At an old job where most computers had removable hard drives we used a commercial hard drive duplicator. Instead of a master image, we'd use a master hard drive.
I drive a Civic Hybrid. Let's just say that it has no problem accelerating to 90 MPH.;)
Because of the electric motor, it has tourqe at 0 RPM. This allows me to have instant tourque without waiting for a turbo fan or the transmission to downshift. As a result, I can jump from 60 MPH to 90 MPH very quickly. The problem with any internal combusion engine is that there is a delay before you can get the maximum tourque out of the engine.
Granted, my hybrid isn't designed to be a race car, but I'd be willing to bet you'd have trouble keeping up with me on a crowded interstate because my tourque is available instantly.
I own a Civic Hybrid, which I chose because I previously leased a conventional Civic. What bothers me about the pure economic cost investigations of hybrid vehicles is that they don't take into account that hybrids tend to be quiter and smoother then traditional economy cars. I honestly believe that in order for me to get a convential vehicle that is as quiet, smooth, and powerful as my Civic Hybrid, I would have had to spend more then what I paid for my car.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. For example, if you know that your application has to run on both Windows and Mac, it would be a bad idea to "ignore portability" by developing in Hypercard. (I'm assuming that Hypercard doesn't have much Windows support, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.)
That's right, you heard me. Don't write portable code.
I agree with what you're trying to say, but instead may I suggest a different statement:
Identify the platforms that your application will have to run on and code to those platforms.
If you are writing an application that will have to run on a Windows desktop and a Windows CE device, there is no point in employing techniques that would allow the application to run on Linux. Some times portability means having to handle varying hardware configurations for the same operating system.
For example, two projects that I have been involved with were for a specific use by a small number of people, and will never be ported from the operating system that we developed for.
Having spent 12 years in Catholic school, (fall 1987- spring 1999), I find the question mark at the end of the title quite amusing. During those years, every effort was made to teach modern science, including the big bang theory and subatomic particles. We were taught evolution and given numerous examples to support it, including fossils of land-walking animals that slowly evolved into whales. What surprises me today is that I've found that not all *public* education is as thourough (sp?) with modern science with regard to the origin of the universe and of man.
Usually when a technology makes it to market, there's better technologies in R&D. It appears that lessons from this technology could be used for WiMax v2 or v3.
When programming to a GUI, one holds many structures in the program's memory space that are defined by the operating system. Windows and MacOS use very different GUI APIs, and thus I find it difficult to accept your commant as an "apples to apples" comparison. (Heck, I remember that Doom 1 required twice as much RAM to run it on OS/2, even though it was the same binary that DOS used!) If Windows requires that a program allocate 500K for a window, but MacOS requires 1 meg for a window, then all MacOS programs will use more memory.
Drivers aren't always uncomplicated. In addition, porting a driver from Windows to Linux isn't a matter of recompiling, because both operating systems use different interfaces.
I tried a PDA about three years ago, but I found that it was difficult to carry it and my phone in my pocket. As a result, when my PDA died, I bought a phone that contained my desired PDA functionality. Later, when I needed a portable music player, I bought a Nomad, which doesn't stay in my pocket all day. Someday when WiMax is widespread, I hope to replace both devices with a single handheld computer that can access Rhapsody and Skype.
90% of security exploits are caused by buffer overflows
Not anymore. Many security holes on websites are due to SQL injection, where a user is able to type bits of SQL directly into a form. In addition, some web sites give too much information when an error occurs, thus giving a hacker a clue as to the database's schema.
Where I live I'm able to buy solar and wind power directly from the grid. Running a hydrogen car from solar / wind would simply be a matter of me buying an electric hydrogen generator.
The advantage of Honda's system is that it's re-using the heat from hydrogen generation that's normally wasted. It's similar to buying a boiler for your home that happens to dispense gasoline as a by-product.
Maybe Microsoft learned their lesson and isn't being quick to adopt the Open Office file format until it's been established with clear customer demand?
You assume that most companies have perfectly documented specs for their hardware. This is not always the case. For smaller companies, the "spec" is that the guy writing the driver sits next to the guy who is designing the board.
The mentality of "just release the specs and we'll write the drivers for free" doesn't reflect reality. Preparing the specs for public consumption and then answering all of the questions costs a lot of money and takes valuable engineers away from developing new products. In addition, if the "free" driver turns out to be buggy, it could give the hardware company a bad reputation because consumers will think that the device is faulty, when it really is the "free" driver.
Microsoft does develop drivers. This has always been the case, every version of Windows that I've used comes with a significant amount of drivers for legacy products. In addition, Microsoft provides (expensive) certification programs that, if the device passes, can display a "Made for Windows" logo.
Writing device drivers is expensive. The $40 for a windows liscense pays for many of the drivers. In order for a Linux based computer to be sold in a brick & mortar store, it would need to recover the cost of writing Linux drivers.
I agree with you. The problem with holding a developer who designed a faulty product/module liable is that it's not always the developer's fault. In some cases, management will dictate that known bugs are shipped against software developer's wishes. Other times, proper testing that would detect bugs is not in place.
I personally make every effort to make sure that my code is as secure and bug-free as possible. Due to the complexities of developing large programs, it is impossible for me to ensure that my program operates perfectly without support from my manager and co-workers. Holding me personally responsible will not make my code any better!
This approach is similar to Microsoft's approach for making their software competative. Microsoft used to seek their competition's customers and use their input to make their software easier to use.
Lectures 4, 5, 7, and 8 really need to be part of a mid-level "effective programming / how to program in a team" course. They apply to any project that has more than one programmer.
The problem with today's bad patent laws is that the only way to protect yourself is to patent everything. Saying "I don't believe in software patents, so I won't patent my program," won't work because someone else will patent your idea and sue you.
To me, the purpose of HTPC is to allow for viewing videos downloaded over the internet, and/or to play PC games on a TV. In addition, it allows for easy integration of online music streaming services like Rhapsody into a home theater. Every other week or so I end up hooking my laptop up to my TV to watch something over the internet from my comfy couch. In addition, a HTPC, as demonstrated by Tom's Hardware, would be ideal for the downloadable movie services that we keep hearing about.
What are they hoping to accomplish with this? Do non-technical people actually care that they can choose between two different browsers? All that matters is that the web site renders correctly, and giving the user the option to choose Netscape doesn't accomplish this. The option to choose between Netscape and IE is as silly as allowing a customer to choose between equivilent brands of carpeting in a new automobile.
Slashdot Mirror
At an old job where most computers had removable hard drives we used a commercial hard drive duplicator. Instead of a master image, we'd use a master hard drive.
Because of the electric motor, it has tourqe at 0 RPM. This allows me to have instant tourque without waiting for a turbo fan or the transmission to downshift. As a result, I can jump from 60 MPH to 90 MPH very quickly. The problem with any internal combusion engine is that there is a delay before you can get the maximum tourque out of the engine.
Granted, my hybrid isn't designed to be a race car, but I'd be willing to bet you'd have trouble keeping up with me on a crowded interstate because my tourque is available instantly.
I own a Civic Hybrid, which I chose because I previously leased a conventional Civic. What bothers me about the pure economic cost investigations of hybrid vehicles is that they don't take into account that hybrids tend to be quiter and smoother then traditional economy cars. I honestly believe that in order for me to get a convential vehicle that is as quiet, smooth, and powerful as my Civic Hybrid, I would have had to spend more then what I paid for my car.
We're in complete agreement. When I had to write a portability layer in an application, it was a tedious pain in the ass!
Perhaps you misunderstood me. For example, if you know that your application has to run on both Windows and Mac, it would be a bad idea to "ignore portability" by developing in Hypercard. (I'm assuming that Hypercard doesn't have much Windows support, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.)
I agree with what you're trying to say, but instead may I suggest a different statement:
Identify the platforms that your application will have to run on and code to those platforms.
If you are writing an application that will have to run on a Windows desktop and a Windows CE device, there is no point in employing techniques that would allow the application to run on Linux. Some times portability means having to handle varying hardware configurations for the same operating system.
For example, two projects that I have been involved with were for a specific use by a small number of people, and will never be ported from the operating system that we developed for.
Having spent 12 years in Catholic school, (fall 1987- spring 1999), I find the question mark at the end of the title quite amusing. During those years, every effort was made to teach modern science, including the big bang theory and subatomic particles. We were taught evolution and given numerous examples to support it, including fossils of land-walking animals that slowly evolved into whales. What surprises me today is that I've found that not all *public* education is as thourough (sp?) with modern science with regard to the origin of the universe and of man.
Usually when a technology makes it to market, there's better technologies in R&D. It appears that lessons from this technology could be used for WiMax v2 or v3.
When programming to a GUI, one holds many structures in the program's memory space that are defined by the operating system. Windows and MacOS use very different GUI APIs, and thus I find it difficult to accept your commant as an "apples to apples" comparison. (Heck, I remember that Doom 1 required twice as much RAM to run it on OS/2, even though it was the same binary that DOS used!) If Windows requires that a program allocate 500K for a window, but MacOS requires 1 meg for a window, then all MacOS programs will use more memory.
Drivers aren't always uncomplicated. In addition, porting a driver from Windows to Linux isn't a matter of recompiling, because both operating systems use different interfaces.
I tried a PDA about three years ago, but I found that it was difficult to carry it and my phone in my pocket. As a result, when my PDA died, I bought a phone that contained my desired PDA functionality. Later, when I needed a portable music player, I bought a Nomad, which doesn't stay in my pocket all day. Someday when WiMax is widespread, I hope to replace both devices with a single handheld computer that can access Rhapsody and Skype.
Not anymore. Many security holes on websites are due to SQL injection, where a user is able to type bits of SQL directly into a form. In addition, some web sites give too much information when an error occurs, thus giving a hacker a clue as to the database's schema.
The advantage of Honda's system is that it's re-using the heat from hydrogen generation that's normally wasted. It's similar to buying a boiler for your home that happens to dispense gasoline as a by-product.
Maybe Microsoft learned their lesson and isn't being quick to adopt the Open Office file format until it's been established with clear customer demand?
The mentality of "just release the specs and we'll write the drivers for free" doesn't reflect reality. Preparing the specs for public consumption and then answering all of the questions costs a lot of money and takes valuable engineers away from developing new products. In addition, if the "free" driver turns out to be buggy, it could give the hardware company a bad reputation because consumers will think that the device is faulty, when it really is the "free" driver.
Microsoft does develop drivers. This has always been the case, every version of Windows that I've used comes with a significant amount of drivers for legacy products. In addition, Microsoft provides (expensive) certification programs that, if the device passes, can display a "Made for Windows" logo.
Writing device drivers is expensive. The $40 for a windows liscense pays for many of the drivers. In order for a Linux based computer to be sold in a brick & mortar store, it would need to recover the cost of writing Linux drivers.
I've always considered most forms of hacking, including spyware, to fall under trespassing or breaking and entering.
The meek will inherit the earth because all of the smart people will fly away in spaceships to a newly-terraformed Mars!
I personally make every effort to make sure that my code is as secure and bug-free as possible. Due to the complexities of developing large programs, it is impossible for me to ensure that my program operates perfectly without support from my manager and co-workers. Holding me personally responsible will not make my code any better!
This approach is similar to Microsoft's approach for making their software competative. Microsoft used to seek their competition's customers and use their input to make their software easier to use.
Lectures 4, 5, 7, and 8 really need to be part of a mid-level "effective programming / how to program in a team" course. They apply to any project that has more than one programmer.
The problem with today's bad patent laws is that the only way to protect yourself is to patent everything. Saying "I don't believe in software patents, so I won't patent my program," won't work because someone else will patent your idea and sue you.
To me, the purpose of HTPC is to allow for viewing videos downloaded over the internet, and/or to play PC games on a TV. In addition, it allows for easy integration of online music streaming services like Rhapsody into a home theater. Every other week or so I end up hooking my laptop up to my TV to watch something over the internet from my comfy couch. In addition, a HTPC, as demonstrated by Tom's Hardware, would be ideal for the downloadable movie services that we keep hearing about.
What are they hoping to accomplish with this? Do non-technical people actually care that they can choose between two different browsers? All that matters is that the web site renders correctly, and giving the user the option to choose Netscape doesn't accomplish this. The option to choose between Netscape and IE is as silly as allowing a customer to choose between equivilent brands of carpeting in a new automobile.