Compiled HTML? Compiled Javascript? It's just write and go - there is no compile time.
"power" in software languages is dependent on the reference. One could argue that HTML is the most powerful language around: What other language has had as much influence on society in the last 15 years? What other language allows someone with 0 programming skills/experience to create an "app" that can be accessed by millions of people in 10 minutes?
When I first read the I article snippet I thought, as much of the/.ers, that this was bogus. Then I did a search and found a better article - and in comments to that article I found the actual text from the researchers.
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=applicatio n%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F061 0117
I think you'll find that most of the concerns that the/. audience brings up are addressed.
Thinking outside the box is hard - even for those of us who feel we are scientifically minded.
-CF
Though where I work (a state government entity) it's not about legal concerns, it's about "security". There is not only a mis-understanding, there is "no" understanding about opensource.
This is what happens when a new official is elected. You've spent 4 years getting the word out that opensource is safe, cost effective, and effcient, and that it opens doors to a whole new constituentcy when you release open services.... Then a new guy brings in new leadership and they want to put the breaks on because it doesn't jive with their sense of good software use.
Ironically, they have no problems with custom software (which I write, and which we contract out) which has to be the most dangerous software in the industry.
"...When it comes to software performance, it's pretty useless to compare the performance of your software to a previous version of that same software. You need to compare your performance to that of the current leader in the same market...."
I disagree. Snazzy features are great - but if I don't use them and the most basic features (for example opening up a web page) has a degraded performance, unreasonable memory usage, or hogs the processor - then categorizing it as "slow and bothersome" is accurate, no matter what the "leaders" are doing.
"...If we were to believe Tom then there is some sort of dark sinister plot unwinding with steely eyed CEOs plotting the downfall of their rival companies. The CEO of Novell is sitting back in his leather chair, surrounded by bikini clad girly girls and hired goons with steel brimmed bowler hats, cackling madly in glee as his plan to use SCO's hubris to destroy Microsoft has finally comes to fruition...."
Sinister plot? Probably not. No only is the "real world much simpler", but often times companies find themselves in lucky situations. Humans have little ability to kill on their own, yet like most predators, have eyes planted squarely on the front of their face. Humans are carnivorous, cannibalistic, and opportunistic scavengers. It may very well be that MS approached Novell knowing that their SCO partnership was dead, and Novell may very well have had enough leverage to ensure indemnity against future Microsoft IP action. Not enough leverage to "take down" MS, but enough to shore themselves up. And this probably fell in their lap with no prior plan.
If MS is the 800lb gorilla here then IBM is weighing in at 2,500. It has more than four times the number of employees as MS, more than double the revenue, and more patents than any other technology company. IBM is pretty shrewed when it comes to IP enforcement - often times acting like Mercedes (which has given up safety related patents for the good of the industry) and it's only until you get on their bad side that they show you who's boss, as SCO is learning now.
MS has missed out on much of IBM's wrath, but IBM is playing the long war here with its investment in Linux. IBM stopped trying to co-develop with MS (IBM-DOS, OS/2) as it has been burned by MS on multiple occasions. It now has over 300 Linux kernel developers and has invested literally billions into Open Source. Tellingly, they also sold off their entire PC/laptop hardware division.
MS has yet to show that it can survive a change at the helm. To make matters worse, Ballmer is no spring chicken. The Gates Legacy will be in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ballmer's legacy will be his dance.
An image that was printed "actual size" would not fill an a4 piece of paper. Sure there are various formats that can compress the image, but there is no additional compression gained when printed on paper vs. saved to disk. The amount of information that needs to be saved is the same.
Turn your comments around:
Suppose you had printed a full page (A4 - 8.27 x 11.69 inches) image such that every "dot" printed by a 9600 x 1200 dpi printer was a different color. Now you scan it in as a full-color tiff image - i.e. no data loss (images saved as jpg can compress quite a bit, but you loose data - hence the name "lossy-compression").
So you scan the image at the scanners best ("highest") resolution. Assuming 24 bits per color, the graphic image that is scanned in is now (9600*8.27)*(1200*11.69)*24 = 26,729,063,424 bits = 3,341,132,928 bytes or about 3Gig.
That is how big your file would be to "email" around. You may be able to get some additional compression (zip, gif, etc), but that would be software compression, and software compression doesn't care what the medium is that it is saving to - so the fact that it's from printed paper doesn't matter - and really only confuses the issue.
The point here is that just because you have a high-def image that looks good printed edge-to-edge, don't assume that there is a lot of data there. A 3meg jpg file looks damn good when printed with a high-quality printer - but there is still only 3meg of data on the printed page no matter how good the scanner is that reads it back in.
A specialization in computer graphics would indicate someone who is likely to enjoy a challenge. A demonstrated success in the field would tell me that the candidate is one who can balance a wide-range of complex domains. For instance if you could show that you had mastered a design package, that would be worth a point or two. If you knew how to export models and use them in your own software, that would be worth significantly more. If you had donated a Python Module to the Blender Project, that would be worth even more. If you had written an interface to hardware that controls input or manipulation of graphics, that would be worth even more.
The more you can demonstrate a true grasp of data - not just graphic modules and gaming techniques, the more valuable you will be to the industry as a whole.
I'm not at all surprised. The IT world is full of driven people. Smart, motiviated people who love to solve problems get addicted to the constant positive feedback their brain craves with each small increment in software development (or other problem-solving profession). There is a preception that "I'm on a role" - I just need 15 more mintues (and then 15 more and 15 more and 15 more... before you know your wife was expecting you home hours ago).
The delimia is that IT jobs are typically taken by people who love IT jobs. Their work is their pleasure. And there is always work to be done. Add in pressure from a boss, or upper level managment, or customers, who can blame an IT guy for living at work?
However the perception that you can't leave work is just that. It's a perception. You actually can leave. You may not want to. You may feel obligated to stay and finish "one more line of code" - but your feeling guilty for leaving is something that you have to come to terms with on your own.
We all make choices - and leaving a wife and kids at home for the bennefit of work is the sacrifice we all make. What time should you be home? What time should you leave for work in the morning? How many hours should you stay at work? Those are all choices. You will do what you feel makes you happiest. Those choices may be at conflict with what your family wants.
That is not the jobs fault. That is not the industries fault. It is simply the choice you have made. An easy choice? Maybe not. An active choice? maybe not. But a choice non-the-less.
BTW: I find it humerous that there are huge number of Triathletes that come form the IT World (my self included). Triathletes also have a high divorce rate (not including me). There are only so many hours in the day to do all the things one wants to do. Personally I have shoved my workout schedule to the side and try to limit my hours at work - I have a new son and I am not willing to let him become the secondary part of my world.
My boss is a mac freak and I find it hilarious - that the Mac
- the system that brought the icon/window concept to the public at large - the system that was built around its one button mouse - the system that originally did not even come with a keyboard (that's right - those used to cost extra) - the system for people who hated keyboard entry and navigation - now that same system has evolved to be a keyboard navigators dream, and those same people now criticize the use of mouse-centric navigation.
On an individual basis - yeah humans are brilliant. As a species we are no different than any other. I have complete faith that someone would be able to solve the global-warming problem. And I have complete faith that it won't matter.
100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? It has nothing to do with my desire - nature will takes its course.
The key there is "wild". You're right, you rarely see "wild" obese animals. Although the hippo - which has few natural predators and normally an abundance of food - may come close. Same with the adult walrus.
What you do see is animals gorging themselves in summer and sleeping it off in winter (we have some damn-fat squirrels in this area). Or you see animals gorging themselves and converting that energy into extremely powerful muscle.
Humans not only gorge themselves, but they also sit and watch TV.
Any animal that has an easy, abundant, food supply, AND no reason to motivate themselves to move, do become obese. There are plenty of non-mousing cats that lazily sit in window-boxes to sun themselves - getting up to do little more than eat. Dogs are the same way. Sure put them out in "nature" and they will slim down quickly - because hunting take energy, and the food source is not readily available.
Look at elk. They have little regard for the amount of grass they consume. The only thing that keeps them in check is the size of their mouth and the number of calories it takes to maintain their weight. When they decimate a meadow they move on. "Moving on" makes them expend more energy. Take away their food source (do to drought or human development) and they become skin and bones. Elk don't hibernate and they loose tremendous amount of body weight during the winter - when spring comes what do they do? They fatten up, and keep fattening up right on until the next fall when food starts to become sparse. Do they moderate themselves? Not by choice - it's simply a supply thing.
Does what I say mean that we shouldn't try? No - I never said that. I do think that saving our environment is worthwhile - I mean I don't want to be sick while I'm here. But I also think we are fighting nature, rather than fighting on behalf of nature.
Short-sightedness is not realizing the realities. The big picture is that the human race will not last forever.
Self preservation - yes - absolutely. The gazelle will - purely on instinct - get the hell out of dodge when a lion approaches. Of course it will also leave it's young in the lion's path. You won't see the gazelle sacrifice itself for its offspring.
Don't confuse self preservation with preservation of the species.
One of things that we have to accept about humans is that they are part of nature. It's not natural for humans (as a population, not necessarily individuals) to restrain themselves.
What this means (to me) is that the destruction that humans brings (aka man-made) is also natural. It is also natural for humans to destruct to the point of no-return - i.e. humans will use up every last natural-resource until there is no longer a natural-resource to use.
Whaling and fishing are great examples. The Atlantic Ocean used to have an abundance of (sperm) whales. But the human race killed them off - that didn't stop the whalers of course. Rather than realizing the impact and looking for alternatives, they setup long complex shipping routes. Boats from Nantucket (North Eastern US) would set sail and round Argentina (South America) and then exploit the waters of Hawaii and Singapore in the Pacific. Eventually killing off the whales there as well.
The reason for hunting whales? Primarily whale blubber -which was boiled down to oil - which was used as a power source. Eventually the stock of sperm whales dried up in the pacific as well - forcing humans to come up with an alternative - which they did (petrol) - thereby officially killing the whaling industry. (Sure Japan is still at it - but mostly for the meat which focus on other types of whales).
The point is that humans will not restrain themselves or conserve (with some notable exceptions of course) their natural resources. And this is a natural part of human nature - which is part of nature.
So yeah - we are doomed to repeat the process (there are countless examples) and the end result is that we will wipe ourselves out. But that is part of nature - to thrive until starvation. Every population does it. Name one animal that does not gorge themselves - even if it means death to the species.....
No it's not a scientific theory - it's a philosophical "theory".
But it takes "faith" to poor your heart and soul into research to either prove or disprove your beliefs. With out the faith that our instincts are correct, there would be no "eureeka!" moments.
Faith is what you have before you've proven your point - it's your belief.
As a string theory agnostic, I believe it's possible that the string theorist may very well be able to prove string theory. But until then it's not a scientfic theory - it's just a belief.
Doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means it's not established fact.
*** Is hypocracy really so awful? If a company strives to do good but sometimes fails at it, is that not better than to not strive at all? ****
If you claim to be good, but know you are bad, you're lying. If you claim to be good, but don't know you've done bad, you're a hypocrit. If you claim to be good, but see times that you need to be bad, you're political.
Striving to be good and sometimes fail is fine. Striving to spin that you are good when you don't make an attempt to be so is bad.
Google's "being bad" is political. They see the necessary evil for a possible greater good. This contrasts with Bush Admin's "being bad" (and most of our political system for that matter) is just flat out spins and lies that only serves their self interest.
So the guy was doing legal research and forced to stop by those using illegal actions and your solution is for him to leave the community, friends, family, and colleagues that he loves, so that he can continue his legal research?
Not wanting to eat GE foods has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting to study genetics and developing potential life saving gene-therapy or drugs based on genetic engineering.
I am all for genetic experimentation in the lab to help us gain better scientific understanding. That does not mean I want to eat the results of that experimentation or release it into the wild.
"...I think humans are unique in that our increasing complexity (manifested in our brains) will cause us to survive the next mass extinction..."
Whether or not we survive the *current* mass extinction has nothing to do with our uniqueness. It only has to do with our ability to endure and reproduce in the resultant environment.
Our scientific, industrial, and social developments are a part of evolution - not inspite of it or a replacement for it. As a result, humans are not exempt from extinction.
Maybe the admistration has fired one into their own foot.
Surely there is some law that President Bush or his gang has violated in one of the 40-some countries that are apparently apart of this "Internet Treaty".
Finally we can now have the FBI investigate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends.
It seems that anything that takes off and allows beginners to gain traction quickly is beaten down by the purist. Windows is beaten down because "only an idiot would need a GUI" - it's that type of attitude that hates PHP or anything else that's more about being productive than being about the technology.
Personally I've been programming in both the *nix and Win* environment for 10 years. I find PHP a fast, fun, language that allows me to build solid (mostly web) apps quickly. The language constructs "just make sense" to me (rather than something like Perl) and I like the fact that I can do OO programming with it from the perspective that every object is a black box rather than the tightly typed academic OO of Java. It's a function of OO allowing you to do more rather than OO protecting you from yourself.
The security issues are there - no doubt. And beginners code is crap. Of course beginners code is crap no matter what language they use.
If you enjoy C programing and find it rediculas that you have to jump through hoops for proper memory managment then I think you'll find PHP a great language. If you love Java or using the STL in C - you'll probably hate PHP because "all the fun part" is already done for you. If you love languages because you like the challenge of mastering a complicated process - then PHP is going to seem gimicky and too simple. But if you enjoy spending more of your time on the problem your trying to solve rather than on mastering a new language then I think you'll find PHP well suited for you.
If you are a good programmer I don't think you'll find many limits to PHP. If you rely on throw-catch and the language to prevent you from adding letters unless you created a class that will allow you to explicitly do so - then I think you'll hate PHP.
If you like a small functional language that is robust - then head towards PHP. If you like extensive languages that rely on extenstions and class structures taken to extreams, then Java (and maybe Ruby?)is your friend.
And here is something that is sure to generate a flame or two. I would love to see a PHP implementation of true "embedded" environment - i.e. at the microprocessor level.
The next big thing? I thought this was the standard for years. Why else would so much OSS be developed for XP? Why else would so much OSS have pre-compiled binaries and installers for Windows based OS?
I do all my PHP development on WinXP - I have Apache2 with PHP and MySQL running perfectly together on my box. I use firefox and thunderbird. I use Tortise CVS to check code into our Linux Server - and yeah - putty gives me a nice command line terminal if necessary - and I can copy files through samba connections.
Personally I believe that developing in a multi-OS environment (we have several developers on OS-X) helps make code tighter and gives extra sanity checks. If it works on my box, and the server, and another developers environment - then there is less likelyhood that the code will break because of forgotten dependencies.
I'm not sure this is the "Next Big Thing" my experience is that my setup is far from unique. Most of the shops I've worked in to (Telco, government contractors, private medical publisher, robotics firm,.com shop, state government) have had similar environments. I thinks it's rare to find a shop that is truely homogeneous.
Ruby on Rails is not designed for the software engineer. It's designed for the Glue Master who wants/needs an application developed as quickly as possible with as much power as possible. The applications are "quick and dirty" one-offs that will be "refined" by being rewritten. Perfect for Web-UI's that need to be constantly scrapped and rewritten. Typical programming team consists of a single ADD user (not usually a "learned" programmer).
PHP/Python/VB is not designed for the software engineer. It's designed for the programmer who wants/needs an application that is maintainable and will last longer than a RonR app - but is is not going to last indefinately. The applications will have a history and may be revisited and refined for several years. Perfect for heavily used Web Apps that have a short-multi-year lifespans. Typical programming team consists of 1-4 programmers optionally with some support staff and/or managment.
Java/C/C++ is designed for the software engineer and programmer who wants/needs a robust powerful application that will have 5's and 10's of years lifespan - Perfect for building something like a PHP/Ruby on Rails/Web script engine, Apache Web Server, Linux OS, etc. Typical programming team consists of multiple groups of 6 programmers/engineers and staff (managment, testing units) to support them.
It doesn't make sense to over-engineer applications that process simple web-forms. Nor does it make sense to hack together a web-content-management-system. You use the tools, the effort, and the language that makes sense for the application at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Compiled HTML? Compiled Javascript? It's just write and go - there is no compile time.
"power" in software languages is dependent on the reference. One could argue that HTML is the most powerful language around: What other language has had as much influence on society in the last 15 years? What other language allows someone with 0 programming skills/experience to create an "app" that can be accessed by millions of people in 10 minutes?
When I first read the I article snippet I thought, as much of the /.ers, that this was bogus. Then I did a search and found a better article - and in comments to that article I found the actual text from the researchers.
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=applicatio n%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F061 0117
I think you'll find that most of the concerns that the /. audience brings up are addressed.
Thinking outside the box is hard - even for those of us who feel we are scientifically minded.
-CF
Though where I work (a state government entity) it's not about legal concerns, it's about "security". There is not only a mis-understanding, there is "no" understanding about opensource.
This is what happens when a new official is elected. You've spent 4 years getting the word out that opensource is safe, cost effective, and effcient, and that it opens doors to a whole new constituentcy when you release open services.... Then a new guy brings in new leadership and they want to put the breaks on because it doesn't jive with their sense of good software use.
Ironically, they have no problems with custom software (which I write, and which we contract out) which has to be the most dangerous software in the industry.
-CF
"...When it comes to software performance, it's pretty useless to compare the performance of your software to a previous version of that same software. You need to compare your performance to that of the current leader in the same market...."
I disagree. Snazzy features are great - but if I don't use them and the most basic features (for example opening up a web page) has a degraded performance, unreasonable memory usage, or hogs the processor - then categorizing it as "slow and bothersome" is accurate, no matter what the "leaders" are doing.
-CF
"...If we were to believe Tom then there is some sort of dark sinister plot unwinding with steely eyed CEOs plotting the downfall of their rival companies. The CEO of Novell is sitting back in his leather chair, surrounded by bikini clad girly girls and hired goons with steel brimmed bowler hats, cackling madly in glee as his plan to use SCO's hubris to destroy Microsoft has finally comes to fruition...."
Sinister plot? Probably not. No only is the "real world much simpler", but often times companies find themselves in lucky situations. Humans have little ability to kill on their own, yet like most predators, have eyes planted squarely on the front of their face. Humans are carnivorous, cannibalistic, and opportunistic scavengers. It may very well be that MS approached Novell knowing that their SCO partnership was dead, and Novell may very well have had enough leverage to ensure indemnity against future Microsoft IP action. Not enough leverage to "take down" MS, but enough to shore themselves up. And this probably fell in their lap with no prior plan.
If MS is the 800lb gorilla here then IBM is weighing in at 2,500. It has more than four times the number of employees as MS, more than double the revenue, and more patents than any other technology company. IBM is pretty shrewed when it comes to IP enforcement - often times acting like Mercedes (which has given up safety related patents for the good of the industry) and it's only until you get on their bad side that they show you who's boss, as SCO is learning now.
MS has missed out on much of IBM's wrath, but IBM is playing the long war here with its investment in Linux. IBM stopped trying to co-develop with MS (IBM-DOS, OS/2) as it has been burned by MS on multiple occasions. It now has over 300 Linux kernel developers and has invested literally billions into Open Source. Tellingly, they also sold off their entire PC/laptop hardware division.
MS has yet to show that it can survive a change at the helm. To make matters worse, Ballmer is no spring chicken. The Gates Legacy will be in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ballmer's legacy will be his dance.
-CF
Yes you're wrong.
An image that was printed "actual size" would not fill an a4 piece of paper. Sure there are various formats that can compress the image, but there is no additional compression gained when printed on paper vs. saved to disk. The amount of information that needs to be saved is the same.
Turn your comments around:
Suppose you had printed a full page (A4 - 8.27 x 11.69 inches) image such that every "dot" printed by a 9600 x 1200 dpi printer was a different color. Now you scan it in as a full-color tiff image - i.e. no data loss (images saved as jpg can compress quite a bit, but you loose data - hence the name "lossy-compression").
So you scan the image at the scanners best ("highest") resolution. Assuming 24 bits per color, the graphic image that is scanned in is now (9600*8.27)*(1200*11.69)*24 = 26,729,063,424 bits = 3,341,132,928 bytes or about 3Gig.
That is how big your file would be to "email" around. You may be able to get some additional compression (zip, gif, etc), but that would be software compression, and software compression doesn't care what the medium is that it is saving to - so the fact that it's from printed paper doesn't matter - and really only confuses the issue.
The point here is that just because you have a high-def image that looks good printed edge-to-edge, don't assume that there is a lot of data there. A 3meg jpg file looks damn good when printed with a high-quality printer - but there is still only 3meg of data on the printed page no matter how good the scanner is that reads it back in.
-CF
A specialization in computer graphics would indicate someone who is likely to enjoy a challenge. A demonstrated success in the field would tell me that the candidate is one who can balance a wide-range of complex domains. For instance if you could show that you had mastered a design package, that would be worth a point or two. If you knew how to export models and use them in your own software, that would be worth significantly more. If you had donated a Python Module to the Blender Project, that would be worth even more. If you had written an interface to hardware that controls input or manipulation of graphics, that would be worth even more.
The more you can demonstrate a true grasp of data - not just graphic modules and gaming techniques, the more valuable you will be to the industry as a whole.
-Good luck,
CF
I'm not at all surprised. The IT world is full of driven people. Smart, motiviated people who love to solve problems get addicted to the constant positive feedback their brain craves with each small increment in software development (or other problem-solving profession). There is a preception that "I'm on a role" - I just need 15 more mintues (and then 15 more and 15 more and 15 more... before you know your wife was expecting you home hours ago).
The delimia is that IT jobs are typically taken by people who love IT jobs. Their work is their pleasure. And there is always work to be done. Add in pressure from a boss, or upper level managment, or customers, who can blame an IT guy for living at work?
However the perception that you can't leave work is just that. It's a perception. You actually can leave. You may not want to. You may feel obligated to stay and finish "one more line of code" - but your feeling guilty for leaving is something that you have to come to terms with on your own.
We all make choices - and leaving a wife and kids at home for the bennefit of work is the sacrifice we all make. What time should you be home? What time should you leave for work in the morning? How many hours should you stay at work? Those are all choices. You will do what you feel makes you happiest. Those choices may be at conflict with what your family wants.
That is not the jobs fault. That is not the industries fault. It is simply the choice you have made. An easy choice? Maybe not. An active choice? maybe not. But a choice non-the-less.
BTW:
I find it humerous that there are huge number of Triathletes that come form the IT World (my self included). Triathletes also have a high divorce rate (not including me). There are only so many hours in the day to do all the things one wants to do. Personally I have shoved my workout schedule to the side and try to limit my hours at work - I have a new son and I am not willing to let him become the secondary part of my world.
-CF
My boss is a mac freak and I find it hilarious - that the Mac
- the system that brought the icon/window concept to the public at large
- the system that was built around its one button mouse
- the system that originally did not even come with a keyboard (that's right - those used to cost extra)
- the system for people who hated keyboard entry and navigation
- now that same system has evolved to be a keyboard navigators dream, and those same people now criticize the use of mouse-centric navigation.
Round and round we go.......
-CF
On an individual basis - yeah humans are brilliant. As a species we are no different than any other. I have complete faith that someone would be able to solve the global-warming problem. And I have complete faith that it won't matter.
100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? It has nothing to do with my desire - nature will takes its course.
-CF
The key there is "wild". You're right, you rarely see "wild" obese animals. Although the hippo - which has few natural predators and normally an abundance of food - may come close. Same with the adult walrus.
What you do see is animals gorging themselves in summer and sleeping it off in winter (we have some damn-fat squirrels in this area). Or you see animals gorging themselves and converting that energy into extremely powerful muscle.
Humans not only gorge themselves, but they also sit and watch TV.
Any animal that has an easy, abundant, food supply, AND no reason to motivate themselves to move, do become obese. There are plenty of non-mousing cats that lazily sit in window-boxes to sun themselves - getting up to do little more than eat. Dogs are the same way. Sure put them out in "nature" and they will slim down quickly - because hunting take energy, and the food source is not readily available.
Look at elk. They have little regard for the amount of grass they consume. The only thing that keeps them in check is the size of their mouth and the number of calories it takes to maintain their weight. When they decimate a meadow they move on. "Moving on" makes them expend more energy. Take away their food source (do to drought or human development) and they become skin and bones. Elk don't hibernate and they loose tremendous amount of body weight during the winter - when spring comes what do they do? They fatten up, and keep fattening up right on until the next fall when food starts to become sparse. Do they moderate themselves? Not by choice - it's simply a supply thing.
Does what I say mean that we shouldn't try? No - I never said that. I do think that saving our environment is worthwhile - I mean I don't want to be sick while I'm here. But I also think we are fighting nature, rather than fighting on behalf of nature.
Short-sightedness is not realizing the realities. The big picture is that the human race will not last forever.
-CF
Self preservation - yes - absolutely. The gazelle will - purely on instinct - get the hell out of dodge when a lion approaches. Of course it will also leave it's young in the lion's path. You won't see the gazelle sacrifice itself for its offspring.
Don't confuse self preservation with preservation of the species.
-CF
One of things that we have to accept about humans is that they are part of nature. It's not natural for humans (as a population, not necessarily individuals) to restrain themselves.
What this means (to me) is that the destruction that humans brings (aka man-made) is also natural. It is also natural for humans to destruct to the point of no-return - i.e. humans will use up every last natural-resource until there is no longer a natural-resource to use.
Whaling and fishing are great examples. The Atlantic Ocean used to have an abundance of (sperm) whales. But the human race killed them off - that didn't stop the whalers of course. Rather than realizing the impact and looking for alternatives, they setup long complex shipping routes. Boats from Nantucket (North Eastern US) would set sail and round Argentina (South America) and then exploit the waters of Hawaii and Singapore in the Pacific. Eventually killing off the whales there as well.
The reason for hunting whales? Primarily whale blubber -which was boiled down to oil - which was used as a power source. Eventually the stock of sperm whales dried up in the pacific as well - forcing humans to come up with an alternative - which they did (petrol) - thereby officially killing the whaling industry. (Sure Japan is still at it - but mostly for the meat which focus on other types of whales).
The point is that humans will not restrain themselves or conserve (with some notable exceptions of course) their natural resources. And this is a natural part of human nature - which is part of nature.
So yeah - we are doomed to repeat the process (there are countless examples) and the end result is that we will wipe ourselves out. But that is part of nature - to thrive until starvation. Every population does it. Name one animal that does not gorge themselves - even if it means death to the species.....
-CF
No it's not a scientific theory - it's a philosophical "theory".
But it takes "faith" to poor your heart and soul into research to either prove or disprove your beliefs. With out the faith that our instincts are correct, there would be no "eureeka!" moments.
Faith is what you have before you've proven your point - it's your belief.
As a string theory agnostic, I believe it's possible that the string theorist may very well be able to prove string theory. But until then it's not a scientfic theory - it's just a belief.
Doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means it's not established fact.
-CF
*** Is hypocracy really so awful? If a company strives to do good but sometimes fails at it, is that not better than to not strive at all? ****
If you claim to be good, but know you are bad, you're lying.
If you claim to be good, but don't know you've done bad, you're a hypocrit.
If you claim to be good, but see times that you need to be bad, you're political.
Striving to be good and sometimes fail is fine. Striving to spin that you are good when you don't make an attempt to be so is bad.
Google's "being bad" is political. They see the necessary evil for a possible greater good.
This contrasts with Bush Admin's "being bad" (and most of our political system for that matter) is just flat out spins and lies that only serves their self interest.
-CF
No, the MS strategy is to buy the company who produces the software they can't compete with.
-CF
So the guy was doing legal research and forced to stop by those using illegal actions and your solution is for him to leave the community, friends, family, and colleagues that he loves, so that he can continue his legal research?
Simple - yes. Solution - no.
Not wanting to eat GE foods has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting to study genetics and developing potential life saving gene-therapy or drugs based on genetic engineering.
I am all for genetic experimentation in the lab to help us gain better scientific understanding. That does not mean I want to eat the results of that experimentation or release it into the wild.
-CF
No.
-CF
"...I think humans are unique in that our increasing complexity (manifested in our brains) will cause us to survive the next mass extinction..."
Whether or not we survive the *current* mass extinction has nothing to do with our uniqueness. It only has to do with our ability to endure and reproduce in the resultant environment.
Our scientific, industrial, and social developments are a part of evolution - not inspite of it or a replacement for it. As a result, humans are not exempt from extinction.
-CF
Maybe the admistration has fired one into their own foot.
Surely there is some law that President Bush or his gang has violated in one of the 40-some countries that are apparently apart of this "Internet Treaty".
Finally we can now have the FBI investigate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends.
-CF
It seems that anything that takes off and allows beginners to gain traction quickly is beaten down by the purist. Windows is beaten down because "only an idiot would need a GUI" - it's that type of attitude that hates PHP or anything else that's more about being productive than being about the technology.
Personally I've been programming in both the *nix and Win* environment for 10 years. I find PHP a fast, fun, language that allows me to build solid (mostly web) apps quickly. The language constructs "just make sense" to me (rather than something like Perl) and I like the fact that I can do OO programming with it from the perspective that every object is a black box rather than the tightly typed academic OO of Java. It's a function of OO allowing you to do more rather than OO protecting you from yourself.
The security issues are there - no doubt. And beginners code is crap. Of course beginners code is crap no matter what language they use.
If you enjoy C programing and find it rediculas that you have to jump through hoops for proper memory managment then I think you'll find PHP a great language. If you love Java or using the STL in C - you'll probably hate PHP because "all the fun part" is already done for you. If you love languages because you like the challenge of mastering a complicated process - then PHP is going to seem gimicky and too simple. But if you enjoy spending more of your time on the problem your trying to solve rather than on mastering a new language then I think you'll find PHP well suited for you.
If you are a good programmer I don't think you'll find many limits to PHP. If you rely on throw-catch and the language to prevent you from adding letters unless you created a class that will allow you to explicitly do so - then I think you'll hate PHP.
If you like a small functional language that is robust - then head towards PHP. If you like extensive languages that rely on extenstions and class structures taken to extreams, then Java (and maybe Ruby?)is your friend.
And here is something that is sure to generate a flame or two. I would love to see a PHP implementation of true "embedded" environment - i.e. at the microprocessor level.
uPHP anyone?
-CF
The next big thing? I thought this was the standard for years. Why else would so much OSS be developed for XP? Why else would so much OSS have pre-compiled binaries and installers for Windows based OS?
.com shop, state government) have had similar environments. I thinks it's rare to find a shop that is truely homogeneous.
I do all my PHP development on WinXP - I have Apache2 with PHP and MySQL running perfectly together on my box. I use firefox and thunderbird. I use Tortise CVS to check code into our Linux Server - and yeah - putty gives me a nice command line terminal if necessary - and I can copy files through samba connections.
Personally I believe that developing in a multi-OS environment (we have several developers on OS-X) helps make code tighter and gives extra sanity checks. If it works on my box, and the server, and another developers environment - then there is less likelyhood that the code will break because of forgotten dependencies.
I'm not sure this is the "Next Big Thing" my experience is that my setup is far from unique. Most of the shops I've worked in to (Telco, government contractors, private medical publisher, robotics firm,
-CF
Long term? Please.... If your RoR app is still being used in 10 years, then you'll know that it was either very maintainable or very simple.
-CF
Ruby on Rails is not designed for the software engineer. It's designed for the Glue Master who wants/needs an application developed as quickly as possible with as much power as possible. The applications are "quick and dirty" one-offs that will be "refined" by being rewritten. Perfect for Web-UI's that need to be constantly scrapped and rewritten. Typical programming team consists of a single ADD user (not usually a "learned" programmer).
PHP/Python/VB is not designed for the software engineer. It's designed for the programmer who wants/needs an application that is maintainable and will last longer than a RonR app - but is is not going to last indefinately. The applications will have a history and may be revisited and refined for several years. Perfect for heavily used Web Apps that have a short-multi-year lifespans. Typical programming team consists of 1-4 programmers optionally with some support staff and/or managment.
Java/C/C++ is designed for the software engineer and programmer who wants/needs a robust powerful application that will have 5's and 10's of years lifespan - Perfect for building something like a PHP/Ruby on Rails/Web script engine, Apache Web Server, Linux OS, etc. Typical programming team consists of multiple groups of 6 programmers/engineers and staff (managment, testing units) to support them.
It doesn't make sense to over-engineer applications that process simple web-forms. Nor does it make sense to hack together a web-content-management-system. You use the tools, the effort, and the language that makes sense for the application at hand.
-CF