It all depends upon how competitive and proprietary the community is. The employees could:
carve the space up into distinct personal areas, akin to the way we divide real estate,
develop a squatters system, whereby you can take what's not being used,
institute a fluid bucket system. Your personal stuff is in a bucket, each employee carries their bucket around.
Say that there's no personal stuff allowed, everything is common.
Create a series of devices that can be customized based upon a PAN. For instance, a bluetooth picture frame that can display a random or specific picture from your smartphone or laptop.
a mixture of the above, there's a part that's personal, and a part that's common
And I'm sure there's tons of others. If I, as an employer, were to institute this system, I'd ensure that the employees had the flexibility to organize the space as they wanted. If I, as an employee, were to be part of this system, I'd design a tightly knit squad of nerf-enabled roombas to guard my personal space, and lead assaults on other employees during lunch hour.
The entrenched energy companies have a great deal of resources. By pouring these resources into technologies needed to extract alternative power sources, they can get patents and exclude new businesses from entering the energy market. They then build their infrastructure under the shield of patents, cross-licensing with the big guns & outright buying the smaller companies. After the infrastructure is in place, they can compete on an economy of scale with any small shops that crop up, and still keep their stranglehold on world energy.
They could also use the media to scare off smaller competitors. Play up the accomplishment, talk about the tech needed, the excessive expertise, and the sheer cost of developing the infrastructure. For instance, take a Discovery channel team through the geo-thermal plants, and advertise the show while discussing alternative-energy on the news networks & today shows. Share the episode prominently on the corporate website, and ask for feedback--e.g. crowdsource for tech improvements and customer feedback, and respond publicly and vocally to the crowdsourcing (think Apple marketing here).
My point is, the cornerhold still exists, but it's shifted. Big Energy can't corner the resources, but they can corner the IP, the infrastructure, and public opinion required to reach those resources. I agree, though, that it forces them into a more competitive and foreign environment, which is quite the chilling prospect. As the saying goes, though, evolve or die.
Good points, all around. Given that perspective, the course of action could be to define what information is appropriate to upload, and analyze the cost/benefit ratio within that context.
You fail to differentiate between.Net and C#. By and large, I criticize the former. I can see where you might get the wrong idea, though, so I'll elaborate.
The.Net framework suggests that the prototype for an event is as follows: "ret_type event( Object sender, EventArgs_subclass e )". Compare with a "typical" windows callback mechanism: "ret_type function( HWND hParam, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam )". Suspiciously similar, neh? HWND corresponds to "Object sender", and the W- and L- PARAM objects are wrapped into EventArgs.
EventArgs and its sub-classes encapsulate all of the data given to a particular handler, much like W- and L- params, which changed meanings depending on call context. Some EventArgs subclasses also perform odd tasks, for instance the CancelEventArgs.Cancel property. This is the downright stupidest OOP implementation I've ever seen. Cancel is not data, it's an action. I don't want to specify the "cancelness" of the data, I want to cancel an operation. A better design would be to send a message back to the sending object that says, "I can't validate this." Unfortunately, because.Net event handlers use the ambiguous "object handle." I'd need a cast before I could send my response.
The complexity of implementing a cancel message is likely greater than CancelEventArgs, but the solution is far more intuitive. We don't even need to go as far as sending a message, though. Provide a real type to the sender argument (for instance, ICancelableControl, or just Control), and provide a Cancel method, and I'd be happy.
Performance is a shoddy argument for the lack of a message passing system, because.Net treats the event system as a messaging network anyway. AFAIAC, use events, but add more formality to the event system. Call your EventArgs what they are -- a message--and type the sending object appropriately. Finally, differentiate functioanlly between events and multicast delegates. Events should manage their subscription list; if an object subscribing to an event is garbage collected, fail silently. If the event lacks subscribers, then succeed.
And now for something completely different.
Everyone knows MSDN is a steaming pile of crap. What's worse, Microsoft seems to be doing very little to correct that image. IMHO, this is a mistake. As a developer, my first exposure to.Net is through MSDN--fundamentally, it's marketing for techies. It should be thorough, describing how components interact, typical real-world use cases for code, the history or motivation of a particular interface, etc. MSDN should serve the same function as an O'Reilly book--set a mood and mindset for development.
MS can spend as much money developing the perfect language as they want, but without the proper supporting tools--and don't get me started on the woes of VS--their efforts piss people off. This is precisely the motivation for the GGP's note that Objective-C developers are so "happy" and my "bullshit" post.
The same could be said for any outsourcing--you'd like to know were they'll be 5 years down the line. Likewise, the same could be said for any business decision--you should weigh the opportunity costs of any business transaction. Your post casts a light into a dark corner, but it doesn't illuminate much.
While I understand your POV concerning IT, there's tons to focus on when managing a company: product development, customer service, sales & marketing, etc. Funneling a ton of money into your information systems isn't worth the cost unless your core competency is IT or heavily dependent upon it (e.g., software development). This is only accentuated when you can obtain useful, high-availability services from an incredibly competent staff for a fraction of the expense of other shops.
Obviously this decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. Google's not going anywhere in the near future, and they rarely diminish their service capabilities. Thus, in the general case, I feel that it's better to focus on how well their services integrate into your information infrastructure rather than where the service will be in 5 years.
With Mac development, there's a lot to pick up. New language, unfamiliar programming paradigms (messaging is far different from event handlers), a new API with unfamiliar design principles (see my previous post), and a new development environment. It's difficult to transition all of those elements at once.
There are other benefits, though. I'm taking the time to develop a few Mac goodies because it improves my software design skills. It's already given me some great ideas to improve my.Net products.
Really, though, how hard is it to make the mental leap to [myObject insertObject:xxx atPosition:yyy] from myObject->insertObjectAtPosition(xxx,yyy) ? And which is the more readable ?
As far as a layman is concerned, the former is more readable, but less understandable. I expect most formally educated programmers (meaning college) to prefer the latter. Why? A few reasons:
Most institutions teach java, C#, or C++ in their core curriculum. Programmers simply know the syntax better.
The programming paradigms of the language are different. In C, you access a method of an object. In Objective-C you send a message to a foreign object. The latter is confusing, given the background of a majority of programmers.
The syntax for a function is derived from math (e.g. f(x)), which (AFAIK) most 'programming' curricula have a solid backing in.
It's easier to follow the C-style *syntax*. '->' appears like an arrow; it implies direction, unlike the Objective-C messaging syntax.*
It's not perfect, though. I'd appreciate a few idioms from Objective-C to be "ported" to C#, particularly aspects of RTTI and message passing (functions, delegates, and events in C# are irritating). IMHO, it's far more elegant the Obj-C way.
I agree with your sentiment that Cocoa development is superior to.Net. My theory of why.Net sucks a nut, comparatively, is as follows:
Apple considers the POV of third parties more heavily than MS. It also appears that Apple drinks from its own trough more than MS.
It is clear in Apple's documentation and design how they developed something--Apple discusses design patterns, object relationships, and, on occasion, history, in their docs. Meanwhile, MS reinvents the wheel using proprietary, confusing terminology while offering contrived examples that don't express the power of their tech.
The more I look at.Net, the more I think that Microsoft sicked their Win32 dev team on the problem. (Consider, for example, events versus callback functions. Compare with Objective C messaging.)
I still prefer C# and.Net, as sick as that may sound. My background is heavily Java and C# based, which makes the Objective C environment is too clunky for me to like (The @'s, #'s, and XCode-IB code integration are painful). Apple tries to alleviate this by providing (admittedly, great) tools to manage that business, but it always comes off as applying gauze to a gaping chest wound.
btw, thanks for the link:)
-- * Quite frankly, I think both suck. I'd like a strange frankenstein syntax. "myObject <- [message_name arg1: xxx arg2: yyy];" It's more clear than either of the other two, IMHO. Until then, I'll take C-style. As a further aside, I dislike 'dot syntax' wholesale.
I believe this is the main issue for the marketing industry. Marketers should present *facts* as straight-forward as possible. Vista Capable? How about "Vista capability score"? One star - Home Basic. Two Stars - Home Premium. Three Stars - Ultimate. Match the stars on the PC badge to the Vista box. The stars on the computer must be equal or greater than the stars on the OS. Fini.
There's still plenty of room for them, of course. Marketers can continue to expound on all things emotional, and convince me that I really do need 300 new features and an iPadd. (Looking at you, Apple)
The main benefit (the way to "sell it", if you will), is that you're ensuring a competent (and hopefully ethical) technical staff. Higher competency, higher wage. Obviously some will act merely in self-interest. However, if the founders are competent and act in enlightened self-interest, the effects of the former group could be alleviated, if not eliminated, for a time.
Some tech-savvy households may enable profiles on Netflix, enabling each person to track their likes & dislikes independently. (I did this for my GF, who has wildly disparate tastes from me). I'm not sure what effect that would have on the data. It'd certainly be neat if the scientists could differentiate between individual and multiple users using a particular profile.
Disclaimers distributed in this manner are an implicit contract--that, in return for A, you absolve the offeror from B. However, contracts formed to conduct illegal activities are invalid. (No more could I, for instance, contract a murder). No contract, no (effective) disclaimer.
That doesn't make sense. You're not observing the photons that hit the film to produce the picture, but new photons bouncing off of the picture itself.
What we really need is some holographic film, 2 perfect mirrors, a vacuum and a laser...
Just to be sure I'm on the same page as you, we've (as in humanity) tested this with one electron? E.g. gotten the disruption pattern on the target with 1 electron, without monitoring either A or B? Seriously, I'd like to know.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'm sure there's tons of others. If I, as an employer, were to institute this system, I'd ensure that the employees had the flexibility to organize the space as they wanted. If I, as an employee, were to be part of this system, I'd design a tightly knit squad of nerf-enabled roombas to guard my personal space, and lead assaults on other employees during lunch hour.
If you cool the lava enough, you could face a big problem with exploding volcanoes.
The entrenched energy companies have a great deal of resources. By pouring these resources into technologies needed to extract alternative power sources, they can get patents and exclude new businesses from entering the energy market. They then build their infrastructure under the shield of patents, cross-licensing with the big guns & outright buying the smaller companies. After the infrastructure is in place, they can compete on an economy of scale with any small shops that crop up, and still keep their stranglehold on world energy.
They could also use the media to scare off smaller competitors. Play up the accomplishment, talk about the tech needed, the excessive expertise, and the sheer cost of developing the infrastructure. For instance, take a Discovery channel team through the geo-thermal plants, and advertise the show while discussing alternative-energy on the news networks & today shows. Share the episode prominently on the corporate website, and ask for feedback--e.g. crowdsource for tech improvements and customer feedback, and respond publicly and vocally to the crowdsourcing (think Apple marketing here).
My point is, the cornerhold still exists, but it's shifted. Big Energy can't corner the resources, but they can corner the IP, the infrastructure, and public opinion required to reach those resources. I agree, though, that it forces them into a more competitive and foreign environment, which is quite the chilling prospect. As the saying goes, though, evolve or die.
Good points, all around. Given that perspective, the course of action could be to define what information is appropriate to upload, and analyze the cost/benefit ratio within that context.
Awesome. I italicized a typo. "functioanlly" should read "functionally".
You fail to differentiate between .Net and C#. By and large, I criticize the former. I can see where you might get the wrong idea, though, so I'll elaborate.
The .Net framework suggests that the prototype for an event is as follows: "ret_type event( Object sender, EventArgs_subclass e )". Compare with a "typical" windows callback mechanism: "ret_type function( HWND hParam, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam )". Suspiciously similar, neh? HWND corresponds to "Object sender", and the W- and L- PARAM objects are wrapped into EventArgs.
EventArgs and its sub-classes encapsulate all of the data given to a particular handler, much like W- and L- params, which changed meanings depending on call context. Some EventArgs subclasses also perform odd tasks, for instance the CancelEventArgs.Cancel property. This is the downright stupidest OOP implementation I've ever seen. Cancel is not data, it's an action. I don't want to specify the "cancelness" of the data, I want to cancel an operation. A better design would be to send a message back to the sending object that says, "I can't validate this." Unfortunately, because .Net event handlers use the ambiguous "object handle." I'd need a cast before I could send my response.
The complexity of implementing a cancel message is likely greater than CancelEventArgs, but the solution is far more intuitive. We don't even need to go as far as sending a message, though. Provide a real type to the sender argument (for instance, ICancelableControl, or just Control), and provide a Cancel method, and I'd be happy.
Performance is a shoddy argument for the lack of a message passing system, because .Net treats the event system as a messaging network anyway. AFAIAC, use events, but add more formality to the event system. Call your EventArgs what they are -- a message--and type the sending object appropriately. Finally, differentiate functioanlly between events and multicast delegates. Events should manage their subscription list; if an object subscribing to an event is garbage collected, fail silently. If the event lacks subscribers, then succeed.
And now for something completely different.
Everyone knows MSDN is a steaming pile of crap. What's worse, Microsoft seems to be doing very little to correct that image. IMHO, this is a mistake. As a developer, my first exposure to .Net is through MSDN--fundamentally, it's marketing for techies. It should be thorough, describing how components interact, typical real-world use cases for code, the history or motivation of a particular interface, etc. MSDN should serve the same function as an O'Reilly book--set a mood and mindset for development.
MS can spend as much money developing the perfect language as they want, but without the proper supporting tools--and don't get me started on the woes of VS--their efforts piss people off. This is precisely the motivation for the GGP's note that Objective-C developers are so "happy" and my "bullshit" post.
The same could be said for any outsourcing--you'd like to know were they'll be 5 years down the line. Likewise, the same could be said for any business decision--you should weigh the opportunity costs of any business transaction. Your post casts a light into a dark corner, but it doesn't illuminate much.
While I understand your POV concerning IT, there's tons to focus on when managing a company: product development, customer service, sales & marketing, etc. Funneling a ton of money into your information systems isn't worth the cost unless your core competency is IT or heavily dependent upon it (e.g., software development). This is only accentuated when you can obtain useful, high-availability services from an incredibly competent staff for a fraction of the expense of other shops.
Obviously this decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. Google's not going anywhere in the near future, and they rarely diminish their service capabilities. Thus, in the general case, I feel that it's better to focus on how well their services integrate into your information infrastructure rather than where the service will be in 5 years.
With Mac development, there's a lot to pick up. New language, unfamiliar programming paradigms (messaging is far different from event handlers), a new API with unfamiliar design principles (see my previous post), and a new development environment. It's difficult to transition all of those elements at once.
There are other benefits, though. I'm taking the time to develop a few Mac goodies because it improves my software design skills. It's already given me some great ideas to improve my .Net products.
I'm in the camp that's hoping for .Net on OS X, but one reason is "Apple doesn't want developers to rely on the functionality".
As far as a layman is concerned, the former is more readable, but less understandable. I expect most formally educated programmers (meaning college) to prefer the latter. Why? A few reasons:
It's not perfect, though. I'd appreciate a few idioms from Objective-C to be "ported" to C#, particularly aspects of RTTI and message passing (functions, delegates, and events in C# are irritating). IMHO, it's far more elegant the Obj-C way.
I agree with your sentiment that Cocoa development is superior to .Net. My theory of why .Net sucks a nut, comparatively, is as follows:
I still prefer C# and .Net, as sick as that may sound. My background is heavily Java and C# based, which makes the Objective C environment is too clunky for me to like (The @'s, #'s, and XCode-IB code integration are painful). Apple tries to alleviate this by providing (admittedly, great) tools to manage that business, but it always comes off as applying gauze to a gaping chest wound.
btw, thanks for the link :)
--
* Quite frankly, I think both suck. I'd like a strange frankenstein syntax. "myObject <- [message_name arg1: xxx arg2: yyy];" It's more clear than either of the other two, IMHO. Until then, I'll take C-style. As a further aside, I dislike 'dot syntax' wholesale.
I believe this is the main issue for the marketing industry. Marketers should present *facts* as straight-forward as possible. Vista Capable? How about "Vista capability score"? One star - Home Basic. Two Stars - Home Premium. Three Stars - Ultimate. Match the stars on the PC badge to the Vista box. The stars on the computer must be equal or greater than the stars on the OS. Fini.
There's still plenty of room for them, of course. Marketers can continue to expound on all things emotional, and convince me that I really do need 300 new features and an iPadd. (Looking at you, Apple)
The main benefit (the way to "sell it", if you will), is that you're ensuring a competent (and hopefully ethical) technical staff. Higher competency, higher wage. Obviously some will act merely in self-interest. However, if the founders are competent and act in enlightened self-interest, the effects of the former group could be alleviated, if not eliminated, for a time.
The members could grant the union the ability to vet applicant. The matter then becomes setting the bar.
As an answer to my own question, here's an article from LWN.net: The GPL is a License, not a Contract.
If the GPL is not a contract, then what is it?
Some tech-savvy households may enable profiles on Netflix, enabling each person to track their likes & dislikes independently. (I did this for my GF, who has wildly disparate tastes from me). I'm not sure what effect that would have on the data. It'd certainly be neat if the scientists could differentiate between individual and multiple users using a particular profile.
IANAL, but here's an argument:
Disclaimers distributed in this manner are an implicit contract--that, in return for A, you absolve the offeror from B. However, contracts formed to conduct illegal activities are invalid. (No more could I, for instance, contract a murder). No contract, no (effective) disclaimer.
There's some irony in that Obama's technology proposal on docstoc is a Word document and that you can't download it without logging in.
Legally, no.
Right, and the next thing you'll be saying is that Linux is just a kernel. (j/k)
The thing that really makes the video shine is the choice of music. I agree, classic.
One of the links on the original hotmail page reads "The John C. Dvorak Excellence Award". *shudder*
That doesn't make sense. You're not observing the photons that hit the film to produce the picture, but new photons bouncing off of the picture itself.
What we really need is some holographic film, 2 perfect mirrors, a vacuum and a laser...
Just to be sure I'm on the same page as you, we've (as in humanity) tested this with one electron? E.g. gotten the disruption pattern on the target with 1 electron, without monitoring either A or B? Seriously, I'd like to know.