Cloud computing is trusting Someone Else to take care of your data. While there are good, trustworthy organizations out there, for me, it comes down to the old adage of "if you want to ensure something is done right, do it yourself."
Networks are great for communication, collaboration, and sharing information not available locally (Wikipedia, online scholarly journals, etc) -- but for me, putting word processors online doesn't pass the laugh test. No matter how reliable your network is, if you already have a local computer (and a local computer capable of word processing is trivial these days), why would you introduce another possible point-of-failure by making everything go over the network?
And also -- why name a computing company "Danger"?? That's like naming a cruise line Titanic Cruises, or naming an airline after the Tenerife disaster!
But not coding in your free time also shows balance.
If my free-time code were anything like my for-work code, then maybe. But that's rarely the case (and when it is, it's because I'm working on a particularly cool project at work.)
If your received SNR is way above what is required, it's appropriate to reduce power. (With digital signals, you either do or don't have a good-enough connection.) If other cell phones or any other devices are making your SNR go down, an algorithm based on SNR won't reduce power, since you need the extra to overcome the interference.
Besides, cell phone systems use various schemes (CDMA and others) to reduce the effects of phone-to-phone interference. This is why cell phone towers can handle multiple calls at once.
If it's legal for police to break into your car to install a GPS tracker, I say it's legal to consider said GPS device to be a free gift, if you find it.
This sort of thing makes me want to design devices to sniff these things out. Catching a few drug dealers is not a fair trade for such a loss of privacy.
Hey, Microsoft wasn't the one who decided that Mac users didn't need the right mouse button. If part of the "dumbing down" is a lack of easily-accessible context menus, blame the Mac GUI.
I keep hoping to find a good Linux UI that has the look-and-feel of Windows XP Pro (running a Classic Windows theme), but without the BSOD et al.
I often program in PIC assembly. While it's possible to avoid (most) GOTOs, it's difficult to do so and have the code look readable.
To me, GOTO and call/return are two distinct styles of programming (FSM-style and function-style). Mixing the two can be powerful, but it can also make a big mess. Programming on the PIC, I try to limit the GOTOs to specific instances where they are really implementing a small for or while loop -- including the one last GOTO at the bottom to keep the program counter from falling off the end of the code.
Of course, the whole call/return story gets more complicated on the smaller 8-bit PICs, since they only have eight levels of hardware stack, and no overflow/underflow checking, unless you're running in simulation...
Typically, you get most of your performance gains by rewriting 5% or less of the software in assembly [Citation needed...:-)].
I think you mean Amdahl's Law (that speeding up or parallelizing one task will only produce a speedup limited by the relative time consumed by that task compared to the rest of the code.)
I do think that writing good, efficient C code (for instance) will get you most of the way there -- and in that case, your argument is right. There's still something to be said for developing something like this just for art's sake, though. Why do people admire handcrafted Swiss watches, when they can get a perfectly good timepiece for a few bucks down at the Wal-Mart? Craftmanship, and the skill it implies, are impressive to those of us who know what is involved.
Perhaps (if they could open up the code, and if it has very good documentation), they could use it as an example of how to get things done quickly in assembly. Once you get into the assembly mindset, it *is* fun to figure out a way to run a loop in 2/3 the instructions (allowing your robot to control 24 servos instead of 16, with the same $5 microcontroller).
What puzzles me (apart from the amusing bit about decompiling something that was never compiled) is the prohibition on disassembly. Given the pretty much trivial mapping between assembly mnemonics and the actual binary files they distribute, it seems a silly thing to prohibit.
Driving 90 miles per hour on a city street is reasonably trivial to do as well, but there are reasons that it's illegal. The GP had more of a valid point about the philosophy -- technical ease or difficulty doesn't have that much to do with it. Yes, disassembly is a lot easier than decompiling (and for that matter, you can "decompile" machine code whether or not it ever was compiled). The $HighLevelLanguage code you produce will no doubt look ugly, but if the decompiler is written well, it will work.
Programming in hex, compared to just clicking a "compile" widget on a toolbar, feels a lot more like "programming." It's fun to toggle in a program byte by byte and see it run -- even on a slowed-down Z80.
I'd say "mod parent up," but it looks like you already got a very well-deserved +5 Informative. Thanks for a great suggestion. I've taught myself enough SketchUp to get by in the past few months (we got a 3D printer at work, which was great motivation) -- it's very nice to have a physics engine for it.
Now to find out how to create and use the servo joints...
Slashdot Mirror
...or would that have made it SuSE?
So time travel just involves a trip to Appalachia?
No, no, no. Clearly the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) is at work, here.
Cloud computing is trusting Someone Else to take care of your data. While there are good, trustworthy organizations out there, for me, it comes down to the old adage of "if you want to ensure something is done right, do it yourself."
Networks are great for communication, collaboration, and sharing information not available locally (Wikipedia, online scholarly journals, etc) -- but for me, putting word processors online doesn't pass the laugh test. No matter how reliable your network is, if you already have a local computer (and a local computer capable of word processing is trivial these days), why would you introduce another possible point-of-failure by making everything go over the network?
And also -- why name a computing company "Danger"?? That's like naming a cruise line Titanic Cruises, or naming an airline after the Tenerife disaster!
But not coding in your free time also shows balance.
If my free-time code were anything like my for-work code, then maybe. But that's rarely the case (and when it is, it's because I'm working on a particularly cool project at work.)
More like "See you in a thousand years or so..."
If your received SNR is way above what is required, it's appropriate to reduce power. (With digital signals, you either do or don't have a good-enough connection.) If other cell phones or any other devices are making your SNR go down, an algorithm based on SNR won't reduce power, since you need the extra to overcome the interference.
Besides, cell phone systems use various schemes (CDMA and others) to reduce the effects of phone-to-phone interference. This is why cell phone towers can handle multiple calls at once.
The Doppler Effect should take care of that for you. No matter what kind of sound is made, it's affected by the Doppler Effect.
Not so much, at low speeds.
But one of the nice things about electric cars is that they're so quiet. Can you turn the sound off?
If it can't be turned off, then I, for one, won't be buying one. Modern life is noisy enough as it is.
Of *course* it can be turned off. Find the speakers, grab some diagonal cutters...
Can you imagine the reaction from Congressional Republicans if Bill Clinton had been the one running the War on Terror?
No -- because he wouldn't have trumped up such an abomination.
If it's legal for police to break into your car to install a GPS tracker, I say it's legal to consider said GPS device to be a free gift, if you find it.
This sort of thing makes me want to design devices to sniff these things out. Catching a few drug dealers is not a fair trade for such a loss of privacy.
Hey, Microsoft wasn't the one who decided that Mac users didn't need the right mouse button. If part of the "dumbing down" is a lack of easily-accessible context menus, blame the Mac GUI.
I keep hoping to find a good Linux UI that has the look-and-feel of Windows XP Pro (running a Classic Windows theme), but without the BSOD et al.
Terrorism? So you're scared of ELF? Really?
You mean you're not?
I often program in PIC assembly. While it's possible to avoid (most) GOTOs, it's difficult to do so and have the code look readable.
To me, GOTO and call/return are two distinct styles of programming (FSM-style and function-style). Mixing the two can be powerful, but it can also make a big mess. Programming on the PIC, I try to limit the GOTOs to specific instances where they are really implementing a small for or while loop -- including the one last GOTO at the bottom to keep the program counter from falling off the end of the code.
Of course, the whole call/return story gets more complicated on the smaller 8-bit PICs, since they only have eight levels of hardware stack, and no overflow/underflow checking, unless you're running in simulation...
Have you ever needed to insert terrible code to make something work at the last minute?
Do you mean, have I ever *not* done this? Hmm... hard to say. Probably not.
Ah -- the old HCF opcode!
They track your phone
Throughout the day?
Put it in a
Faraday cage!
Burma Shave
Typically, you get most of your performance gains by rewriting 5% or less of the software in assembly [Citation needed... :-)].
I think you mean Amdahl's Law (that speeding up or parallelizing one task will only produce a speedup limited by the relative time consumed by that task compared to the rest of the code.)
I do think that writing good, efficient C code (for instance) will get you most of the way there -- and in that case, your argument is right. There's still something to be said for developing something like this just for art's sake, though. Why do people admire handcrafted Swiss watches, when they can get a perfectly good timepiece for a few bucks down at the Wal-Mart? Craftmanship, and the skill it implies, are impressive to those of us who know what is involved.
Perhaps (if they could open up the code, and if it has very good documentation), they could use it as an example of how to get things done quickly in assembly. Once you get into the assembly mindset, it *is* fun to figure out a way to run a loop in 2/3 the instructions (allowing your robot to control 24 servos instead of 16, with the same $5 microcontroller).
What puzzles me (apart from the amusing bit about decompiling something that was never compiled) is the prohibition on disassembly. Given the pretty much trivial mapping between assembly mnemonics and the actual binary files they distribute, it seems a silly thing to prohibit.
Driving 90 miles per hour on a city street is reasonably trivial to do as well, but there are reasons that it's illegal. The GP had more of a valid point about the philosophy -- technical ease or difficulty doesn't have that much to do with it. Yes, disassembly is a lot easier than decompiling (and for that matter, you can "decompile" machine code whether or not it ever was compiled). The $HighLevelLanguage code you produce will no doubt look ugly, but if the decompiler is written well, it will work.
Did you think they wrote it in hex?
Why not it's how I started writing Machine Code
Programming in hex, compared to just clicking a "compile" widget on a toolbar, feels a lot more like "programming." It's fun to toggle in a program byte by byte and see it run -- even on a slowed-down Z80.
As long as you don't try calling it a "Tolkien Ring" network...
Another that takes a bit more work is Google's Sketchup with the SketchyPhysics plugin.
I'd say "mod parent up," but it looks like you already got a very well-deserved +5 Informative. Thanks for a great suggestion. I've taught myself enough SketchUp to get by in the past few months (we got a 3D printer at work, which was great motivation) -- it's very nice to have a physics engine for it.
Now to find out how to create and use the servo joints...
Could have been worse.
Could have been LISP.
36 and still coding in BASIC myself, though it looks more and more like C every year.
I seriously have to ask : what does a 1-Dimensional wave look like????
A compression wave. Think of a sound wave traveling along a very slender rod, after a hammer hits the end.