I've been programming in PHP for 11 years - after coming from a C/C++ for 6. What I've found is that there are three types of people who despise PHP.
1. Those who love Perl (Python, Ruby) PHP is too verbose and doesn't allows the same shortcuts that Perl, Python, and Ruby allow. This is viewed as a weakness of the language. Ruby is essentially a rebirth of Perl, and was a god-send for those Perl developer who found themselves "stuck" with PHP. I personally don't like implicit references or compacting code for the sake of compacting code. I much prefer to write and read code that verbose and easy to understand. And while you CAN write Perl code that is easy to read, the bulk of tends to read more like a RegEx or Awk expression.
2. Those who love Java (C/C++) PHP's typelessness drives Java developers crazy. To a Java Developer OO is all about creating new data types, and locking down how those types can be passed. In PHP OO is all about begin blind to the data and not caring how the data is structured. A PHP developer would suffer under the size and restrictions of Java. Java developers hate the openness and ease of begin burned.
3. Those who love VB / C# MS doesn't support PHP so there is no desire to learn it. VB/C# guys don't get why you wouldn't want to keep your OS up-to-date with the latest.net infrastructure (Sure my code is cross-platform it works on Window XP, Windows 7, and Window 8 server!). PHP guys don't know why you should have to install.Net just to get a basic app running (You mean you have to run this code on a Windows box?).
While I use a PC at work, since I joined the smart-phone and tablet era my PC at home has been virtually untouched. That doesn't help the many distributions of Linux...but nor does it help Microsoft (in my case Google/Android is getting my eyeballs).
The analogy in my subject RE Fox is simply that Fox News is the #1 watch (cable) news channel and with several shows constantly ranking highest viewership.
However... Cable usage in general is going down. So while Fox continues to grow and dominate, it is with an aging population and on a (slowly) dieing platform. Eventually Fox may be able to claim 90% viewership, but if there are only a couple thousand viewers to begin with it really won't matter.
MS has dominated the PC world for 25+ years, and this new "protection" will all but solidify that. But again... having 90% of the market won't matter if there are only few consumers remaining.
"...Nokia said.... its big hope to take on Apple's iPhone..."
Didn't that ship sail long ago? I mean MS can get in the water, but Android is #1 and Apple is at what - 25% market share (and has held steadily) with RIM still holding on but losing out to Android.
Nokia is not going to displace the iPhone. If it wants to compete it will have to compete with Android where it can steal from a less loyal user base. That means becoming a commodity piece - which means pennies per phone instead of $$ per phone.
Even Ronald Reagan, the President who arguably made 'being conservative cool', would be graded as a RINO based on his record, which included some tax hikes, gun control and some compromises with the Democratic party.
Which why I (maybe others have too...) coined the phrase: "Even Ronald Regan wasn't conservative enough to be Ronald Regan."
That's what happens to heroes - they become larger than life.
Our Apologies This Section of our site is currently undergoing maintenance We appreciate your patience while we make some improvements Please check back shortly
Was it taken down? Are they being overwhelmed? Are they trying to make it harder?
The REAL question is, What could happen, how fast would it happen, and could we adapt?
Here are the realities. Climate has changed and has been changing for eons. The recent warming trend *may* have been caused/accelerated by humans - or maybe not - but regardless the Earth has seen this before (and will see it reverse, and reverse again....and again...and again.....).
Given that Climate change is natural (even if we had a hand in it - the process IS natural and would eventually occur without our *help*) - how fast are we talking? An inch a year? 10 feet a year? 1 foot total? 50 feet total? Because I live New England at about 50ft above sea level - I can see that I would be benefactor of earth-warming. Yes indeed there would be other places not so fortunate. But again - how long are we talking about? 1000 years before a global human migration? Or only 10 years? Or next year? We've seen humans/animals migrate in mass - it's natural. Those who adapt survive - those who are stubborn and try to *change* their local environment - die.
It's not so much "focus on the *user*" as much as "focus on OUR *users*".
Their example is accurate, and I agree that it would be great to can-open Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.... So.... is Facebook asking Google to actually do this? Because last I checked they were still trying to find ways to prevent FB data from crossing over to Google+.
Here's something to consider: What happens if the company renames "engineering" to "it" and "engineering" becomes a sub-task of "IT". If this is palatable, then the opposite should be true as well. In other words it doesn't matter what the names are - as long as the functions are being taken care of.
There is no reason why "engineering" can't have the IT function. If you are able to identify functions that are falling through the cracks (desktop support, disaster recovery, programming/development needs, server maintenance, etc) - then the focus should be, within the "engineering" department to address those needs. If the director of the department is not responsive, then that should be brought up to higher level executives.
If you're finding that you need to consolidate because other departments are going on their own - then that needs to be addressed as well. But I wouldn't approach it as a need to break away from engineering. I would approach as growing a sub-department within engineering.
Would be possible to get a more accurate position if a receiver combined the various GPS systems - as a kind of check/balance. For non-military use the GPS systems introduce inaccuracies. Is there an algorithm that would bring the resolution down from 10 meters to 1 meter or less?
This was the first one I thought of. More "engineering" focused than software, but a good dose of Arduino micro-controllers and robotics accompanies each quarterly issue. Lots of 3D printers (Makerbot especially) and 3d scanners. The RSS Feed is heavier on the robotics side. It always gets my creative juices flowing.
Here is the line to focus on: "Google is facing an increasing threat from Microsoft’s Bing search engine, which is close to providing a third of all internet searches, either directly or via partners such as Yahoo."
Without it's partners - Bing has crap:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/ Mobile, Google = 91%, bing =1% DeskTop Google = 82%, bing = 4%
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-10/google-s-u-s-search-market-share-rises-to-65-3-yahoo-declines.html US Search : Google = 65% bing = 14%
http://www.karmasnack.com/about/search-engine-market-share/ Global: Google = 84%, bing = 2% US Google = 83%, bing = 5%
Claiming that bing has 33% of the US market share on search (as in "nearly a third when including business partners such as Yahoo") is generous at best.
I was able to get a maybe 10% of my triathlon team to join Google+, but facebook is where the conversations took place. If my team is on FB, my co-workers are on FB, my family is on FB, and the rest of my friends are on FB, it makes Google+ a lonely place.
Of course in theory they are not mutually exclusive, but in reality they are.
There was a chance early on to tie the two platforms together. But FB put the kibosh on that quickly by locking down FB even more. They altered the API, they stopped automatically emailing updates (the part that FB can't control) and even stopped adding users faces to the email. In the guise of "user privacy" but come-on... we know better....
Google made one big mistake.... and that was to kill accounts that appeared not to be "real" people. Now this can be debated all day long, but it was definitely a PR nightmare when it mattered most. Seemed there was not much "Umph" left from Google after that.
A formal sit-down where someone is walking everyone through the code is destined to fail in the way you mention. Using collaboration software where the team can go through the code on their own pace, by reviewing a highlighted diff of code and comments are tacked to the lines of code in question is the way to go.
In our environment we ARE able and DO catch bugs. The reviewers need to know what to look for - and they need to be engaged in the process.
Set ground rules : - don't comment on tabbing, braces, etc UNLESS it's truly unruly. - Ask questions - don't assume the code is wrong. - Look for the obvious: Memory has been allocated before use, variables have been defined and initialized, exceptions are handled, "else" statements are reachable, HardCoded values are meaningful or set in a Constant - Look for the warnings: Compiler/Script warning suppression - Is this really necessary or is the developer being lazy. What cases does it miss? Are the hard-coded values really necessary - or are they arbitrary? If an array is set to a certain size, are there checks to prevent it from being over-run? - Look for the edge cases: Is there code that will never get executed? If parameters aren't checked in a function call, is there risk of down-stream affects?
Just doing this checklist alone will find bugs and help keep code clean. The team lead/senior developers should be coaching, not criticizing the other developers. This is a great opportunity to improve the team knowledge base and experience levels. Not holding reviews, or holding reviews that are rubber stamps should put your team lead in a seriously compromised situation (I.E. He needs to be held accountable for code that is not properly reviewed before it enters production.)
"...whole concept of everybody getting together and put somebody's work to shame..."
Yes that would be a problem if that is the attitude your team goes into a code review with. Our team uses collaboration software to perform the code review - so it evolves a bit like a wiki over a two-three day period. Usually we are asking why things are being done - not "you shouldn't do this or that" or worse "Your code sucks ass - WTF!".
Style changes are stated as "Next time define your constants in the config file" or "Try using a Case statement here" or "You've initialized your variable, but after this logic it will never contain the default value. Is this what you intended?"
There may be good reasons why the developer chose to go the route he did - letting the team know why code was written a certain way will allow the team to utilize the knowledge in future iterations.
According to the Discover Article (http://news.discovery.com/space/visualizing-asteroid-2011-md-zip-past-earth-animation-110624.html), this is within the orbit of GPS satellites. While it seems most are not concerned about a collision with Earth, what happens if it takes out a satellite (or two)? Or something worse like colliding with the ISS. I hope there are some observation satellites than can a good view of the approach (and/or pass).
I've been programming for about 17 years..... and I've found you can't clean code "later". Once it's working it's off to testing and then shipped/delivered. No manager wants you to refactor code unless there is a damn good reason to do it (i.e. there is a bug or enhancement). If you refactor at that time now your next project is actually two projects (a refactor project followed by an enhancement project).
The very idea of refactoring code killed Netscape. They rewrote their underlying rendering engine- a triumph of the developers - with no (little) noticeable enhancement for the end user. Users who were developers "got it" - but the mass market did not.
The idea - that I did not fully express - is that you are embedding only the document section that is referenced at the anchor (i.e. not the entire document). Xanadu goes much further to include on select sentences and snippets and transformations of sentences. Along with versioning and edit capabilities. But 90% of what the are arguing for is that each document is a collection of parts of other documents. This could be accomplished by allowing HTML to embed documents by a src reference, much in the same way that objects and images are referenced.
I have pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. My post was meant to be a short one-liner as most web developers would get what I was referring to without having to draw pages and pages of diagrams that the Xanadu Project relies on. I apologize if my brevity was confusing to you.
Buy label, replace management, place Google employee's on the board of directors, spin off label.
Google doesn't have to own them all simultaneously. They just need to get rid of the industry management and replace them with people who are friendly to the customers and search engines of the world. Google could hold a major stake in each company - but keep the % low enough not to warrant a fed investigation.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup.
.net infrastructure (Sure my code is cross-platform it works on Window XP, Windows 7, and Window 8 server!). PHP guys don't know why you should have to install .Net just to get a basic app running (You mean you have to run this code on a Windows box?).
I've been programming in PHP for 11 years - after coming from a C/C++ for 6. What I've found is that there are three types of people who despise PHP.
1. Those who love Perl (Python, Ruby)
PHP is too verbose and doesn't allows the same shortcuts that Perl, Python, and Ruby allow. This is viewed as a weakness of the language. Ruby is essentially a rebirth of Perl, and was a god-send for those Perl developer who found themselves "stuck" with PHP. I personally don't like implicit references or compacting code for the sake of compacting code. I much prefer to write and read code that verbose and easy to understand. And while you CAN write Perl code that is easy to read, the bulk of tends to read more like a RegEx or Awk expression.
2. Those who love Java (C/C++)
PHP's typelessness drives Java developers crazy. To a Java Developer OO is all about creating new data types, and locking down how those types can be passed. In PHP OO is all about begin blind to the data and not caring how the data is structured. A PHP developer would suffer under the size and restrictions of Java. Java developers hate the openness and ease of begin burned.
3. Those who love VB / C#
MS doesn't support PHP so there is no desire to learn it. VB/C# guys don't get why you wouldn't want to keep your OS up-to-date with the latest
-CF
While I use a PC at work, since I joined the smart-phone and tablet era my PC at home has been virtually untouched. That doesn't help the many distributions of Linux...but nor does it help Microsoft (in my case Google/Android is getting my eyeballs).
The analogy in my subject RE Fox is simply that Fox News is the #1 watch (cable) news channel and with several shows constantly ranking highest viewership.
However... Cable usage in general is going down. So while Fox continues to grow and dominate, it is with an aging population and on a (slowly) dieing platform. Eventually Fox may be able to claim 90% viewership, but if there are only a couple thousand viewers to begin with it really won't matter.
MS has dominated the PC world for 25+ years, and this new "protection" will all but solidify that. But again... having 90% of the market won't matter if there are only few consumers remaining.
-CF
Good point
"...Nokia said .... its big hope to take on Apple's iPhone..."
Didn't that ship sail long ago? I mean MS can get in the water, but Android is #1 and Apple is at what - 25% market share (and has held steadily) with RIM still holding on but losing out to Android.
Nokia is not going to displace the iPhone. If it wants to compete it will have to compete with Android where it can steal from a less loyal user base. That means becoming a commodity piece - which means pennies per phone instead of $$ per phone.
-CF
I "get" why astronomers are best suited to tell us the likelihood that we would be hit.
I don't "get" why astronomers are best suited to decide what to do in the event it is determined that we would be hit.
I'm not sure who would be best suited for such a task....
-CF
Ahh... Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. A man without a party. Join the club.
-CF
Even Ronald Reagan, the President who arguably made 'being conservative cool', would be graded as a RINO based on his record, which included some tax hikes, gun control and some compromises with the Democratic party.
Which why I (maybe others have too...) coined the phrase: "Even Ronald Regan wasn't conservative enough to be Ronald Regan."
That's what happens to heroes - they become larger than life.
-CF
That was the case for v2. v3 is free except when using Google Earth (which requires v2) or mobile apps (which to me seems reasonable).
-CF
Except that Google Maps API is once again free - except for use in Mobile apps.
-CF
Here's what I get when I go that URL:
Our Apologies
This Section of our site is currently undergoing maintenance
We appreciate your patience while we make some improvements
Please check back shortly
Was it taken down? Are they being overwhelmed? Are they trying to make it harder?
-CF
No, THAT is not the question.
The REAL question is, What could happen, how fast would it happen, and could we adapt?
Here are the realities. Climate has changed and has been changing for eons. The recent warming trend *may* have been caused/accelerated by humans - or maybe not - but regardless the Earth has seen this before (and will see it reverse, and reverse again....and again...and again.....).
Given that Climate change is natural (even if we had a hand in it - the process IS natural and would eventually occur without our *help*) - how fast are we talking? An inch a year? 10 feet a year? 1 foot total? 50 feet total? Because I live New England at about 50ft above sea level - I can see that I would be benefactor of earth-warming. Yes indeed there would be other places not so fortunate. But again - how long are we talking about? 1000 years before a global human migration? Or only 10 years? Or next year? We've seen humans/animals migrate in mass - it's natural. Those who adapt survive - those who are stubborn and try to *change* their local environment - die.
-CF
I wish I had mod points.... You've hit it right.
It's not so much "focus on the *user*" as much as "focus on OUR *users*".
Their example is accurate, and I agree that it would be great to can-open Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.... So.... is Facebook asking Google to actually do this? Because last I checked they were still trying to find ways to prevent FB data from crossing over to Google+.
-CF
How about stop providing RSS feeds. Or at least put it behind a pay-wall. Ever here of robot.txt? Stop suing because of your technical incompetence.
Dumb-asses.
-CF
Here's something to consider: What happens if the company renames "engineering" to "it" and "engineering" becomes a sub-task of "IT". If this is palatable, then the opposite should be true as well. In other words it doesn't matter what the names are - as long as the functions are being taken care of.
There is no reason why "engineering" can't have the IT function. If you are able to identify functions that are falling through the cracks (desktop support, disaster recovery, programming/development needs, server maintenance, etc) - then the focus should be, within the "engineering" department to address those needs. If the director of the department is not responsive, then that should be brought up to higher level executives.
If you're finding that you need to consolidate because other departments are going on their own - then that needs to be addressed as well. But I wouldn't approach it as a need to break away from engineering. I would approach as growing a sub-department within engineering.
-CF
Would be possible to get a more accurate position if a receiver combined the various GPS systems - as a kind of check/balance. For non-military use the GPS systems introduce inaccuracies. Is there an algorithm that would bring the resolution down from 10 meters to 1 meter or less?
-CF
This was the first one I thought of. More "engineering" focused than software, but a good dose of Arduino micro-controllers and robotics accompanies each quarterly issue. Lots of 3D printers (Makerbot especially) and 3d scanners. The RSS Feed is heavier on the robotics side. It always gets my creative juices flowing.
-CF
Here is the line to focus on:
"Google is facing an increasing threat from Microsoft’s Bing search engine, which is close to providing a third of all internet searches, either directly or via partners such as Yahoo."
Without it's partners - Bing has crap:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/
Mobile, Google = 91%, bing =1%
DeskTop Google = 82%, bing = 4%
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-10/google-s-u-s-search-market-share-rises-to-65-3-yahoo-declines.html
US Search : Google = 65% bing = 14%
http://www.karmasnack.com/about/search-engine-market-share/
Global: Google = 84%, bing = 2%
US Google = 83%, bing = 5%
Claiming that bing has 33% of the US market share on search (as in "nearly a third when including business partners such as Yahoo") is generous at best.
-CF
It's about the people.
I was able to get a maybe 10% of my triathlon team to join Google+, but facebook is where the conversations took place. If my team is on FB, my co-workers are on FB, my family is on FB, and the rest of my friends are on FB, it makes Google+ a lonely place.
Of course in theory they are not mutually exclusive, but in reality they are.
There was a chance early on to tie the two platforms together. But FB put the kibosh on that quickly by locking down FB even more. They altered the API, they stopped automatically emailing updates (the part that FB can't control) and even stopped adding users faces to the email. In the guise of "user privacy" but come-on... we know better....
Google made one big mistake.... and that was to kill accounts that appeared not to be "real" people. Now this can be debated all day long, but it was definitely a PR nightmare when it mattered most. Seemed there was not much "Umph" left from Google after that.
-CF
You don't need to be a baker to know when you've had a bad pie.
-CF
Then you're doing your review wrong.
A formal sit-down where someone is walking everyone through the code is destined to fail in the way you mention. Using collaboration software where the team can go through the code on their own pace, by reviewing a highlighted diff of code and comments are tacked to the lines of code in question is the way to go.
In our environment we ARE able and DO catch bugs. The reviewers need to know what to look for - and they need to be engaged in the process.
Set ground rules :
- don't comment on tabbing, braces, etc UNLESS it's truly unruly.
- Ask questions - don't assume the code is wrong.
- Look for the obvious: Memory has been allocated before use, variables have been defined and initialized, exceptions are handled, "else" statements are reachable, HardCoded values are meaningful or set in a Constant
- Look for the warnings: Compiler/Script warning suppression - Is this really necessary or is the developer being lazy. What cases does it miss? Are the hard-coded values really necessary - or are they arbitrary? If an array is set to a certain size, are there checks to prevent it from being over-run?
- Look for the edge cases: Is there code that will never get executed? If parameters aren't checked in a function call, is there risk of down-stream affects?
Just doing this checklist alone will find bugs and help keep code clean. The team lead/senior developers should be coaching, not criticizing the other developers. This is a great opportunity to improve the team knowledge base and experience levels. Not holding reviews, or holding reviews that are rubber stamps should put your team lead in a seriously compromised situation (I.E. He needs to be held accountable for code that is not properly reviewed before it enters production.)
-CF
"...whole concept of everybody getting together and put somebody's work to shame..."
Yes that would be a problem if that is the attitude your team goes into a code review with. Our team uses collaboration software to perform the code review - so it evolves a bit like a wiki over a two-three day period. Usually we are asking why things are being done - not "you shouldn't do this or that" or worse "Your code sucks ass - WTF!".
Style changes are stated as "Next time define your constants in the config file" or "Try using a Case statement here" or "You've initialized your variable, but after this logic it will never contain the default value. Is this what you intended?"
There may be good reasons why the developer chose to go the route he did - letting the team know why code was written a certain way will allow the team to utilize the knowledge in future iterations.
-CF
According to the Discover Article (http://news.discovery.com/space/visualizing-asteroid-2011-md-zip-past-earth-animation-110624.html), this is within the orbit of GPS satellites. While it seems most are not concerned about a collision with Earth, what happens if it takes out a satellite (or two)? Or something worse like colliding with the ISS. I hope there are some observation satellites than can a good view of the approach (and/or pass).
I've been programming for about 17 years..... and I've found you can't clean code "later". Once it's working it's off to testing and then shipped/delivered. No manager wants you to refactor code unless there is a damn good reason to do it (i.e. there is a bug or enhancement). If you refactor at that time now your next project is actually two projects (a refactor project followed by an enhancement project).
The very idea of refactoring code killed Netscape. They rewrote their underlying rendering engine- a triumph of the developers - with no (little) noticeable enhancement for the end user. Users who were developers "got it" - but the mass market did not.
-CF
The idea - that I did not fully express - is that you are embedding only the document section that is referenced at the anchor (i.e. not the entire document). Xanadu goes much further to include on select sentences and snippets and transformations of sentences. Along with versioning and edit capabilities. But 90% of what the are arguing for is that each document is a collection of parts of other documents. This could be accomplished by allowing HTML to embed documents by a src reference, much in the same way that objects and images are referenced.
I have pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. My post was meant to be a short one-liner as most web developers would get what I was referring to without having to draw pages and pages of diagrams that the Xanadu Project relies on. I apologize if my brevity was confusing to you.
-CF
Buy each in series....
For each label do the following:
Buy label, replace management, place Google employee's on the board of directors, spin off label.
Google doesn't have to own them all simultaneously. They just need to get rid of the industry management and replace them with people who are friendly to the customers and search engines of the world. Google could hold a major stake in each company - but keep the % low enough not to warrant a fed investigation.
-CF