Focus on process and your tools will standardize themselves to a sufficient degree.
Try this: For each type of application, standardize on a platform for the production application -- OS version, language (compiler, libraries) version, database version, hardware platform. You will then develop a natural movement toward standardizing the build environment to the extent it makes sense.
Like it or not, people will specialize. Maybe you'll want to move them around occasionally to minimize ossification, but keep in mind there is a reason that people specialize as DBAs or web app programmers or sysadmins. They all involve programming, but aside from that the disciplines don't share much. Many folks will naturally straddle disciplines -- use that to your advantage.
A heterogeneous dev environment will help iron out your code, so let developers pick their platform. Just make sure to have a *process* for releasing code to users. You know -- QA, branch, staging, release.
Beyond that, let people work how they work best. Never touch the editor preferences or you will see a sudden increase in carpal tunnel issues.
If you've gone so far down this road that one programmer is the same as any other programmer, you're screwed. Sharpen your resume before your title gets changed to "programming resource IV."
Then why would they agree to the censorship if not to avoid the threatened action ("fraud charges").
Misuse of authority (threat of legal action) to force the ISPs to act as a surrogate for the State, so the State can avoid constitutionality issues. How is that not extortion?
Isn't that called extortion? "We will bring you up on charges if you do not 'voluntarily' do as we say." Especially when what they say is clearly illegal (per PA ruling).
The common way we use threads today is broken. It's far too easy to deadlock them, for instance. The coming explosion of cores, heterogeneous or homogeneous, gives us the opportunity to learn that there are other concurrency models.
See "The Problem with Threads" in Spectrum, May 2006 for a primer.
Then go crack out a PS-300 (homogeneous example) manual if yours has not yet crumbled to dust. Or an Amiga (heterogeneous example) manual, if you must. Those two machines got it right (mostly). The PS-300 was too easy to break via injudicious use of a clock data source, but demonstrated the rendezvous model quite well.
Darn, I don't know why I keep expecting accuracy from stories posted to slashdot. Grr.
However, even ignoring the rights of non-citizens, I must wonder how many of those "100 people inside the United States" are citizens. Why don't they just say 100 non-citizens if that's what they mean? Do they apply due process, even secret due process, to citizens?
Don't think threads. The thread model is inherently non-deterministic, and when you program with them you spend most of your time fighting to make the result deterministic.
There are other concurrency models without this problem. For a nice summary of some alternatives, see the "Alternatives to Threads" section of the article "The Problem with Threads" in the May 2006 issue of Computer.
That however, wasn't my point. MS has isolated itself and its products. It does dominate its own ecosystem, but other beasties have overrun their own ecosystem by virtue of openness and interoperability (cooperation) and are invading MS's ecosystem. At present they have the advantage of being entrenched, but if they don't adapt to the new conditions, they will lose relevance.
MSWord may even be the best word processor on MSWindows, but who cares? One only has to look as far as VHS vs. BetaMAX to discover how relevant that is.
Anyhow, to further extend the biology analogy, msword evolved in relatively healthy competition with wordperfect and its ilk. MSWord is well adapted to its limited environment, but it better hope no more flexible sport wanders into its valley to take over niche.
Take xml for example. XML has only recently wandered out of its niche in specialized structured document editors, and has demonstrated its utility in a wide variety of environs. Now msword is struggling to compete in the changed ecosystem, and has avoided extinction only by virtue of the vicious protectiveness of its mommy.
At this point, new word processor adaptations are more likely to succeed if they provide an interface familiar to the potential users; that doesn't mean they're the same in all ways.
I agree -- there's little need for formal homework prior to 4th or 5th grade.
However, give the elementary school kids just enough homework to keep the parents involved. Make a parent initial a slip that the kid drilled with flash cards this week, or something like that.
If the kid seems bored or lost, the parent should note that as well.
Netrek is the probably the first video game which can accurately be described as a "sport." It has more in common with basketball than with arcade games or Quake. Its vast and expanding array of tactics and strategies allows for many different play styles; the best players are the ones who think fastest, not necessarily the ones who twitch most effectively. It can be enjoyed as a twitch game, since the dogfighting system is extremely robust, but the things that really set Netrek apart from other video games are the team and strategic aspects. Team play is dynamic and varied, with roles constantly changing as the game state changes. Strategic play is explored in organized league games; after more than six years of league play, strategies are still being invented and refined.
In the USA it's either science or useful art if it gets copyright protection.
I refer you to US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 8: [Congres shall have the power] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Don't get indignant about it, just say "congress says it's Art, with a capital A."
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as one size fits all.
Focus on process and your tools will standardize themselves to a sufficient degree.
Try this: For each type of application, standardize on a platform for the production application -- OS version, language (compiler, libraries) version, database version, hardware platform. You will then develop a natural movement toward standardizing the build environment to the extent it makes sense.
Like it or not, people will specialize. Maybe you'll want to move them around occasionally to minimize ossification, but keep in mind there is a reason that people specialize as DBAs or web app programmers or sysadmins. They all involve programming, but aside from that the disciplines don't share much. Many folks will naturally straddle disciplines -- use that to your advantage.
A heterogeneous dev environment will help iron out your code, so let developers pick their platform. Just make sure to have a *process* for releasing code to users. You know -- QA, branch, staging, release.
Beyond that, let people work how they work best. Never touch the editor preferences or you will see a sudden increase in carpal tunnel issues.
If you've gone so far down this road that one programmer is the same as any other programmer, you're screwed. Sharpen your resume before your title gets changed to "programming resource IV."
There are several aspects to what we today call "the web."
There's the traditional web that's pure, url-addressable content, wikipedia for example.
Then there's applications, like web office suites or webmail applications. They just happen to use much of the same infrastructure as the "real" web.
Then why would they agree to the censorship if not to avoid the threatened action ("fraud charges").
Misuse of authority (threat of legal action) to force the ISPs to act as a surrogate for the State, so the State can avoid constitutionality issues. How is that not extortion?
Isn't that called extortion? "We will bring you up on charges if you do not 'voluntarily' do as we say." Especially when what they say is clearly illegal (per PA ruling).
OLPC should've said, "You're welcome to buy as many as you want with our standard OS, then install on them whatever you like."
With the touch-screen keyboard, could I change the shape of the keyboard so I don't have to hold my elbows together to type?
Split keyboards are a godsend for those of us with shoulder spans wider than a foot.
The common way we use threads today is broken. It's far too easy to deadlock them, for instance. The coming explosion of cores, heterogeneous or homogeneous, gives us the opportunity to learn that there are other concurrency models.
See "The Problem with Threads" in Spectrum, May 2006 for a primer.
Then go crack out a PS-300 (homogeneous example) manual if yours has not yet crumbled to dust. Or an Amiga (heterogeneous example) manual, if you must. Those two machines got it right (mostly). The PS-300 was too easy to break via injudicious use of a clock data source, but demonstrated the rendezvous model quite well.
What if they just inspect the content, not change it or block it?
Then RIAA and the like would know who to attack.
Of course, they could just be trying to encourage universal encryption.
Does this mean that Spock will become the new R. Daneel Olivaw? babysitting the galaxy until in grows up enough to get by without him?
Darn, I don't know why I keep expecting accuracy from stories posted to slashdot. Grr.
However, even ignoring the rights of non-citizens, I must wonder how many of those "100 people inside the United States" are citizens. Why don't they just say 100 non-citizens if that's what they mean? Do they apply due process, even secret due process, to citizens?
Is that 100 presently under surveillance? or 100 total who have been under surveillance?
Only 100 Americans? That's 100 Americans denied due process, even secret due process.
I thought the govt wasn't allowed to hold patents. What goes?
Don't think threads. The thread model is inherently non-deterministic, and when you program with them you spend most of your time fighting to make the result deterministic.
There are other concurrency models without this problem. For a nice summary of some alternatives, see the "Alternatives to Threads" section of the article "The Problem with Threads" in the May 2006 issue of Computer.
I haven't used msword in ages, so I can't answer your feature comparison the way you want. You may want to look at http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/06 /14/2137222&tid=152 if you need a feature comparison.
That however, wasn't my point. MS has isolated itself and its products. It does dominate its own ecosystem, but other beasties have overrun their own ecosystem by virtue of openness and interoperability (cooperation) and are invading MS's ecosystem. At present they have the advantage of being entrenched, but if they don't adapt to the new conditions, they will lose relevance.
MSWord may even be the best word processor on MSWindows, but who cares? One only has to look as far as VHS vs. BetaMAX to discover how relevant that is.
Does any analogy really work?
Anyhow, to further extend the biology analogy, msword evolved in relatively healthy competition with wordperfect and its ilk. MSWord is well adapted to its limited environment, but it better hope no more flexible sport wanders into its valley to take over niche.
Take xml for example. XML has only recently wandered out of its niche in specialized structured document editors, and has demonstrated its utility in a wide variety of environs. Now msword is struggling to compete in the changed ecosystem, and has avoided extinction only by virtue of the vicious protectiveness of its mommy.
At this point, new word processor adaptations are more likely to succeed if they provide an interface familiar to the potential users; that doesn't mean they're the same in all ways.
Keep in mind that monoculture has disadvantages too.
Variety, for example, is necessary for adaptation, creativity and resistance to disease.
Keep in mind that theism is running high in USA these days. Much of the developed world isn't quite as delusional.
I think it may have something to do with poverty and uncertainty...
I agree -- there's little need for formal homework prior to 4th or 5th grade.
However, give the elementary school kids just enough homework to keep the parents involved. Make a parent initial a slip that the kid drilled with flash cards this week, or something like that.
If the kid seems bored or lost, the parent should note that as well.
We don't trust the government -- simple as that.
The reasons for implementing this may be noble now, but laws change and what will the data be used for then?
It used to be that ignorance of the law was no excuse for not following the law. Now it is.
Does this mean call center staffers are mathematically inclined?
1 9/005218
ref:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/
In the USA it's either science or useful art if it gets copyright protection.
I refer you to US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 8: [Congres shall have the power] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Don't get indignant about it, just say "congress says it's Art, with a capital A."
Agreed, but then it's not consumer-grade anymore, is it?