I loved the original Sonic games (through Sonic & Knuckles), and, in fact, still play them. For my gaming interests, I would have loved it if they had just kept on making more in that same series, from that same 2D perspective.
In my previous job, I wrote a lot of documentation using a program called Help and Manual. I can't say that I thought it was wonderful, but it was functional, especially if you need to make Windows Help files.
Something similar is a program called RoboHelp (from Macromedia now, I think? They've been bought out at least once). It was very similar to Help and Manual in core concept, only a lot more complex, and a lot more expensive.
If you DON'T need Windows Help files, I personally like using LaTeX and Texinfo (from GNU). These are both great for making PDF; Texinfo makes pretty good HTML by default, and LaTeX can be converted into at least decent HTML. I've written a fair bit of documentation for the GNU Project using Texinfo; it seemed kind of "bleh" to me at first, but after a while I got to where I liked it. (And yes, at least Texinfo CAN be converted into Windows Help files of some sort, but I have yet to see this process really work well, at least for what I needed out of it.)
Right. I'm sure that there are occupations that are largely filled by women, not because men are incapable, but because, for whatever reason, men usually aren't interested. (How many junior high guys start a babysitting business, for example? The number might not be zero, but I'm sure it pales in comparison to the number of girls.)
Would it be good to have more women in science? Sure, if they're interested in doing it. If they aren't interested, then no, actually, it wouldn't be good. They should do what they have in their hearts to do, because that's what they'll excel at, and that's what they'll enjoy.
Ever since I first heard it something like 15 years ago, I have really enjoyed the music from the "Sonic the Hedgehog" series. Many of those melodies are very memorable, and hearing them today brings to my recollection late nights playing the games... trying to beat Dr. Robotnik... munching on mixed nuts and Chinese food...
I even occasionally find myself playing on the piano fragments from the music for Hydrocity Zone (Act 2) in Sonic 3.:-)
To whoever wrote that fabulous music, many thanks indeed!
The Web is no longer a place where simple applications are tolerated;
Sure it is. Most web applications that I use, whether if they make use of AJAX or not, could certainly be plenty usable and valuable without AJAX.
AJAX makes some things possible that aren't possible using plain HTML, but it doesn't make ALL plain HTML so much better that it would be impossible to imagine the site without it.
Also, low-end digital SLRs currently don't provide full-frame coverage. If you put a 50mm lens on a Canon 20D, it looks like an 80mm lens on a full-frame camera. This is great when you are photographing distant birds, but it's quite annoying when you want to use your fisheye lens or ultra-expensive 14mm lens.
Right now, the least expensive full-frame Canon digicam is the $3000 5D, and it still doesn't seem as full-featured as the $870 film EOS-3. (At minimum, the 5D isn't weather-sealed.)
I like digicams. They're great. I've had a Digital Rebel XT. Right now I use an EOS-3, but will likely get either a 20D or its anticipated successor sometime in the next few months. Even so, it seems to me that the images produced by film can have a certain artistic aspect to them that digitally-captured photos just don't have. Digital photos are perfect and pristine, but yet lacking something . . .
My role _is_ specifically testing (and documentation), and I have become a major advocate of true software engineering. It does exist, and it's very hard to do, but I believe worth the time if we don't want to keep on having crummy software.
As long as Google continues to make sure it's web services are the best versions (the best webmail, the best ad utilities, the best search, etc.), then people will continue to use them. Even if Google never innovated anything else, but just continued to maintain their current product line, I suspect that they would be a profitable company as long as people are using the Web.
But is Google really not an innovator? I think they are. They are currently into micro-innovation: they come up with lots of little, well-implemented ideas to make existing ideas better.
We've had webmail for years, but I never liked it. I stuck with my POP3 desktop clients. It wasn't until I used GMail that I found webmail good enough to use over the likes of Thunderbird. Google's webmail makeover wasn't macro-innovation; it was still a webmail service, providing essentially the same functionality as hundreds of others. But it was micro-innovation: a bunch of minor tweaks and improvements to make the webmail experience a lot better than it was before.
Indeed, Google didn't invent any of those things, but they sure made them better. Substantially better, in some cases. Google is known for having a lot of scientists on staff, and they likely do a lot of original CS research to make things better, but they also must have a lot of really good HCI people who know how to design interfaces, and a lot of really good engineers who know how to actually build usable software.
As has already been noted, books on particular technologies/languages/etc tend to go out of date pretty quickly, although even some of those are well-written enough to be timeless. I have a lot of computer books; if I had to whittle my collection down to those I viewed as most important, it would probably look something like:
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (Abelson & Sussman) The New Hacker's Dictionary (Raymond) Selected Papers on Computer Science (Knuth) Database-Backed Websites (Greenspun) Programming Pearls (Bentley) The C Programming Language (K&R) Algorithms (Cormen et al) --OR-- The Art of Computer Programming series (Knuth) Essentials of Programming Languages (Friedman et al) The Little Schemer (Friedman & Felliesen)
This last book is perhaps one of the most elegantly simple, yet profound books I've ever read. Even though it is not as comprehensive as, say, SICP, this is probably my favorite computer science book, because it's such a joy to read and it truly expands your thinking.
Those books, combined with online or printed language/API manuals, would make a great foundational library for a programmer.
I too use iPhoto for a lot of my photo processing after taking the pictures with a Canon Digital Rebel XT. It handles, oh, probably about 90% of the things I generally want to do with my photos in "post-production".
To work with your enormous image library, you might consider breaking it up into multiple image libraries. Perhaps open a new one every quarter throughout the year. You can do this easily by renaming the current folder, e.g.:
iPhoto Library -> iPhoto Library - Fall 2005
(or something sans spaces, if you prefer). After you rename an existing library, the next time you start iPhoto, it will complain that it can't find your library, and ask if you want to load one or create a new one. Just create a new one, and use it until it is sufficiently full. You still have your older libraries for when you need to go back to them.
I completely agree with the original posting, but I don't consider graphics games for "stupid" people.
Text games exercise your thinking with puzzles and using your imagination to paint pictures of the world you are in. Graphical games exercise your thinking with puzzles and/or reflex development. Both require mental skill, but of different sorts.
I do not lament the existence of graphical games; they're great, and often, after hours of programming, I don't necessarily want to play a text puzzle game -- I want to relax that part of my brain that blast some aliens.:-) What I do lament is that text games seem to have largely vanished into oblivion: they were a large part of my childhood, and, I believe, of my mental development, as were graphical games. I don't want future generations to lose either of these great forms of mental exercise and recreation.
I wrote my own weblog software, more as an experiment to learn database-backed websites than because I really wanted a weblog. I'm still trying to condition myself into actually "blogging" more... I just had a lot of fun writing the software.:-)
I even wrote a tutorial on the key steps that I used, building it with PHP and MySQL.
It's pretty simplistic, but functional, and it meets my needs just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall, the story is also in Jon Bentley's "Programming Pearls", although with slightly different details.
Time waits for neither ant nor pie.
I loved the original Sonic games (through Sonic & Knuckles), and, in fact, still play them. For my gaming interests, I would have loved it if they had just kept on making more in that same series, from that same 2D perspective.
Something similar is a program called RoboHelp (from Macromedia now, I think? They've been bought out at least once). It was very similar to Help and Manual in core concept, only a lot more complex, and a lot more expensive.
If you DON'T need Windows Help files, I personally like using LaTeX and Texinfo (from GNU). These are both great for making PDF; Texinfo makes pretty good HTML by default, and LaTeX can be converted into at least decent HTML. I've written a fair bit of documentation for the GNU Project using Texinfo; it seemed kind of "bleh" to me at first, but after a while I got to where I liked it. (And yes, at least Texinfo CAN be converted into Windows Help files of some sort, but I have yet to see this process really work well, at least for what I needed out of it.)
Right. I'm sure that there are occupations that are largely filled by women, not because men are incapable, but because, for whatever reason, men usually aren't interested. (How many junior high guys start a babysitting business, for example? The number might not be zero, but I'm sure it pales in comparison to the number of girls.)
Would it be good to have more women in science? Sure, if they're interested in doing it. If they aren't interested, then no, actually, it wouldn't be good. They should do what they have in their hearts to do, because that's what they'll excel at, and that's what they'll enjoy.
Ever since I first heard it something like 15 years ago, I have really enjoyed the music from the "Sonic the Hedgehog" series. Many of those melodies are very memorable, and hearing them today brings to my recollection late nights playing the games... trying to beat Dr. Robotnik... munching on mixed nuts and Chinese food...
:-)
I even occasionally find myself playing on the piano fragments from the music for Hydrocity Zone (Act 2) in Sonic 3.
To whoever wrote that fabulous music, many thanks indeed!
That is hilarious!
In Soviet Russia, ACM programming contests complete you!
http://forchetti.org/tinye/
Can't beat Tiny E.
Me too!
http://philip.greenspun.com/seia/
Sure it is. Most web applications that I use, whether if they make use of AJAX or not, could certainly be plenty usable and valuable without AJAX.
AJAX makes some things possible that aren't possible using plain HTML, but it doesn't make ALL plain HTML so much better that it would be impossible to imagine the site without it.
Philip Greenspun did this with ArsDigita in the 1990's. This proves it can be done.
Brilliant.
Also, low-end digital SLRs currently don't provide full-frame coverage. If you put a 50mm lens on a Canon 20D, it looks like an 80mm lens on a full-frame camera. This is great when you are photographing distant birds, but it's quite annoying when you want to use your fisheye lens or ultra-expensive 14mm lens.
Right now, the least expensive full-frame Canon digicam is the $3000 5D, and it still doesn't seem as full-featured as the $870 film EOS-3. (At minimum, the 5D isn't weather-sealed.)
I like digicams. They're great. I've had a Digital Rebel XT. Right now I use an EOS-3, but will likely get either a 20D or its anticipated successor sometime in the next few months. Even so, it seems to me that the images produced by film can have a certain artistic aspect to them that digitally-captured photos just don't have. Digital photos are perfect and pristine, but yet lacking something . . .
My role _is_ specifically testing (and documentation), and I have become a major advocate of true software engineering. It does exist, and it's very hard to do, but I believe worth the time if we don't want to keep on having crummy software.
As long as Google continues to make sure it's web services are the best versions (the best webmail, the best ad utilities, the best search, etc.), then people will continue to use them. Even if Google never innovated anything else, but just continued to maintain their current product line, I suspect that they would be a profitable company as long as people are using the Web. But is Google really not an innovator? I think they are. They are currently into micro-innovation: they come up with lots of little, well-implemented ideas to make existing ideas better. We've had webmail for years, but I never liked it. I stuck with my POP3 desktop clients. It wasn't until I used GMail that I found webmail good enough to use over the likes of Thunderbird. Google's webmail makeover wasn't macro-innovation; it was still a webmail service, providing essentially the same functionality as hundreds of others. But it was micro-innovation: a bunch of minor tweaks and improvements to make the webmail experience a lot better than it was before.
Indeed, Google didn't invent any of those things, but they sure made them better. Substantially better, in some cases. Google is known for having a lot of scientists on staff, and they likely do a lot of original CS research to make things better, but they also must have a lot of really good HCI people who know how to design interfaces, and a lot of really good engineers who know how to actually build usable software.
Mostly harmless.
As has already been noted, books on particular technologies/languages/etc tend to go out of date pretty quickly, although even some of those are well-written enough to be timeless. I have a lot of computer books; if I had to whittle my collection down to those I viewed as most important, it would probably look something like:
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (Abelson & Sussman)
The New Hacker's Dictionary (Raymond)
Selected Papers on Computer Science (Knuth)
Database-Backed Websites (Greenspun)
Programming Pearls (Bentley)
The C Programming Language (K&R)
Algorithms (Cormen et al) --OR-- The Art of Computer Programming series (Knuth)
Essentials of Programming Languages (Friedman et al)
The Little Schemer (Friedman & Felliesen)
This last book is perhaps one of the most elegantly simple, yet profound books I've ever read. Even though it is not as comprehensive as, say, SICP, this is probably my favorite computer science book, because it's such a joy to read and it truly expands your thinking.
Those books, combined with online or printed language/API manuals, would make a great foundational library for a programmer.
Don't be silly. Random people on Slashdot know everything.
I too use iPhoto for a lot of my photo processing after taking the pictures with a Canon Digital Rebel XT. It handles, oh, probably about 90% of the things I generally want to do with my photos in "post-production".
To work with your enormous image library, you might consider breaking it up into multiple image libraries. Perhaps open a new one every quarter throughout the year. You can do this easily by renaming the current folder, e.g.:
iPhoto Library -> iPhoto Library - Fall 2005
(or something sans spaces, if you prefer). After you rename an existing library, the next time you start iPhoto, it will complain that it can't find your library, and ask if you want to load one or create a new one. Just create a new one, and use it until it is sufficiently full. You still have your older libraries for when you need to go back to them.
This seems to work well enough for me.
I completely agree with the original posting, but I don't consider graphics games for "stupid" people.
:-) What I do lament is that text games seem to have largely vanished into oblivion: they were a large part of my childhood, and, I believe, of my mental development, as were graphical games. I don't want future generations to lose either of these great forms of mental exercise and recreation.
Text games exercise your thinking with puzzles and using your imagination to paint pictures of the world you are in. Graphical games exercise your thinking with puzzles and/or reflex development. Both require mental skill, but of different sorts.
I do not lament the existence of graphical games; they're great, and often, after hours of programming, I don't necessarily want to play a text puzzle game -- I want to relax that part of my brain that blast some aliens.
I thought OS X 10.3 ran pretty well on my 500 MHz iBook, but 10.4 seemed noticeably more sluggish. Still usable, but slower.
Um, just sharing.
I even wrote a tutorial on the key steps that I used, building it with PHP and MySQL.
It's pretty simplistic, but functional, and it meets my needs just fine.