I thought we learned in the 90s that virtual representations of physicals things, be they stores, libraries -- whatever, are simply not the most useful way to access information. I don't want to go wandering around virtual stores to find the things I want to buy. What I want is something that lets me specify the thing I want, and tells me the cheapest place to buy it -- Google Products already does that quite well.
> Or do you seriously have problems on a daily basis
Why does it matter whether it happens daily, monthly or yearly? The fact that it happens is the point, so leave the pointless hyperbole out of it.
> watching videos
Yes, I've had trouble watching videos on several occasions. I've had to download a third party piece of software (GSpot) to find out which codecs some videos use so I can find and download the appropriate ones. I can do that. Some people would just give up when they see the cryptic error message from Windows Media Player (the default player in Windows).
> saving documents
No, but then I understand the differences between various file formats. Many people don't.
> copying photos
If I want to, say, upload photos to Facebook I have to log in to my wife's account, find the photos I want, export them into the shared user folder, log out, log back into my account and open them from there. Not as simple as if there were no file permissions.
> the rest of us don't struggle with doing simple tasks
I don't struggle with them. I know perfectly well how to deal with them. But I'm an advanced user, not a typical one.
> By the way--in case you haven't realized--you can't do many of those things at all on a DOS computer
Y'know, if you turn around and start running now, you might just be able to catch up with the point that flew over your head.
It's *because* you can do many more things with computers now that they're more complex, not simpler. Go look up function point analysis or something and learn how you can actually put numbers on these things.
> whereas the majority of people can figure out how to operate a Mac (or Windows, or really practically any modern computer) more or less on their own
So they're more intuitive, yes. That doesn't make them less complex.
> For the tasks most people want to do, computers are vastly simpler today than they have ever been.
But you can't seriously argue that a modern Macintosh, for example, is more difficult for the average person to use than a 286 running DOS
I can and I will! So you can click on things instead of typing them. Sure, I'll give you that. But say I want to watch a video. Oh, odd, it won't play. Something about a "codec". What the hell is a codec? I've just created a diagram, and I want to save it. Hmm... it's asking me what format. WMF? SVG? JPEG? PNG? GIF? I just want to save it! Now, my wife has saved some of our photos that I want to use. I'll just copy them from her folder. Permission denied? What the hell? They're our photos!
Superficially, computers are simpler, but as soon as you start to do real tasks with them, the underlying complexity soon leaks through. It's just not possible to add all those useful features and protection mechanisms while keeping the simplicity of a 286 running DOS.
Your analogy fails because you made a completely erroneous assertion:
> Computers are getting simpler.
They're getting more complex, with an ever-increasing number of ways to fail or act unexpectedly.
There's something different about computers, though. Never before in the history of mankind has something so complex been so ubiquitous. To make it worse, a lot of computer software is quite badly designed.
I dropped out of a CompSci degree after the first year. I took a developer job with a fledgling hosting company, where I worked as a developer, a sysadmin and, finally, a network engineer. The job was easy to get, because the company was run by inexperienced, dope-smoking 20-somethings who just needed someone with a lot of technical knowledge who could get the job done. The experience I got there, and being able to grow with the company, meant that I was able to write a great resume.
That resume got me an interview for a Software Engineer position with a well-known anti-virus company, even though the job description listed a degree as a requirement. I presented myself well in the interview, wowed them on the C test, and had a job offer 20 minutes after leaving the interview. That's where I formalised my understanding of OO analysis and design, and really got to grips with the intricacies of C++.
After that, it was pretty easy. I worked as a Software Engineer for a company in the telecoms sector, after doing well in the interview and being the first candidate to score 100% on both of their coding tests. As far as I know, I was the only developer there without a degree. After all, a degree was one of their stated requirements. (Actually, I might have got the job because they needed someone to play lead guitar in the company band.)
I now work as a Security Specialist for a billion-dollar software company, finding the security holes that developers have created and left open, and on a higher grade than several of my degree-bearing colleagues (including Cambridge graduates). Again, as far as I know I'm the only engineer here without a degree, and a degree is listed as a requirement.
So the moral of my story is this: if you're one those people who has a natural aptitude for this kind of work, and have developed knowledge and experience on your own time, then there is no reason that you can't be as successful as someone with a degree. Don't ask if it's possible -- just go and do it!
(Incidentally, one of my responsibilities in this job and my previous one has been interview other job candidates, and it's very clear that having a degree and a resume that looks like it has the right experience means very little. Once you talk to these people, you realise that often they struggle with the very basics. I've seen so many alleged C/C++ programmers who can't even get their heads around pointers.)
Your confusion comes from thinking this is about their data network. What it means is they're moving *voice* from a circuit switched network to (IIRC) an IP-over-MPLS network.
I guess they're patenting the dynamically-sized bar. Acorn's RISC OS came out in 1989, and it had an icon bar for applications and devices. Arthur before it (1987) had one too. The only difference is that they were always full-screen-width.
Disclaimer: this is for GSM -- other network types may be similar, though.
When a handset is turned on, it sends an IMSI* Attach message to the cellular network. When you turn it off, instead of immediately powering down it sends an IMSI Detach message to let the network know that it is no longer available.
If you lose signal, or just take the battery out, the network doesn't know that the handset is unavailable. It sends out a paging message to the last cell it was known to be in, and eventually to the whole network before giving up and returning an 'unavailable' message.
* Or TMSI if it has already been assigned a temporary ID to use instead of its IMSI.
It isn't arbitrary at all. BT haven't even called themselves British Telecom for years now. (Since the first time they rebranded, when they got rid of the dated yellow dots logo.)
Just one small point: forget what the HR department will think, because they don't make the decisions about who to hire. It's your potential future colleagues and bosses that you're trying to impress; they're the ones who decide who to hire.
Clearly Javascript works well for some people, and less well for others. All depends on your experience and background. What I'd really like to have is a choice of language. If, instead of interpreting scripts, browsers standardised on a bytecode, we could write in whatever language had a suitable bytecode compiler. It's sort of possible now, with compilers like PyPy and HaXe being able to output Javascript, but that's still a hack with unnecessary overhead and makes debugging more difficult. This isn't the same as having a Java VM in the browser, of course -- AFAIK, there's no standard way for Java applets to access the DOM, and it's more heavyweight anyway.
"Ah, suck it up. It's a tax, always has been a tax."
It's not a tax, and, as far as I know, it never has been. A tax is money that goes to the government. The licence fee is money that goes to the BBC, which isn't part of the government.
Don't complain about Apple. HP has all of 15.x.x.x and all of 16.x.x.x, because they purchased DEC who also had a class-A.
Interestingly, HP is the only company that effectively has a/7 because their block is contiguous.
Well, no, not really. 15/8 and 16/8 can't be aggregated to a/7.
NAT != 'single IP address'. I have more than one host accessable from the Internet via port 22, on different IP addresses, and they're both behind the same NAT gateway.
To put it another way, masquerading, which is what you're talking about there, is a superset of NAT.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how long until we see a million ARM SpiNNaker? http://apt.cs.manchester.ac.uk...
Why do you say 'calibrated'? 'Configured', if it's the wrong value in S12, or 'implemented' if it ignores that value.
I thought we learned in the 90s that virtual representations of physicals things, be they stores, libraries -- whatever, are simply not the most useful way to access information. I don't want to go wandering around virtual stores to find the things I want to buy. What I want is something that lets me specify the thing I want, and tells me the cheapest place to buy it -- Google Products already does that quite well.
> Or do you seriously have problems on a daily basis
Why does it matter whether it happens daily, monthly or yearly? The fact that it happens is the point, so leave the pointless hyperbole out of it.
> watching videos
Yes, I've had trouble watching videos on several occasions. I've had to download a third party piece of software (GSpot) to find out which codecs some videos use so I can find and download the appropriate ones. I can do that. Some people would just give up when they see the cryptic error message from Windows Media Player (the default player in Windows).
> saving documents
No, but then I understand the differences between various file formats. Many people don't.
> copying photos
If I want to, say, upload photos to Facebook I have to log in to my wife's account, find the photos I want, export them into the shared user folder, log out, log back into my account and open them from there. Not as simple as if there were no file permissions.
> the rest of us don't struggle with doing simple tasks
I don't struggle with them. I know perfectly well how to deal with them. But I'm an advanced user, not a typical one.
> By the way--in case you haven't realized--you can't do many of those things at all on a DOS computer
Y'know, if you turn around and start running now, you might just be able to catch up with the point that flew over your head.
It's *because* you can do many more things with computers now that they're more complex, not simpler. Go look up function point analysis or something and learn how you can actually put numbers on these things.
> whereas the majority of people can figure out how to operate a Mac (or Windows, or really practically any modern computer) more or less on their own
So they're more intuitive, yes. That doesn't make them less complex.
> For the tasks most people want to do, computers are vastly simpler today than they have ever been.
Perhaps by 'simpler' you mean 'easier to use'.
I can and I will! So you can click on things instead of typing them. Sure, I'll give you that. But say I want to watch a video. Oh, odd, it won't play. Something about a "codec". What the hell is a codec? I've just created a diagram, and I want to save it. Hmm... it's asking me what format. WMF? SVG? JPEG? PNG? GIF? I just want to save it! Now, my wife has saved some of our photos that I want to use. I'll just copy them from her folder. Permission denied? What the hell? They're our photos!
Superficially, computers are simpler, but as soon as you start to do real tasks with them, the underlying complexity soon leaks through. It's just not possible to add all those useful features and protection mechanisms while keeping the simplicity of a 286 running DOS.
Your analogy fails because you made a completely erroneous assertion: > Computers are getting simpler. They're getting more complex, with an ever-increasing number of ways to fail or act unexpectedly.
There's something different about computers, though. Never before in the history of mankind has something so complex been so ubiquitous. To make it worse, a lot of computer software is quite badly designed.
I dropped out of a CompSci degree after the first year. I took a developer job with a fledgling hosting company, where I worked as a developer, a sysadmin and, finally, a network engineer. The job was easy to get, because the company was run by inexperienced, dope-smoking 20-somethings who just needed someone with a lot of technical knowledge who could get the job done. The experience I got there, and being able to grow with the company, meant that I was able to write a great resume.
That resume got me an interview for a Software Engineer position with a well-known anti-virus company, even though the job description listed a degree as a requirement. I presented myself well in the interview, wowed them on the C test, and had a job offer 20 minutes after leaving the interview. That's where I formalised my understanding of OO analysis and design, and really got to grips with the intricacies of C++.
After that, it was pretty easy. I worked as a Software Engineer for a company in the telecoms sector, after doing well in the interview and being the first candidate to score 100% on both of their coding tests. As far as I know, I was the only developer there without a degree. After all, a degree was one of their stated requirements. (Actually, I might have got the job because they needed someone to play lead guitar in the company band.)
I now work as a Security Specialist for a billion-dollar software company, finding the security holes that developers have created and left open, and on a higher grade than several of my degree-bearing colleagues (including Cambridge graduates). Again, as far as I know I'm the only engineer here without a degree, and a degree is listed as a requirement.
So the moral of my story is this: if you're one those people who has a natural aptitude for this kind of work, and have developed knowledge and experience on your own time, then there is no reason that you can't be as successful as someone with a degree. Don't ask if it's possible -- just go and do it!
(Incidentally, one of my responsibilities in this job and my previous one has been interview other job candidates, and it's very clear that having a degree and a resume that looks like it has the right experience means very little. Once you talk to these people, you realise that often they struggle with the very basics. I've seen so many alleged C/C++ programmers who can't even get their heads around pointers.)
A real programmer would realise that there's no point in the 'cat |' part of that.
Your confusion comes from thinking this is about their data network. What it means is they're moving *voice* from a circuit switched network to (IIRC) an IP-over-MPLS network.
Move to Andrews & Arnold. They do native and tunneled IPv6 and are generally clueful.
Oops! I misread the claim. It's the dynamic magnification bit that's the main claim, not the dynamic width.
I guess they're patenting the dynamically-sized bar. Acorn's RISC OS came out in 1989, and it had an icon bar for applications and devices. Arthur before it (1987) had one too. The only difference is that they were always full-screen-width.
Disclaimer: this is for GSM -- other network types may be similar, though.
When a handset is turned on, it sends an IMSI* Attach message to the cellular network. When you turn it off, instead of immediately powering down it sends an IMSI Detach message to let the network know that it is no longer available.
If you lose signal, or just take the battery out, the network doesn't know that the handset is unavailable. It sends out a paging message to the last cell it was known to be in, and eventually to the whole network before giving up and returning an 'unavailable' message.
* Or TMSI if it has already been assigned a temporary ID to use instead of its IMSI.
Or just play really loud music so that your eyeballs vibrate. I've certainly noticed 7-seg LED refresh by doing that.
It isn't arbitrary at all. BT haven't even called themselves British Telecom for years now. (Since the first time they rebranded, when they got rid of the dated yellow dots logo.)
Just one small point: forget what the HR department will think, because they don't make the decisions about who to hire. It's your potential future colleagues and bosses that you're trying to impress; they're the ones who decide who to hire.
Clearly Javascript works well for some people, and less well for others. All depends on your experience and background. What I'd really like to have is a choice of language. If, instead of interpreting scripts, browsers standardised on a bytecode, we could write in whatever language had a suitable bytecode compiler. It's sort of possible now, with compilers like PyPy and HaXe being able to output Javascript, but that's still a hack with unnecessary overhead and makes debugging more difficult. This isn't the same as having a Java VM in the browser, of course -- AFAIK, there's no standard way for Java applets to access the DOM, and it's more heavyweight anyway.
That'd be SRV records, which as MX-like records for
"Ah, suck it up. It's a tax, always has been a tax."
It's not a tax, and, as far as I know, it never has been. A tax is money that goes to the government. The licence fee is money that goes to the BBC, which isn't part of the government.
Well, no, not really. 15/8 and 16/8 can't be aggregated to a /7.
00001111 00000000 00000000 00000000
00010000 00000000 00000000 00000000
And don't give me that "well I said 'effectively'" crap either!
Yeah, but they do nothing.
A 3D barcode? That must make it difficult to fit in your wallet.
NAT != 'single IP address'. I have more than one host accessable from the Internet via port 22, on different IP addresses, and they're both behind the same NAT gateway. To put it another way, masquerading, which is what you're talking about there, is a superset of NAT.