide a way for people to pay for the content that they like then they would be surprised to find that a lot of people would pay.
They could have a disclosure in the movie that reads something like this:
if you liked this movie and you feel that, perhaps, you somehow viewed it from a copy for which no license has been paid, then you may pay for it by sending a check too . ..
or: log on to our_website and pay for it there.
Until the content providers do this they really should not complain that things aren't being paid for.
We are not all thieves.
They will be pleasantly surprised that they will get a percentage of people who will pay their license fees.
It would be free money for them. All they would have to do is spend the money. They don't have to provide distribution.
It sucks that Economics is such a tool of political elites. But here is how I see it, and, of course, I might be wrong:
Communism is a perscription applied by envious people who don't have power and want power desperately.
Capitalism is a description of the way that people actually behave in the real world.
Unfortunately we don't really have capitialism as the description falls apart when people and organizations become super-powerful.
We have something else. Maybe we can call it Corporate Fuedalism. Any other ideas on what to call this partially broken system that we currently have?
It seems to me that on the micro level Capitialism is a pretty good model for how people behave. But on the macro level we just have a lot of powerful people working for their own and other selfish interests.
I think that as long as we feed everyone and we don't have full-scale wars that the system will continue. But it seems to me that it isn't what we call the system that is the problem, but that there is too much power in too few hands.
I would anti-trust the government. This could be accomplished by decentralization. There is just too much power in too small a place.
And when you want to change the politicians you need to change their minds by enlightening them. The idea that Lenin had of killing then was wrong. That is why communism, the politics of envy, is a social and political failure.
Patent reform is needed.
This is not saying that patents should be done away with.
People should benefit from what they create.
But innovations should be real, and not just the product of a currupt patent system bestowing patents for trivial ideas.
So I hope you don't think that we should do away with patents all together. I think we need a system that allows fair use of any idea. Patents should not be used as a way to prevent or prohibit competition. They should be a reward for work well done.
And so when you have companies that patent triviality and then only enforce them when a competetor starts making money, that seems to me abuse.
If anyone is making money on an idea of any kind no one should be allowed to say that they must go out of business because the idea belongs to someone else.
And companies whose only business is patent mongering should be disallowed.
Maybe once a patent is granted it should never be sold. Maybe the more patents a company has the more that they have to pay for the next patent.
In any case I think that any system that sets up a class of privledged and connected people who fantasize about world domination from their town house and don't do anything more than harass and badger hardworking folks is a system that needs reform. (that was verbose!)
We need to reform the patent system not do away with it. I don't know what we need to do, but clearly the people in charge aren't doing it.
I think that what Mr. Benjamin Franklin did is the real model of heroic behavior. He invented the lightening rod and then gave it to the world as a gift. He saved thousands of lives. He is a hero.
Craig took over the Late Late Show.
Maybe Conan can't deal with compeating with a Scotsman?
Craig has been very funny, and I haven't watched Conan all week.
You have posted the most awesome response to Mr. Gates BS!
Maybe someone should call and have a pizza delivered to him complements of/.
Awesome, dude, very awesome!
The Wall Street Journal may be on the wrong side of some things that I agree with, however they are on the correct side of presenting news that is real news.
If you don't read the WSJ, then you are out of touch.
For example they talked about Enron long before it was mentioned anywhere else.
They talked about how shell companies bleed the health care industry.
They were a driving force that exposed the massive acountting irregularities at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.
You might not like a paper's point of view, but at least you can say that they do a fair attempt to present unbiased news.
If you are not reading the WSJ, then you should.
PS: The opinion section is a must read because if you stop listening to the things that people who disagree with your fervent beliefs than you are as given over to non-sense as Bill Gates. Bill Gates comments make him look like a total idiot. We don't need to say any more than just to read his crap.
Also, you will get a lot of different points of view in the WSJ.
I try and read the WSJ every day and I think that Gates is a total idiot.
Science is a system of empericism based upon reproducable experimentation.
It is possible to believe if both the merits of science/empericism and and God.
A scientist with faith understands that there are limits to what one can share about faith. Catholic schools still teach emperical science. Not all scientists are atheists or agnostics.
Another thing: if atheists are so non-believing then why do so many of them always try to prove that they are correct? For me the more logical thing would be, if I lacked faith, to be an agnostic.
As far as self-righteousness and religion goes, I believe you are correct that there a lot of what I call spiritual materialists. To these people there belief is like a thing. And they fully expect you to bow and worship this thing, their belief.
The more enlightened of faith go past that. Spiritual Materialism is a pit that a lot of religious fall right into. They seem to say: "I know that there is a God, I know what God is. What I want is what God wants. You have to want it too or you are evil and not of God."
I understand how loathsome that point of view is. People like that often times can get past it. If not then they are like the Queda, who think that it is OK to kill in the name of God. They are very dangerous to society and to others.
The idea of 'belief' is a great concept in some of its meanings. But just like the idea of 'truth' the meaning of the word, and all words for that matter, is based upon how they are used.
'proof' only exisits in the sense that we agree that it is correct in the use of the word in context in which we use it.
Hence we can have mathematical proofs but not proofs about God.
A proof implies being able to share a truth, a truth that is within a specific context.
And hence all of these arguements about proving God are just a waste of time for people who will not believe. The agnostic has already agreed to disagree about God, there is not any proof that you or I can give an agnostic or an atheist unless God inspires that person to believe.
Hence we have stupid wars over things that we can't prove to each other, like the whole predestination thing that resulted in many murderous years in Europe during the Reformation.
I believe that there are things that one may know for oneself and not be able to prove to others. And as far as discussing God with people who don't want to believe in God, what is the point? They will use your every word as a noose and get a sick thrill if they think that they copfuse you.
Don't waste your time with people like that. The Spirit will talk to them if the Spirit wants to.
I can't prove any of this. And if you want proof then this message is not for you.
Take God on Faith and then you will start to see the great light that is shown to those in darkness, like the shepards saw. God will then enter you life. I can not prove this to you. It is left to you to prove this to yourself.
and if you download some real tools, you can actually do something with it.
It doesn't come with the following essential tools:
gcc
grep
find
ls
man
wget
Windows would be a good OS if it wasn't crippled by marketting and legal departments.
It would be a good OS if it didn't couple poorly engineered applications like IExplorer.
I could go on, but why bother.
What you say sounds very fishy.
Under what statute were they going to sue you?
My understanding of telecom law is that it is pretty open to put in as much fiber as you want, and no one can stop you from doing it.
Can you better describe what the threats were?
What city was this?
If they were a real company, and not just a bunch of opportunistic installers, then they could have run their own fiber to a regional hub somewhere else.
These 2 companies sound like they were trying to get free access from the phone company. There was nothing stopping them from running a fiber bundle to a major city where they could hook into the internet from there. They didn't have to go through the local phone company.
Some software is engineered traditionally like a bridge or a sewer.
You are build bit fields that will be read by a processor.
It is just like setting up dominoes that you then push one and the thing does what it does.
it is like putting a train on a track and then letting it run.
If you don't see it that way, then you abstract the software to a point where, yes, you can't engineer it.
Then you are a coder and a theorist and you can get things to work but only if you use tools that are created by a real engineer.
Engineering is engineering. You apply it to anything. You either are or are not an engineer. If you are not an engineer then if you do mechanics you are a tinkerer. If you do software then you are a script kiddie. Software has the same objectivity from an engineering stand point as any other technical field. The problem is that so many who say that there are software engineers are just script-kiddies with no degree or any understanding of engineering or even how memory and microprocessors work together.
And these people get rich any way. And when their stuff don't work, it doesn't matter because they have already cashed in their stock options and bought their beach front.
If they designed a bad bridge and people died from their incompetance, then they could be held criminally liable. We don't hold software up to any standard at all in most cases. If our OS stops working because of a poorly designed browser the company assumes no liability at all. They tell us it is our own fault because we didn't install anti-virus software.
Fortunately their are still parts of the software world where real engineering is required. Fortunately for the toy operating systems, like the predominate desktop OS, the worst that really happens when the stuff don't boot anymore is that the owner has to reinstall or, better, install a different OS that doesn't have the same problems.
But for software that runs real machines, heart monitors, robotics in factories, automobile control systems, there are real engineers doing real engineering and applying it to software. And this application is just as objective as a bridge or a sewer. How about the software that controls the flow of a sewer? Or the software that raises or lowers a drawbridge? It it doesn't work bad things happen. So, of course, real engineering applies to that software. But for the software that lets you watch DVD's, who cares? If you can't watch the DVD then you go and get a different player. No one is hurt.
I picture software as data and methods. And in some cases the data is the method/process.
When you start to think of software as memory fields and a processor that works on the memory fields based upon what is in another part of memory then you start to have a better handle on how to engineer software.
Abstractions such a memory managers are a good for learning. But when you want to engineer things, you have to think of the data that is in memory, both the data that is the code that executes as a method and the data that is the data used by the methods.
You start to think about the stack and the heap and what a line of code does to the memory space. You start to think of how the process starts, how it proceeds, how it branches.
There is not thought in the software itself, but just bits and a processor or two. It takes thought to make software, but I don't believe that software is codified thought. Not even a little.
What would you then call firmware? What about hardware when a chip is burned to do things in a specific way (an ASIC)?
Oh, and a virus is an exploit of the fact that methods are really just data. You put the programm counter to an address that is supposed to be data, but it is really a method. that is what a stack overflow trys to do.
Software is more like stacked dominoes. It takes thought to stack the dominoes but the dominoes are not themsleves codified thought.
I agree there is no magic. But are you sure that there isn't just a little bit of newts feet? ; )
You link in a ten year old article and this is supposed to be relevant?
Software Engineering suffers because software can be made to seem to work and managers see it and say: ship it.
They can't get away with this in construction or in electionics.
But software is not as mature a discipline. But engineering for quality is a very important thing to do. And engineering is not something that software schools tend to teach. Why? Because anyone with a brain in their head went out and got rich. And they didn't care about doing things as engineers because they got seduced by the money and the stock options.
The best software engineers, as far as I can tell, are the ones who were trained in another engineering discipline and then moved over to software.
And then there was a whole generation of software accedemics who got seduced by the money and tried to patent their way into an easy retirement. They acted like experts and know it alls and stood in the way of real engineers trying to do real work.
But engineering when applied to software has very strong results. It might not make people rich and so managers aren't interested. In software often when things are not engineered the software doesn't work. No big deal.
In Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical engineering if things don't work correctly often times it means that people die, the building falls on them, they get electricuted.
Fortunately there are what are known as real-time software engineers. And these are the people who do real software engineering. They aren't just trying to push through standards that they have patented clandestenly so that they can get royalties.
The greed of the first generation of software engineers is why software engineering suffered. These people got rich, cashed in, and then got out of the business.
You don't understand constructin and you don't understand software either as far as I can tell.
You can't just stack a room on top of another room just like you can't test a single software transaction and then say the same methodology will work if that is multipled by some n
For example a building was constructed, a Library, at a major Massachusetts university. The engineer who designed it didn't consider that the weight of the books was a significant aspect.
So concrete started falling off.
With software if you scale it things can break in a way that you will not understand later. Look at what happened with that airline during Christmas.
And so I conclude is that one of the bigest problems in software is that people don't understand that scaling things doesn't work. IE:
and example from C code:
int myarray[100];
Well, we can add an zero to that and have:
int myarray[1000];
What about just one more zero?
soon we have :
int myarray[100000000];
And that just probably, I am going to guess, is going to cause a resource allocation problem. You will blow up the heap. You won't be able to load your code.
And then the manager asks and the amatuer software guy says:
"I only added one zero"
But he multiplied it by 10. And then the product doesn't work.
It was just a zero.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously any tuning must involve data collection on what is going on in a process. This means that some kind of logging must go on in the software.
Anyone who has ever created a logging interface understands that a log will slow down a system.
And so, even if one were to run the GA and have it show things, it will still mean that later that GA should be removed or swithced off. Otherwise the workings of the GA and its requisite log will slow down the system.
So, use a GA,and then intellegently remove it after you decide what it has shown how it will actually increase performance.
It is very common to do one build with logging enabled, and another that does not have logging at all. And then you link in both. At the whim of the engineers (because this is usually done in real-time systems that are designed by degreed engineers) the one can be turned on.
or you can design a system with lists of modules that each have two versions, a logging one and a non-logging one. Then you use a function pointer based calling method and switch the modules between logging and non-logging at your whim.
When you say things like Wont work you shut yourself off from possibly useful tools. Naturally you will need an intellegent person to oversee the use of this tool of Genetic Algorithms. You could be that person.
Most startup routines runs once and never run again until the system is restarted.
Thus optimization of code is often only done for things that run repeatedly.
The genetic algorithm also could have a way to tell it what code is merely startup or intialization code and what is code that runs repeatedly. Otherwise the algorithm could be working on code that doesn't really matter as far as overall long term performance goes.
I still think that the best way to deal with the efficiency issue is to use a Profiler and perform code reviews.
I have given up dual boot.
I use my old machine to play video games and my new one to do everything else.
It isn't one or the other, it is both.
Even if you are into opensource, there are still a lot of fun 'toy' things to do with an MS box, like you said SIMs or some such.
I have simply given up thinking that I can do any real development on an MS box. Why? Because it costs too much.
But with all of those games that I bought before on my machine that I already paid for, I use the MS box. It can run at the same time. I just don't ever hook it to the internet, firefox or otherwise.
Only if I need to reload the OS, then I will because then I will download all patches, etc.
I don't even connect to it with my other machines. No way, no how.
Anyone who makes their living doing graphics will obviously feel much more secure in paying for a copy of a graphics package that they can use to do their art.
And what is wrong with that?
However, if you are running a server, or doing software development and you have been sucked into the quicksand of interfaces that maliciously change at the whim of some A-hole company, then you decide to do it differently.
Here is what I do:
evaluate the need.
Assess the available tools
Make a decision based upon my resources.
I can't keep throwing money down into the rathole of propriotory tools for SW development. I know what they are worth.
A program such as Corel or Photoshop, on the other hand, is worth the money.
Why? Because there is so much more that I can do with it than I can with The Gimp.
I love The Gimp. However, I know what it is good for and what it is not good for.
Same thing about music recording. I would rather use a harddrive recorder from, say, Tascam or Roland than deal with Planet CCRMA. Why? Because wehen I am in music mode I don't want to have to be in softwae configuration mode. It is a totally different state of mind. I am doing one thing one time and a different thing another time.
I am sure that that Planet CCRMA and The Gimp will progress. And I hope that they do. They are both awesome. However, when I am being creative I don't want to also have to be technical.
So, pay for things that you think will help, tools that are worth the money.
Oh, did you want to know if I would use their software?
Being Head drone of an evil empire is not success in my point of view.
At least Vader eventually overcomes the evil that controls him.
Money and power are not success. They help, they are necessary, but they do not equal success.
This system would shoot AM radio in the head.
It would destroy any chance of using Ham radio near it.
It would be a disaster.
I know that you can hook up an AM radio transmitter to a rail road track and broadcast the whole lenght of the thing. This is very illegal because it bleeds on any one else using the same frequencies.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. We have a clear case of people trying to create something new just because they can. They don't seem to care if they tinkle on any other form of RF communication.
Coax or Fiber makes much more sense. But because power companies are run by very rich and powerful people, they will try to get on the bandwagon of providing bandwidth to the home.
If we are going to use RF frequencies in the open air, without the benifit of shielding then we should persue P2P wireless and a bittorrent type of system. Each person would have a node and the node would both transmit and recieve. People would know where you are based upon location, and then the data would be funneled to you with low-power transmitters that would work P2P.
there would be no need for a central hub. There might also be no way for any utility to charge you for this.
That is exactly why this kind of a system doesn't get built.
And at a neighboor hood you could have it all funnel into a local broadband internet for a bunch of houses. The antennas would be directional and beam directly between each other.
Let's all hope that this idea of using the unshielded powerlines to transmit data is shot down by the FCC.
It is so common to support multiple processors
that I don't see why Windows can't do it.
I would imagine that they would have the majority of their code written in a language like C or C++ and that they could just set a compiler flag for the different processor.
I am sure that the gnu compiler will do it.
What if they compile Windows with the Gnu compiler.
Why not do it?
I know why they don't, because they have their own. They won't use anyone elses.
Another reason why open source rocks!
Or they could use the Diab compiler.
Seriously, if you have a real compiler company or organization there isn't that much to do to recompile code to work with a new operating system or a new processor as long as you maintain proper build standards and adhere to very comman methodologies that have been around for at least 20 years.
This just shows how the Windows built on quicksand development tools are of poor quality even for them.
This is a case of where antitrust would have helped them actually do something good. But because they use a compiler that they make themselves they can't seem to make it work for all processors.
Pretty damn stupid of them, if you ask me.
Engineering can be applied to anything.
Because it is not typically applied to SWEngineering means not that there is not SW engineering, but that people get away with not applying engineering principles to software.
Why? Because they get rich anyway.
No, I did not read the article all through.
When I saw that it was ten years old I figured that it was not worth reading. Shame on me.
If the content providers provide a way for people to pay for the content that they like then they would be surprised to find that a lot of people would pay.
.
They could have a disclosure in the movie that reads something like this:
if you liked this movie and you feel that, perhaps, you somehow viewed it from a copy for which no license has been paid, then you may pay for it by sending a check too . .
or: log on to our_website and pay for it there.
Until the content providers do this they really should not complain that things aren't being paid for.
We are not all thieves.
They will be pleasantly surprised that they will get a percentage of people who will pay their license fees.
It would be free money for them. All they would have to do is spend the money. They don't have to provide distribution.
It sucks that Economics is such a tool of political elites. But here is how I see it, and, of course, I might be wrong:
Communism is a perscription applied by envious people who don't have power and want power desperately.
Capitalism is a description of the way that people actually behave in the real world.
Unfortunately we don't really have capitialism as the description falls apart when people and organizations become super-powerful.
We have something else. Maybe we can call it
Corporate Fuedalism. Any other ideas on what to call this partially broken system that we currently have?
It seems to me that on the micro level Capitialism is a pretty good model for how people behave. But on the macro level we just have a lot of powerful people working for their own and other selfish interests.
I think that as long as we feed everyone and we don't have full-scale wars that the system will continue. But it seems to me that it isn't what we call the system that is the problem, but that there is too much power in too few hands.
I would anti-trust the government. This could be accomplished by decentralization. There is just too much power in too small a place.
And when you want to change the politicians you need to change their minds by enlightening them. The idea that Lenin had of killing then was wrong. That is why communism, the politics of envy, is a social and political failure.
Patent reform is needed. This is not saying that patents should be done away with. People should benefit from what they create. But innovations should be real, and not just the product of a currupt patent system bestowing patents for trivial ideas. So I hope you don't think that we should do away with patents all together. I think we need a system that allows fair use of any idea. Patents should not be used as a way to prevent or prohibit competition. They should be a reward for work well done. And so when you have companies that patent triviality and then only enforce them when a competetor starts making money, that seems to me abuse. If anyone is making money on an idea of any kind no one should be allowed to say that they must go out of business because the idea belongs to someone else. And companies whose only business is patent mongering should be disallowed. Maybe once a patent is granted it should never be sold. Maybe the more patents a company has the more that they have to pay for the next patent. In any case I think that any system that sets up a class of privledged and connected people who fantasize about world domination from their town house and don't do anything more than harass and badger hardworking folks is a system that needs reform. (that was verbose!) We need to reform the patent system not do away with it. I don't know what we need to do, but clearly the people in charge aren't doing it. I think that what Mr. Benjamin Franklin did is the real model of heroic behavior. He invented the lightening rod and then gave it to the world as a gift. He saved thousands of lives. He is a hero.
Craig took over the Late Late Show. Maybe Conan can't deal with compeating with a Scotsman? Craig has been very funny, and I haven't watched Conan all week.
You have posted the most awesome response to Mr. Gates BS! Maybe someone should call and have a pizza delivered to him complements of /.
Awesome, dude, very awesome!
The Wall Street Journal may be on the wrong side of some things that I agree with, however they are on the correct side of presenting news that is real news. If you don't read the WSJ, then you are out of touch. For example they talked about Enron long before it was mentioned anywhere else. They talked about how shell companies bleed the health care industry. They were a driving force that exposed the massive acountting irregularities at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. You might not like a paper's point of view, but at least you can say that they do a fair attempt to present unbiased news. If you are not reading the WSJ, then you should. PS: The opinion section is a must read because if you stop listening to the things that people who disagree with your fervent beliefs than you are as given over to non-sense as Bill Gates. Bill Gates comments make him look like a total idiot. We don't need to say any more than just to read his crap. Also, you will get a lot of different points of view in the WSJ. I try and read the WSJ every day and I think that Gates is a total idiot.
Science is a system of empericism based upon reproducable experimentation. It is possible to believe if both the merits of science/empericism and and God. A scientist with faith understands that there are limits to what one can share about faith. Catholic schools still teach emperical science. Not all scientists are atheists or agnostics. Another thing: if atheists are so non-believing then why do so many of them always try to prove that they are correct? For me the more logical thing would be, if I lacked faith, to be an agnostic. As far as self-righteousness and religion goes, I believe you are correct that there a lot of what I call spiritual materialists. To these people there belief is like a thing. And they fully expect you to bow and worship this thing, their belief. The more enlightened of faith go past that. Spiritual Materialism is a pit that a lot of religious fall right into. They seem to say: "I know that there is a God, I know what God is. What I want is what God wants. You have to want it too or you are evil and not of God." I understand how loathsome that point of view is. People like that often times can get past it. If not then they are like the Queda, who think that it is OK to kill in the name of God. They are very dangerous to society and to others.
The idea of 'belief' is a great concept in some of its meanings. But just like the idea of 'truth' the meaning of the word, and all words for that matter, is based upon how they are used.
'proof' only exisits in the sense that we agree that it is correct in the use of the word in context in which we use it.
Hence we can have mathematical proofs but not proofs about God.
A proof implies being able to share a truth, a truth that is within a specific context.
And hence all of these arguements about proving God are just a waste of time for people who will not believe. The agnostic has already agreed to disagree about God, there is not any proof that you or I can give an agnostic or an atheist unless God inspires that person to believe.
Hence we have stupid wars over things that we can't prove to each other, like the whole predestination thing that resulted in many murderous years in Europe during the Reformation.
I believe that there are things that one may know for oneself and not be able to prove to others.
And as far as discussing God with people who don't want to believe in God, what is the point? They will use your every word as a noose and get a sick thrill if they think that they copfuse you.
Don't waste your time with people like that. The
Spirit will talk to them if the Spirit wants to.
I can't prove any of this. And if you want proof then this message is not for you.
Take God on Faith and then you will start to see the great light that is shown to those in darkness, like the shepards saw. God will then enter you life. I can not prove this to you. It is left to you to prove this to yourself.
I believe that Ecclesiastes is an awesome book. But this is opinion so I don't need to prove it.
and if you download some real tools, you can actually do something with it. It doesn't come with the following essential tools: gcc grep find ls man wget Windows would be a good OS if it wasn't crippled by marketting and legal departments. It would be a good OS if it didn't couple poorly engineered applications like IExplorer. I could go on, but why bother.
What you say sounds very fishy. Under what statute were they going to sue you? My understanding of telecom law is that it is pretty open to put in as much fiber as you want, and no one can stop you from doing it. Can you better describe what the threats were? What city was this?
If they were a real company, and not just a bunch of opportunistic installers, then they could have run their own fiber to a regional hub somewhere else. These 2 companies sound like they were trying to get free access from the phone company. There was nothing stopping them from running a fiber bundle to a major city where they could hook into the internet from there. They didn't have to go through the local phone company.
Some software is engineered traditionally like a bridge or a sewer.
You are build bit fields that will be read by a processor.
It is just like setting up dominoes that you then push one and the thing does what it does.
it is like putting a train on a track and then letting it run.
If you don't see it that way, then you abstract the software to a point where, yes, you can't engineer it.
Then you are a coder and a theorist and you can get things to work but only if you use tools that are created by a real engineer.
Engineering is engineering. You apply it to anything. You either are or are not an engineer. If you are not an engineer then if you do mechanics you are a tinkerer. If you do software then you are a script kiddie. Software has the same objectivity from an engineering stand point as any other technical field. The problem is that so many who say that there are software engineers are just script-kiddies with no degree or any understanding of engineering or even how memory and microprocessors work together.
And these people get rich any way. And when their stuff don't work, it doesn't matter because they have already cashed in their stock options and bought their beach front.
If they designed a bad bridge and people died from their incompetance, then they could be held criminally liable. We don't hold software up to any standard at all in most cases. If our OS stops working because of a poorly designed browser the company assumes no liability at all. They tell us it is our own fault because we didn't install anti-virus software.
Fortunately their are still parts of the software world where real engineering is required. Fortunately for the toy operating systems, like the predominate desktop OS, the worst that really happens when the stuff don't boot anymore is that the owner has to reinstall or, better, install a different OS that doesn't have the same problems.
But for software that runs real machines, heart monitors, robotics in factories, automobile control systems, there are real engineers doing real engineering and applying it to software. And this application is just as objective as a bridge or a sewer. How about the software that controls the flow of a sewer? Or the software that raises or lowers a drawbridge? It it doesn't work bad things happen. So, of course, real engineering applies to that software. But for the software that lets you watch DVD's, who cares? If you can't watch the DVD then you go and get a different player. No one is hurt.
Codified thought?
I am not sure what you mean.
I picture software as data and methods. And in some cases the data is the method/process.
When you start to think of software as memory fields and a processor that works on the memory fields based upon what is in another part of memory then you start to have a better handle on how to engineer software.
Abstractions such a memory managers are a good for learning. But when you want to engineer things, you have to think of the data that is in memory, both the data that is the code that executes as a method and the data that is the data used by the methods.
You start to think about the stack and the heap and what a line of code does to the memory space. You start to think of how the process starts, how it proceeds, how it branches.
There is not thought in the software itself, but just bits and a processor or two. It takes thought to make software, but I don't believe that software is codified thought. Not even a little.
What would you then call firmware? What about hardware when a chip is burned to do things in a specific way (an ASIC)?
Oh, and a virus is an exploit of the fact that methods are really just data. You put the programm counter to an address that is supposed to be data, but it is really a method. that is what a stack overflow trys to do.
Software is more like stacked dominoes. It takes thought to stack the dominoes but the dominoes are not themsleves codified thought.
I agree there is no magic. But are you sure that there isn't just a little bit of newts feet? ; )
You link in a ten year old article and this is supposed to be relevant? Software Engineering suffers because software can be made to seem to work and managers see it and say: ship it. They can't get away with this in construction or in electionics. But software is not as mature a discipline. But engineering for quality is a very important thing to do. And engineering is not something that software schools tend to teach. Why? Because anyone with a brain in their head went out and got rich. And they didn't care about doing things as engineers because they got seduced by the money and the stock options. The best software engineers, as far as I can tell, are the ones who were trained in another engineering discipline and then moved over to software. And then there was a whole generation of software accedemics who got seduced by the money and tried to patent their way into an easy retirement. They acted like experts and know it alls and stood in the way of real engineers trying to do real work. But engineering when applied to software has very strong results. It might not make people rich and so managers aren't interested. In software often when things are not engineered the software doesn't work. No big deal. In Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical engineering if things don't work correctly often times it means that people die, the building falls on them, they get electricuted. Fortunately there are what are known as real-time software engineers. And these are the people who do real software engineering. They aren't just trying to push through standards that they have patented clandestenly so that they can get royalties. The greed of the first generation of software engineers is why software engineering suffered. These people got rich, cashed in, and then got out of the business.
You don't understand constructin and you don't understand software either as far as I can tell. You can't just stack a room on top of another room just like you can't test a single software transaction and then say the same methodology will work if that is multipled by some n For example a building was constructed, a Library, at a major Massachusetts university. The engineer who designed it didn't consider that the weight of the books was a significant aspect. So concrete started falling off. With software if you scale it things can break in a way that you will not understand later. Look at what happened with that airline during Christmas. And so I conclude is that one of the bigest problems in software is that people don't understand that scaling things doesn't work. IE: and example from C code: int myarray[100]; Well, we can add an zero to that and have: int myarray[1000]; What about just one more zero? soon we have : int myarray[100000000]; And that just probably, I am going to guess, is going to cause a resource allocation problem. You will blow up the heap. You won't be able to load your code. And then the manager asks and the amatuer software guy says: "I only added one zero" But he multiplied it by 10. And then the product doesn't work. It was just a zero.