My basic suspicion is that the Palm OS is a really weak OS. The fact that palm themselves went to windows for the 700w speaks volumes to me.
Also, are you honestly suggesting that you prefer Windows CE over PalmOS for handhelds? It can't be any easier to develope for...
No. Not philosophically. But as an end user, my MotoQ works every time, is nice and loud, and doesn't drop calls 5 times each way on my daily commute...
Treo's are horrible phones.
And don't get me started about how broken the palm OS is as the basis for a phone.
Get a Treo if you mostly need a rich email interface and don't mind having call setup problems, call dropping problems, and horrible sound quality.
Die Palm, die.
I'm no MSFT fanboy, but SQL Server (I don't count 4.2 which was basically a direct port) makes it very easy to focus on learning basic DB design, query development, and even a little performance tuning.
With few "knobs to turn and buttons to push", the beginning DBA wannabe can do stuff without needing to know a lot of gory details.
I am by no means advocating that top-notch DBAs don't need to eventually know all the gory details, along with a bunch of theory, just that for someone new trying to understand DBs better the tool makes it fairly easy to do so.
I knock MSFT all day long for lots of reasons, but SQL Server ain't one of them...
Just curious if anyone has any reliable data about whether it actually is possible (outside of a event similar to that which may have created the moon) to extinguish the entire human race.
Even when looking at something as dramtic as the K-T extinction event, can we reliably predict that some small number of humans would not be able to survive?
"I wondered what's to prevent some nut using a garage door opener from pushing the right buttons to make your airplane fall apart," said Harrison. "But everything is locked down with codes, and the radio signals are scrambled, so this is fully secured against hackers."
I did a large application long ago starting with VB 2.0 thru VB 6. That was an "interesting" progression with each version. As some have pointed out MS threw in some crazy changes along the way, but for the most part each version built on the previous version. The notable exception being the data libraries... DAO, RDO, ADO, etc... Each time re-inventing the wheel, but by version 6 with ADO it seemed like MS had hit upon a good compromise of power and accessibility.
Than came.Net... It wasn't that I was not receptive to all the really cool new OO and "advanced" capabilities (threading being a big one) it was the total lack of any "nod" toward the previous VB developers.
I remember being on the phone with a buddy from MS, after trying the.Net version of VB, telling him how I was never going to switch and the bagillion other VB programmers probably wouldn't either. He basically said that MS knew they had threw the VB coder base under the bus but didn't care much either way.
So I stayed away. I don't write a lot of code anymore and in the intervening period I've used a smidge of C, a bit of python (which I like a lot), a little Perl, and a decent amount of PHP.
Then came Visual Studio 2005 in the MSDN pack... I figured, what the heck. I had a little app that I had an itch to write and surmised that a clean start would be a good thing.
I loved it! The IDE is beautiful, it really is very nice to use. The controls provide a huge selection, the syntax is familiar enough to be comforting, and it just seemed to work. I was pleasantly suprised.
I then I tried to access some data. Not your run of the mill CRUD but some slightly advanced scenarios. I tried to fight my way through the new "datasource" wizard thingy and all the funky objects it creates.
I couldn't do it. It reminded me of Access in the ways that it makes incredibly simple things seem incredibly difficult. So I fought it for a few days trying to understand a sane approach to accessing data that would provide the sugary goodness of data bound controls with the clean simplicity of controlling the behind-the-scenes data access plumbing with code.
I failed miserably. On about the 4th day, I did something evil that Visual Studio didn't like. All of the sudden, my controls were gone from my main form. They had just disappeared. I still don't understand exactly what I did, but something made the IDE yak... No error messages, no warnings, just gone. I immediately deleted all my project files, including the svn archived versions that I could have went back to.
VB 6 gives me everything I need to build my little app, which is what I use VB for now anyway. For anything consequential we will continue to use LAMP, Java, or C++.
In the long run MS did me a favor by bitch slapping me away from their development tools and hence windows systems in general. I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that we run 80% linux boxes...
That's today. Under the restricted circumstances that Apple have created.
The unanswered question is: how many copies of OS X do they sell today versus how many would they sell if they had an available installed base of 40 million PCs?
Perhaps they would suddenly start making A LOT of money selling OS X... They have already sunk the development costs into the OS. So every additional copy of it nets them somewhere close to $150 in PROFIT.
And yes, I understand the support issue and the driver issue. And yes, I would pay a $150 to run an unsupported (though updateable) version of OS X, as I am sure the community that would spring up around it would fill in the gaps.
Especially if I could carry-forward that license to a shiny new Apple computer when my current PC falls far enough behind.
That to me is the big thing Apple seems not to value. The chances of me going out and buying an Apple computer today are 0%. Partly because I have a fairly new PC that is sufficiently powerful to do the job, and partly because I can't cut my family off Windows cold-turkey.
But if given the opportunity to dual-boot and keep a Windows "security blanket" (for lack of a much better phrase) for the wife and kids, I can't see why my NeXT computer wouldn't be an Apple. Everything I have seen of OS X seems appealing. If in the market for a computer, and given fairly comparable choices between the Apple hardware and Dell hardware, I am sure I would choose Apple.
So in my own, and others, minds Apple is trading off a smaller number of "forced" hardware sales today for a huge number of "pretty please can I have it, I want the good stuff" hardware sales tomorrow.
I know I'm not the only one in EXACTLY this same situation.
I would be VERY interested in understanding your test case.
This came up a couple of years ago when I was working with someone who didn't understand stored procedures. They attempted to do the same work that one stored procedure was doing in their code.
It was hands-down faster to do in the stored procedure. Not even close. The stored procedure was doing 13 different SQL DML statements which had to be replicated in code. Thirteen round trips to the server (over the 100BaseTX network mind you) for every one on the stored procedure side.
Just to make it fair I set the stored procedure to NOT pre-compile and pre-plan which in my mind more closely matched the worst case with doing dynamic SQL (which MAY get its plan cached). Still no contest.
I am open to new ideas and new ways of doing things, I just haven't seen a real-life example that matches what you're saying.
You are absolutely correct. And time is a big advantage.
Which is why I'm glad the NRO stepped up their game and actually developed (apparently) a satellite that actively positions in an orientation that makes it difficult to impossible for known, targeted observers to actually know that they are being targeted.
In the end, it's still security through obscurity, but it's a hell of a lot better effort at the obscurity part.
Knowing where spy satellites are is vital if you're trying to hide something.
Yes. You are correct about that. I understand that.
So my question to you is: How does stopping the amateurs mentioned in the article prevent any of that from ocurring?
Bzzzzt. Time's up.
It doesn't. Which was my whole point. If friendly smiley people can do it, then not-so-friendly-crazed-dictators-with-nuclear-ambi tions (and India) can do it. And anyone whom suffers under the illusion that the technology is actually being effective at catching people doing what they shouldn't be, is a fool.
Although in my gut I don't particularly like the fact that our military satellite orbits are known to all who care to look on the Internet, the article gets the moral of the story right.
If these guys can do it in their spare time with binoculars and phone calls, so can anyone else.
Time and time again security through obscurity has proven to be a fallacy.
And if this group has increased the awareness of that fact to the US military then they are indeed performing a valuable service.
The apparent fact that they forced a step-function change in satellite stealth technology (Misty, Misty2) offers convincing proof.
Slashdot Mirror
Display some backbone?
Say no?
Claim it isn't feasible?
At the end of the day if the coders say it can't be done, who is going to prove them wrong?
Eager beaver pushovers that "want to make the client happy" are the root cause of many project failures. Well how happy is the client now?
Hmmm... Hosting.
Nice site. Nice story. I will keep you in mind in the future.
500K / (2M * .9)
Wow! 28% of revenue is for adwords? What the heck are you selling?
Just curious...
600, 650, 700...
My basic suspicion is that the Palm OS is a really weak OS. The fact that palm themselves went to windows for the 700w speaks volumes to me.
Also, are you honestly suggesting that you prefer Windows CE over PalmOS for handhelds? It can't be any easier to develope for...
No. Not philosophically. But as an end user, my MotoQ works every time, is nice and loud, and doesn't drop calls 5 times each way on my daily commute...
You might want to look into this:
http://modified-newtonian-dynamics.mindbit.com/
MOND is interesting.
Treo's are horrible phones. And don't get me started about how broken the palm OS is as the basis for a phone. Get a Treo if you mostly need a rich email interface and don't mind having call setup problems, call dropping problems, and horrible sound quality. Die Palm, die.
I couldn't possibly disagree more...
I'm no MSFT fanboy, but SQL Server (I don't count 4.2 which was basically a direct port) makes it very easy to focus on learning basic DB design, query development, and even a little performance tuning.
With few "knobs to turn and buttons to push", the beginning DBA wannabe can do stuff without needing to know a lot of gory details.
I am by no means advocating that top-notch DBAs don't need to eventually know all the gory details, along with a bunch of theory, just that for someone new trying to understand DBs better the tool makes it fairly easy to do so.
I knock MSFT all day long for lots of reasons, but SQL Server ain't one of them...
RAAF not US... It was a kite with the line being an aerial for the broadcast...
Just curious if anyone has any reliable data about whether it actually is possible (outside of a event similar to that which may have created the moon) to extinguish the entire human race.
Even when looking at something as dramtic as the K-T extinction event, can we reliably predict that some small number of humans would not be able to survive?
hubris: (HEW-bris): extreme (or "overweening") pride, especially when considered a tragic flaw.
"he certainly doesn't have the hubris to realize"
should read:
"his hubris prevents him from realizing"
they lost disk 21 of the the 24 floppy installation disks...
This quite possibly the most informative post I have ever read on Slashdot. Seriously.
Please endeavor to learn other areas of technology so you can continue to inform me.
I agree 12 gauge slugs would be more satisfactory, but my co-workers seem to think it's a bit too disruptive in the office...
Personally I prefer a Hilti .22 cartidge powered Nail Gun...
From TFA:
"I wondered what's to prevent some nut using a garage door opener from pushing the right buttons to make your airplane fall apart," said Harrison. "But everything is locked down with codes, and the radio signals are scrambled, so this is fully secured against hackers."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's rich!
And the Indians had both of those beat by a large margin...
Loved it, then hated it...
.Net... It wasn't that I was not receptive to all the really cool new OO and "advanced" capabilities (threading being a big one) it was the total lack of any "nod" toward the previous VB developers.
.Net version of VB, telling him how I was never going to switch and the bagillion other VB programmers probably wouldn't either. He basically said that MS knew they had threw the VB coder base under the bus but didn't care much either way.
:-)
I did a large application long ago starting with VB 2.0 thru VB 6. That was an "interesting" progression with each version. As some have pointed out MS threw in some crazy changes along the way, but for the most part each version built on the previous version. The notable exception being the data libraries... DAO, RDO, ADO, etc... Each time re-inventing the wheel, but by version 6 with ADO it seemed like MS had hit upon a good compromise of power and accessibility.
Than came
I remember being on the phone with a buddy from MS, after trying the
So I stayed away. I don't write a lot of code anymore and in the intervening period I've used a smidge of C, a bit of python (which I like a lot), a little Perl, and a decent amount of PHP.
Then came Visual Studio 2005 in the MSDN pack... I figured, what the heck. I had a little app that I had an itch to write and surmised that a clean start would be a good thing.
I loved it! The IDE is beautiful, it really is very nice to use. The controls provide a huge selection, the syntax is familiar enough to be comforting, and it just seemed to work. I was pleasantly suprised.
I then I tried to access some data. Not your run of the mill CRUD but some slightly advanced scenarios. I tried to fight my way through the new "datasource" wizard thingy and all the funky objects it creates.
I couldn't do it. It reminded me of Access in the ways that it makes incredibly simple things seem incredibly difficult. So I fought it for a few days trying to understand a sane approach to accessing data that would provide the sugary goodness of data bound controls with the clean simplicity of controlling the behind-the-scenes data access plumbing with code.
I failed miserably. On about the 4th day, I did something evil that Visual Studio didn't like. All of the sudden, my controls were gone from my main form. They had just disappeared. I still don't understand exactly what I did, but something made the IDE yak... No error messages, no warnings, just gone. I immediately deleted all my project files, including the svn archived versions that I could have went back to.
VB 6 gives me everything I need to build my little app, which is what I use VB for now anyway. For anything consequential we will continue to use LAMP, Java, or C++.
In the long run MS did me a favor by bitch slapping me away from their development tools and hence windows systems in general. I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that we run 80% linux boxes...
Hopefully a lot!
Duh.
Just use unobtainium like they did in the movie "The Core"... It actually gets STRONGER with heat and pressure.
If more scientists went to the movies I think we would be much farther along.
And thanks for all the fish!
Great Reply. Really well thought out and informative.
I cry UNCLE. No Apple for me for at least two years.
I'm pretty sure Steve won't even notice...
Apple makes very little money selling OS X
That's today. Under the restricted circumstances that Apple have created.
The unanswered question is: how many copies of OS X do they sell today versus how many would they sell if they had an available installed base of 40 million PCs?
Perhaps they would suddenly start making A LOT of money selling OS X... They have already sunk the development costs into the OS. So every additional copy of it nets them somewhere close to $150 in PROFIT.
And yes, I understand the support issue and the driver issue. And yes, I would pay a $150 to run an unsupported (though updateable) version of OS X, as I am sure the community that would spring up around it would fill in the gaps.
Especially if I could carry-forward that license to a shiny new Apple computer when my current PC falls far enough behind.
That to me is the big thing Apple seems not to value. The chances of me going out and buying an Apple computer today are 0%. Partly because I have a fairly new PC that is sufficiently powerful to do the job, and partly because I can't cut my family off Windows cold-turkey.
But if given the opportunity to dual-boot and keep a Windows "security blanket" (for lack of a much better phrase) for the wife and kids, I can't see why my NeXT computer wouldn't be an Apple. Everything I have seen of OS X seems appealing. If in the market for a computer, and given fairly comparable choices between the Apple hardware and Dell hardware, I am sure I would choose Apple.
So in my own, and others, minds Apple is trading off a smaller number of "forced" hardware sales today for a huge number of "pretty please can I have it, I want the good stuff" hardware sales tomorrow.
I know I'm not the only one in EXACTLY this same situation.
Disclaimer: IANADBA
I would be VERY interested in understanding your test case.
This came up a couple of years ago when I was working with someone who didn't understand stored procedures. They attempted to do the same work that one stored procedure was doing in their code.
It was hands-down faster to do in the stored procedure. Not even close. The stored procedure was doing 13 different SQL DML statements which had to be replicated in code. Thirteen round trips to the server (over the 100BaseTX network mind you) for every one on the stored procedure side.
Just to make it fair I set the stored procedure to NOT pre-compile and pre-plan which in my mind more closely matched the worst case with doing dynamic SQL (which MAY get its plan cached). Still no contest.
I am open to new ideas and new ways of doing things, I just haven't seen a real-life example that matches what you're saying.
You are absolutely correct. And time is a big advantage.
Which is why I'm glad the NRO stepped up their game and actually developed (apparently) a satellite that actively positions in an orientation that makes it difficult to impossible for known, targeted observers to actually know that they are being targeted.
In the end, it's still security through obscurity, but it's a hell of a lot better effort at the obscurity part.
You don't appear to have read the article.
i tions (and India) can do it. And anyone whom suffers under the illusion that the technology is actually being effective at catching people doing what they shouldn't be, is a fool.
You don't appear to understand the point I made.
Knowing where spy satellites are is vital if you're trying to hide something.
Yes. You are correct about that. I understand that.
So my question to you is: How does stopping the amateurs mentioned in the article prevent any of that from ocurring?
Bzzzzt. Time's up.
It doesn't. Which was my whole point. If friendly smiley people can do it, then not-so-friendly-crazed-dictators-with-nuclear-amb
Although in my gut I don't particularly like the fact that our military satellite orbits are known to all who care to look on the Internet, the article gets the moral of the story right.
If these guys can do it in their spare time with binoculars and phone calls, so can anyone else.
Time and time again security through obscurity has proven to be a fallacy.
And if this group has increased the awareness of that fact to the US military then they are indeed performing a valuable service.
The apparent fact that they forced a step-function change in satellite stealth technology (Misty, Misty2) offers convincing proof.