...when it installs itself, in Windows, at %Userprofile%\Application Data\Google Chrome?
That is just amateur programming, and is a real beast if you're in an Active Directory environment with Roaming Profiles, 'cause the damn software keeps getting copied to/from the server with ever logon/logoff.
I understand Google might consider compliance with separation of programs from their data might be "difficult," but the ease with which any malmare can corrupt Chrome because of it's lack of installation security make Chrome a pariah in our environment, and I've banned it from all our and client computers!
I disagree.
We all make mistakes...even huge companies. But, it's what they do AFTER they make a biggie that marks those the consumer can have confidence in, or not.
Gateway had failures, but never tried to improve their practices, so they're still an "also ran." IBM decided it was smarter to get out of the business that didn't fit their management model, post-Gerstner. HP I've written about before in this thread. Dell has won my confidence, and they've not (to my knowledge) ever lied to me. They deserve my caution during the recovery, but they seem to be doing well at it, so I'm likely to say a "Dell-preferred" professional.
Amen. I've bought 'em all since 1980, one vendor or another, and Dell is STILL my preferred choice.
I agree: This story is WA-A-AY old, and the problems of the Dell Latitude D6xx series is another old one that still gets flogged by lazy journalists.
Remember, Michael Dell stepped down as CEO (in favor of Rollins) in March, 2004. From that date, Dell deteriorated: Support was outsourced to India, Purchasing bought cheap crap from mainland China, and Development was cut back to the bare bone. A deteriorating Dell reputation was the result, and Michael Dell stepped back into the CEO role in January, 2007, to arrest the slide. It's taken him a long time, but Customer Service still is VASTLY better than HP or Lenovo or Gateway, they offer Next Day On-Site Repair, and they stand by the extended warranties they had to issue after the crap Rollins bought started failing in customer sites.
I still rate Dell as better than 94% on a scale of Perfect, with the nearest competitor below 85%. HP, for instance, has taken the same route: They hired Carly Fiorina who trashed the place (e.g., killing the Customer Service Operation, recognized as World Class by the industry), corrupted the brand with Compaq, laid off everybody competent. They then brought in "seat warmer" Mark Hurd, who is barely holding on by his fingernails...and there is STILL no decent Customer Support or Product Quality improvement on the horizon; they're just chasing the Stock Price (mostly with over-priced printer supplies), as that's how Senior Executives get rich.
I'll stick with Dell. This story is bad, but it's ancient history, and there's nobody on the horizon who's likely to ever do any better.
I know, that's too much to ask of modern code monkeys.
How many of you who "good enough" quality have ever even read a book on "Software Engineering?" Have you even HEARD of the original NATO conference on that subject? How many have studied interesting "Software Physics."
Yes, all code I write has bugs, because I am not omniscient. There are inputs and environments I never imagined the program having to cope with. But about half the code I write has two things rarely seen in code today:
1. Comments in the form of Assertions (e.g. "At this point, input XYZ is confirmed to be in the range 87...92".
2. About half the lines of actual code (absent comments) are validation of input conditions from the world (user and environment) outside the program itself.
Perfection is not actually achievable, but IT'S THE ONLY TARGET WORTH PURSUING.
Companies like Microsoft don't even try, because they're not in the software business; they're in the money-making business. Professionals care; money-grubbers aren't.
You might be surprised that the Uniform Commercial Code often trumps local law in the courts. As I said, earlier, get an attorney if you're really concerned about ownership.
And, documentation is key: If you don't have a written contract BEFORE you start the project, while everybody is still friendly, expect to be surprised by the other party with unscrupulous tendancies.
There's a practical presumption in law that if you pay for something and it is delivered, you own it. You have to have it in writing if you don't want to work that way.
That, for instance, is why we have those obnoxious (and legally tenouous) "shrink-wrap" licenses. Because "licensing" is not the same as "owning." If licensing were the normal case in common law, you wouldn't need a "licensing" agreement.
Now, admittedly, I'm an independent business owner and computer consultant. But, that means I have to sell myself to every prospective client each time they're first introduced to my company and my services.
I build systems, providing "contract CIO" advisory services, write the odd special-purpose program (or modify one for a client's specific needs), and all for a fee I can characterize as "a pretty penny."
Age discrimination is, in my opinion, in a convenient excuse for not staying abreast of the latest advances and tools. I'm spending my time, just as this is being written, figuring out the ins'n'outs of Windows 7, so I can do a better job for my clients, whom I expect will be upgrading over the coming months. My erstwhile competitors, aged 30-50, are still insisting the only solution for client problems is a wholesale reinstall of Windows XP Pro.
Most people peg my age at "mid-50s." Is my appearance a bonus...or a consequence of my insistance on investing hours every week in learning new things and in keeping my mind "fresh."
...Don't Believe Them.
Most UPS' are woefully under-powered, with the intent to offer only a few minutes of uptime. I'm looking for a solution that uses external automobile batteries, instead of those "convenient" internal, sealed batteries.
I recently acquired a 3,000 VA Rackmount UPS and with the load of a single 5W clock (to measure runtime), it was dead in 8 hours! About 2/3 of power in the batteries is used just to power the DC-to-AC converters, so count on a lot less power usable than specified.
Not a one of you apparently has any experience in creating a "culture" (I'd even challenge you to DEFINE "culture" in a productive and operational way). Every/.er seems to have an opinion, as if their experience is universal. It is to laugh.
Creating a "Community" is a very worthy goal, and I've done it dozens of times with F500 businesses. Creating an over-arching "Culture" is a bit more difficult, but I just did it for a 120-person not-for-profit here in California..
To start with, you need to have some grounding in communications and behavior...and I don't mean Psych101; I'm talking about someone at the level of a Ph.D. You need to assess what's working, and what's not, and be able to distinguish the difference. Then, you need to work with anyone and everyone to define what you'd LIKE to be in the future..
Are people there for the paycheck? You don't have a chance. Does management consider "People" a bother and excessively expensive? No chance..
But, even in a dispirited organization, it is possible, despite what some of the people in here say. It's not trivial, but the journey is most assuredly worthwhile..
If you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be happy...but not in this forum, populated with people who don't even understand the language of the art. (And, yes, I'm a "recoverying geek"... AND a "recovering shrink.")
I've proven to my clients, time-after-time, for more than half a century, that programming is done BACKWARDS from good practice: We write code (maybe with comments), then we go back and document it.
Instead of some vague specification, we need to start with DOCUMENTATION. We need to write the first draft of the user manual (or, in modular programming, the programmer's reference) BEFORE a line of code is written. That document must be reviewed and amended until all (or a good representative sample of) the "consumers" of that software are satisfied with how it will work. (For example, Windows is NEVER reviewed by real end users in simulation or documentation, so we get the persistent and buggy output of Redmond's programmers.) AFTER we know what we're trying to achieve, we can write requisite code to achieve those results.
Yes, I know that's heresy...but it's the ENGINEERING way to do the job.
Perhaps you've forgotten: Computers are here to serve human beings, not the other way 'round.
There is a fundamental lack of engineering principles in programming, which leads to a lot of lousy programs. When I apply good engineering practice to software design, it always turns out better in the end, especially when you realize that you're not writing "A" program, but the first of a series of ever-changing (hopefully "ever-improving"( programs, which we identify as "versions." Even tiny scripts of mine have gone through many iterations as I discover conditions under which they don't perform, or I discover a new capability that has become important, now that users (and I) have gained experience with the original.
Until programmers realize they must have a DISCIPLINED approach, we'll contine to implement software that is evolved through the finding of bugs, instead of focusing on getting it right the first time.
Both are free. I actually prefer UltraVNC (but for primitive documentation). Both require you to set up things at the other end (e.g., firewall pinholes, on both computers and routers). But, for my money, UltraVNC is much better and more reliable, once you get the hand of it.
--Carol Anne
I invented this and published it more than 30 years ago, during the early debate between CISC and RISC microprocessors. It was in the (now defunct) "Modern Data" magazine, in my column "Carol's Microcosm."
It's an obvious solution for any computer programmer who understands hardware logic.
I believe, after 53 years in this industry, you're likely asking the wrong question.
I learned programming BEFORE there were schools of any kind, but my mentors, Bill Orchard-Hays was a mathemetician, and Eli Hellerman had his Bachelor's in Statistics, and a Masters in Conducting. Jack Moshman was a world-leading Operation Research Ph.D. These kinds of people were able to imagine things others couldn't, were able to see past appearances to find nuggets of real underlying value.
The first issue is, what do you want to do? As someone wrote, if you just want to be a "code monkey," you need about the level of skills of a "shade tree mechanic." If you want to be considered someone people look up to (and handsomely reward), however, you need to be well-read, especially in abstract thought (history, music theory, etc.).
In my own case, I started in electronics in 1956, learned programmin in 1962-3, and was one of the few people who could both draw a (workable) schematic and write (credible) code. It gave me a distinct "leg up" over my peers who were limited to one or the other. I never had the benefit of college/university, but I've taught at several, all because I have been a student all my life. I'm STILL learning, at 67 years. Along the way, my reputation was such that I billed myself (before semi-retiring) at more than $2,000/day (back when that was real money!).
The executives who hired me couldn't care if I had a "sheepskin" or three noses. What they cared about was that I had accumulated 40 years' experience, not two year's experience twenty times over. That's where most of my peers were: They were enamored of their homes, their cars, their sports, but they were NOT engaged in permanent, perpetual learning. Personally, I'm only comfortable when presented with what I perceive as a problem that is 105% of my self-perceived capacity.
So, focus on how much value you can add to your employer (or client), and build on that. Take the dirty jobs nobody else wants...and excel at making them outstanding successes. Heck, in 1963 I was a "programmer's aide," (paid lower than the department's secretary!) and by 1965 I was Chief Programmer in charge of the Beverly Hills office of the (then) world's largest "Contract Programming and Service Bureau" firm. They didn't care about credentials, they were focused on billable results.
Best of luck, but never rest on your laurels or your diploma(s). Always seek to excel, aim toward perfection (while unachievable, it's the only target worth aiming at), and understand how your BOSS gets measured, and contribute to THAT.
Personally, when I'm hiring, I'm looking for the right attitude and personal philosophy. I can teach any high school grad to program, but I can't instill them with a "can do" attitude, a willingness to take on the unpalatable jobs that still need to be done, the unquenchable thrist for learning. So, I hire for what I need (that attitude), and fill in the blanks over time.
I've been to the jboss site; I've seen the HornetQ webpages. Now, after 52 years as a sysadmin, programmer, CIO, etc. I can't figure out what it is, and why I should care. I get the sense that the jargon suggests is a way for clustered computers to exchange messages to coordinate their activities, but that's a sheer guess.
Would one of you who know what this product does be so kind as to explain to me what this product does, and why I should look further into it?
Sorry about this rant, but this is one of those cases where I'm sure the developers know what they're trying to accomplish, but I, as their potential user, perceive as a full description in an ancient dialect of Sanskrit.
I've installed in several environments of multiple WinXP Pro workstations.
Put the "server" part on one ocmputer; let it do the updating and provide for central configuration.
You still have to install clients on each computer. I like to use InstallRite (http://www.epsilonsquared.com/installrite.htm): Run the "before setup" part of InstallRite, do the full install and configuration, then run the "after startup" part of capture a single file "Install Kit" that you can then run on the rest of the computers to get it fully installed. It saves lots and lots of time.
In the AVG Network Edition, the "server" contacts AVG's update server, then acts as a local proxy for that update information to the clients.
I BAN Symantec and Norton products from all computers we maintain under contract: Great advertising, but lousy products that can't be uninstalled: There are lingering traces that require Unlocker (http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/) and a high-quality registry cleaner (I like jv16 Power Tools, http://www.macecraft.com/jv16powertools2009/) to root out all of the junk Symantec leaves behind. Not worth the effort when I can install a better, cheaper and more-reliable product (AVG).
Palm has snatched defeat from certain victory about every six months since they started. When they split into two companies with the fantasy of licensing their O.S. to the cellphone community, I knew they were dead; nobody is going to do business with such an antedeluvian management. It appears to me they know nothing about marketing, nothing about support, and--progressively--less and less about designing products people want to buy. And, when they do put in features, they seldom work (ever tried WiFi from a Palm Tungsten?).
The company is led by greedy, stupid people who's only consistency is their stoopidity.
This is just another nail in their self-built coffin.
And, yes, I still keep my Tungsten C's in good working order, and since spares now cost me only about $50, I expect my use of the Tungsten will outlive the company itself.
From the trenches of modern technology,
--Carol Anne
Put in a cheap WiFi Router in the Library (set for 802.11b only; the Palm can do 802.11g), and WEP for security (if you must; why not let others use the same database?). Cost: About $35
Now, buy a used Palm Tungsten C from eBay (about $75), and make sure the seller guarantees the WiFi will work (many don't).
Now you have, for roughly $125, your own link to the network, and no further monthly expenses.
I've got lots of clients where we do this; I use my Tungsten with those system almost every day.
After nine books, I've learned: Write the text, create the illustrations and diagrams, and stop worrying about how to format it. You're not going to have much control over that anyway (that's up to the publisher).
On the other hand, if you're planning on pre-publishing your own work in draft, for feedback (and publicity), you will need to worry about formatting, appearance, layout, consistency, etc.
Personally, my approach is to do my next book rough-draft as a blog (http://perfect-computer.blogspot.com; only a couple of weeks old). That keeps me focused on the ideas and concepts, and not on the exact wording, nor the formatting. Then, when I think I've said what I want to say, I'll assemble it all into a manuscript for publication. It's easier to get a contract that way, 'cause you can show "samples" of your work.
Frankly, you can waste so much of your time on the publishing details you can lose enthusiasm for your work. Write. Write longhand, if you must, but Write. Let the publisher worry about the forms and formats.
I've got clients quite happy with RPE/CRE from www.pcamerica.com.
Has full reporting capabilities, and a lot more flexibility than the vendor lets on (we change menu layouts every few days to maximize revenue; the documentation on how to do that is spare-to-non-existant from PCamerica...but the product is reliable.
The story ends with "Will more data usually perform better than a better algorithm?"
All that does is expose the ignorance of the experimenter, and that of the writer.
It is a well-known and easily demonstrated principal that more data and an algorithm are interchangeable; you can always do it either way. In "Software Physics," it was called the "space/time" tradeoff (i.e., the "space" in memory occupied by the data, the "time" occupied by the process).
Imagine that you need to frequently obtain the square-root of an integer. If your integers range from 0..100 (with results from 0..10), all you need is a 101-entry lookup table with the values to whatever precision you require. However, the table grows larger when you have millions of potential values (actually, potentially infinitely large). This is a "data intensive" solution (with a negligible process...the table lookup is, afterall, a process); call it 99% data/1% process.
It is also possible to create a program using any of the various time-tested algorithms which, when given a value, will compute the square-root. This is a "process intensive" solution (with a negligible amount of data...typically some constants); call it 99% process/1% data.
Now, between the extremes of 1/99 and 99/1, there are an infinite varieties of solutions, each one customized and tailored to the specific needs of the application, each with their own data/process trades-off. To claim that one is inherently superior to the other is an exercise in futility (or ignorance, depending on your viewpoint). The correct answer is, "It depends..."
What's totally unspoken in this report is the PROCESS involved in identifying and gathering the additional "data." It just exposes the original work (and the original reporter of that work here) as performed by incompetents who have nothing constructive to say on the subject. They might do some research in the field before drawing sweeping conclusions with no basis in fact. (And, a demonstration is NOT a proof.)
See the actual section of that section of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./tem p/~c110QVTqNO:e38473:
It says when an organization or individual is "...paid by a client..." to create a "grassroots" movement (called "astroturfing").
I don't read it to mean it would affect bloggers at all...UNLESS they're paid to write about something and induce others to take political action.
The language could be clearer, however.
The IETF sets standards that govern the Internet.
We need a comparable body to establish standards for hardware for voting equipment and befoe-and-after testing procedures to ensure software and configuration integrity, coupled with Open-Source software for the voting software itself.
Open source software would ensure that the code doesn't have latent (or intentional) bugs. Robust before-and-after testing (e.g., external validation of the software integrity from outside the computer) by law enforcement personnnel would ensure they haven't been tampered with.
The hardware standards (for keyboard, video, touchscreens, access ports for testing, etc.) would ensure that vendors can still make money selling the hardware, and independent testing would provide "Seals of Approval" for valid equipment.
Is this so hard for politicians to understand? After all, voting and Habeas Corpus are the fundamental underpinnings of democracy. Let's solve the first with a federally-funded OSS project, while the courts restore the latter.
--Carol Anne
I allocate a partition, named "X:" and schedule a 100% image of all other drives to that partition (you can also do it to another hard drive, even a USB-connected external drive). You can compress, or not, as you wish (I use their standard compression, and have it configured to be broken in to 700MB chunks, in case I need to move it to CDs.) My backup runs automatically, every Sunday, at 2:30 am.
Make an occasional copy of the entire backup to CD or DVDs (I often use Dual-Layer DVDs to get 9GB commpressed, or about 18GB of original content, per disk).
Now, getting to back: Run TrueImage, use the option to "Mount the backup." It loads up the entire backup as a new set of drives (say, S: is your C: drive, T: is you D:, etc.). You can map the copy on the the X: partition, or the one from your disks (although the latter will require some disk-shuffling if its' a big backup). Now copy from the backup to your active drives at will. Then "Unmount" the drive. No clumsy "Recovery" like conventional backup tools like the excrable "Backup MyPC."
Nope it's useful. I've set up dozens of these at client sites, and they love it. They're always backed up (say, daily), and they can make easy off-site copies (say, typically 2 DVD, or one Dual-Layer DVD) once a week.
It was about 1962, when IBM was touting something they called "Percolate & Drip" storage.
The idea was that things that were used often "percolated" up to the fastest storage medium, while data that was only infrequently used would "drip" down to the most capacious media.
Why do children get to claim everything they imagine is somehow NEW? Mature adults try to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Slashdot Mirror
...when it installs itself, in Windows, at %Userprofile%\Application Data\Google Chrome? That is just amateur programming, and is a real beast if you're in an Active Directory environment with Roaming Profiles, 'cause the damn software keeps getting copied to/from the server with ever logon/logoff. I understand Google might consider compliance with separation of programs from their data might be "difficult," but the ease with which any malmare can corrupt Chrome because of it's lack of installation security make Chrome a pariah in our environment, and I've banned it from all our and client computers!
I disagree. We all make mistakes...even huge companies. But, it's what they do AFTER they make a biggie that marks those the consumer can have confidence in, or not. Gateway had failures, but never tried to improve their practices, so they're still an "also ran." IBM decided it was smarter to get out of the business that didn't fit their management model, post-Gerstner. HP I've written about before in this thread. Dell has won my confidence, and they've not (to my knowledge) ever lied to me. They deserve my caution during the recovery, but they seem to be doing well at it, so I'm likely to say a "Dell-preferred" professional.
Amen. I've bought 'em all since 1980, one vendor or another, and Dell is STILL my preferred choice. I agree: This story is WA-A-AY old, and the problems of the Dell Latitude D6xx series is another old one that still gets flogged by lazy journalists. Remember, Michael Dell stepped down as CEO (in favor of Rollins) in March, 2004. From that date, Dell deteriorated: Support was outsourced to India, Purchasing bought cheap crap from mainland China, and Development was cut back to the bare bone. A deteriorating Dell reputation was the result, and Michael Dell stepped back into the CEO role in January, 2007, to arrest the slide. It's taken him a long time, but Customer Service still is VASTLY better than HP or Lenovo or Gateway, they offer Next Day On-Site Repair, and they stand by the extended warranties they had to issue after the crap Rollins bought started failing in customer sites. I still rate Dell as better than 94% on a scale of Perfect, with the nearest competitor below 85%. HP, for instance, has taken the same route: They hired Carly Fiorina who trashed the place (e.g., killing the Customer Service Operation, recognized as World Class by the industry), corrupted the brand with Compaq, laid off everybody competent. They then brought in "seat warmer" Mark Hurd, who is barely holding on by his fingernails...and there is STILL no decent Customer Support or Product Quality improvement on the horizon; they're just chasing the Stock Price (mostly with over-priced printer supplies), as that's how Senior Executives get rich. I'll stick with Dell. This story is bad, but it's ancient history, and there's nobody on the horizon who's likely to ever do any better.
I know, that's too much to ask of modern code monkeys. How many of you who "good enough" quality have ever even read a book on "Software Engineering?" Have you even HEARD of the original NATO conference on that subject? How many have studied interesting "Software Physics." Yes, all code I write has bugs, because I am not omniscient. There are inputs and environments I never imagined the program having to cope with. But about half the code I write has two things rarely seen in code today: 1. Comments in the form of Assertions (e.g. "At this point, input XYZ is confirmed to be in the range 87...92". 2. About half the lines of actual code (absent comments) are validation of input conditions from the world (user and environment) outside the program itself. Perfection is not actually achievable, but IT'S THE ONLY TARGET WORTH PURSUING. Companies like Microsoft don't even try, because they're not in the software business; they're in the money-making business. Professionals care; money-grubbers aren't.
You might be surprised that the Uniform Commercial Code often trumps local law in the courts. As I said, earlier, get an attorney if you're really concerned about ownership. And, documentation is key: If you don't have a written contract BEFORE you start the project, while everybody is still friendly, expect to be surprised by the other party with unscrupulous tendancies.
There's a practical presumption in law that if you pay for something and it is delivered, you own it. You have to have it in writing if you don't want to work that way. That, for instance, is why we have those obnoxious (and legally tenouous) "shrink-wrap" licenses. Because "licensing" is not the same as "owning." If licensing were the normal case in common law, you wouldn't need a "licensing" agreement.
Now, admittedly, I'm an independent business owner and computer consultant. But, that means I have to sell myself to every prospective client each time they're first introduced to my company and my services. I build systems, providing "contract CIO" advisory services, write the odd special-purpose program (or modify one for a client's specific needs), and all for a fee I can characterize as "a pretty penny." Age discrimination is, in my opinion, in a convenient excuse for not staying abreast of the latest advances and tools. I'm spending my time, just as this is being written, figuring out the ins'n'outs of Windows 7, so I can do a better job for my clients, whom I expect will be upgrading over the coming months. My erstwhile competitors, aged 30-50, are still insisting the only solution for client problems is a wholesale reinstall of Windows XP Pro. Most people peg my age at "mid-50s." Is my appearance a bonus...or a consequence of my insistance on investing hours every week in learning new things and in keeping my mind "fresh."
...Don't Believe Them. Most UPS' are woefully under-powered, with the intent to offer only a few minutes of uptime. I'm looking for a solution that uses external automobile batteries, instead of those "convenient" internal, sealed batteries. I recently acquired a 3,000 VA Rackmount UPS and with the load of a single 5W clock (to measure runtime), it was dead in 8 hours! About 2/3 of power in the batteries is used just to power the DC-to-AC converters, so count on a lot less power usable than specified.
Not a one of you apparently has any experience in creating a "culture" (I'd even challenge you to DEFINE "culture" in a productive and operational way). Every /.er seems to have an opinion, as if their experience is universal. It is to laugh.
... AND a "recovering shrink.")
Creating a "Community" is a very worthy goal, and I've done it dozens of times with F500 businesses. Creating an over-arching "Culture" is a bit more difficult, but I just did it for a 120-person not-for-profit here in California..
To start with, you need to have some grounding in communications and behavior...and I don't mean Psych101; I'm talking about someone at the level of a Ph.D. You need to assess what's working, and what's not, and be able to distinguish the difference. Then, you need to work with anyone and everyone to define what you'd LIKE to be in the future..
Are people there for the paycheck? You don't have a chance. Does management consider "People" a bother and excessively expensive? No chance..
But, even in a dispirited organization, it is possible, despite what some of the people in here say. It's not trivial, but the journey is most assuredly worthwhile..
If you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be happy...but not in this forum, populated with people who don't even understand the language of the art. (And, yes, I'm a "recoverying geek"
I've proven to my clients, time-after-time, for more than half a century, that programming is done BACKWARDS from good practice: We write code (maybe with comments), then we go back and document it.
Instead of some vague specification, we need to start with DOCUMENTATION. We need to write the first draft of the user manual (or, in modular programming, the programmer's reference) BEFORE a line of code is written. That document must be reviewed and amended until all (or a good representative sample of) the "consumers" of that software are satisfied with how it will work. (For example, Windows is NEVER reviewed by real end users in simulation or documentation, so we get the persistent and buggy output of Redmond's programmers.) AFTER we know what we're trying to achieve, we can write requisite code to achieve those results.
Yes, I know that's heresy...but it's the ENGINEERING way to do the job.
Perhaps you've forgotten: Computers are here to serve human beings, not the other way 'round.
There is a fundamental lack of engineering principles in programming, which leads to a lot of lousy programs. When I apply good engineering practice to software design, it always turns out better in the end, especially when you realize that you're not writing "A" program, but the first of a series of ever-changing (hopefully "ever-improving"( programs, which we identify as "versions." Even tiny scripts of mine have gone through many iterations as I discover conditions under which they don't perform, or I discover a new capability that has become important, now that users (and I) have gained experience with the original.
Until programmers realize they must have a DISCIPLINED approach, we'll contine to implement software that is evolved through the finding of bugs, instead of focusing on getting it right the first time.
Both are free. I actually prefer UltraVNC (but for primitive documentation). Both require you to set up things at the other end (e.g., firewall pinholes, on both computers and routers). But, for my money, UltraVNC is much better and more reliable, once you get the hand of it. --Carol Anne
I invented this and published it more than 30 years ago, during the early debate between CISC and RISC microprocessors. It was in the (now defunct) "Modern Data" magazine, in my column "Carol's Microcosm." It's an obvious solution for any computer programmer who understands hardware logic.
I believe, after 53 years in this industry, you're likely asking the wrong question.
I learned programming BEFORE there were schools of any kind, but my mentors, Bill Orchard-Hays was a mathemetician, and Eli Hellerman had his Bachelor's in Statistics, and a Masters in Conducting. Jack Moshman was a world-leading Operation Research Ph.D. These kinds of people were able to imagine things others couldn't, were able to see past appearances to find nuggets of real underlying value.
The first issue is, what do you want to do? As someone wrote, if you just want to be a "code monkey," you need about the level of skills of a "shade tree mechanic." If you want to be considered someone people look up to (and handsomely reward), however, you need to be well-read, especially in abstract thought (history, music theory, etc.).
In my own case, I started in electronics in 1956, learned programmin in 1962-3, and was one of the few people who could both draw a (workable) schematic and write (credible) code. It gave me a distinct "leg up" over my peers who were limited to one or the other. I never had the benefit of college/university, but I've taught at several, all because I have been a student all my life. I'm STILL learning, at 67 years. Along the way, my reputation was such that I billed myself (before semi-retiring) at more than $2,000/day (back when that was real money!).
The executives who hired me couldn't care if I had a "sheepskin" or three noses. What they cared about was that I had accumulated 40 years' experience, not two year's experience twenty times over. That's where most of my peers were: They were enamored of their homes, their cars, their sports, but they were NOT engaged in permanent, perpetual learning. Personally, I'm only comfortable when presented with what I perceive as a problem that is 105% of my self-perceived capacity.
So, focus on how much value you can add to your employer (or client), and build on that. Take the dirty jobs nobody else wants...and excel at making them outstanding successes. Heck, in 1963 I was a "programmer's aide," (paid lower than the department's secretary!) and by 1965 I was Chief Programmer in charge of the Beverly Hills office of the (then) world's largest "Contract Programming and Service Bureau" firm. They didn't care about credentials, they were focused on billable results.
Best of luck, but never rest on your laurels or your diploma(s). Always seek to excel, aim toward perfection (while unachievable, it's the only target worth aiming at), and understand how your BOSS gets measured, and contribute to THAT.
Personally, when I'm hiring, I'm looking for the right attitude and personal philosophy. I can teach any high school grad to program, but I can't instill them with a "can do" attitude, a willingness to take on the unpalatable jobs that still need to be done, the unquenchable thrist for learning. So, I hire for what I need (that attitude), and fill in the blanks over time.
Best of luck!
I've been to the jboss site; I've seen the HornetQ webpages. Now, after 52 years as a sysadmin, programmer, CIO, etc. I can't figure out what it is, and why I should care. I get the sense that the jargon suggests is a way for clustered computers to exchange messages to coordinate their activities, but that's a sheer guess. Would one of you who know what this product does be so kind as to explain to me what this product does, and why I should look further into it? Sorry about this rant, but this is one of those cases where I'm sure the developers know what they're trying to accomplish, but I, as their potential user, perceive as a full description in an ancient dialect of Sanskrit.
http://www.avg.com/business-security
I've installed in several environments of multiple WinXP Pro workstations.
Put the "server" part on one ocmputer; let it do the updating and provide for central configuration.
You still have to install clients on each computer. I like to use InstallRite (http://www.epsilonsquared.com/installrite.htm): Run the "before setup" part of InstallRite, do the full install and configuration, then run the "after startup" part of capture a single file "Install Kit" that you can then run on the rest of the computers to get it fully installed. It saves lots and lots of time.
In the AVG Network Edition, the "server" contacts AVG's update server, then acts as a local proxy for that update information to the clients.
I BAN Symantec and Norton products from all computers we maintain under contract: Great advertising, but lousy products that can't be uninstalled: There are lingering traces that require Unlocker (http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/) and a high-quality registry cleaner (I like jv16 Power Tools, http://www.macecraft.com/jv16powertools2009/) to root out all of the junk Symantec leaves behind. Not worth the effort when I can install a better, cheaper and more-reliable product (AVG).
Palm has snatched defeat from certain victory about every six months since they started. When they split into two companies with the fantasy of licensing their O.S. to the cellphone community, I knew they were dead; nobody is going to do business with such an antedeluvian management. It appears to me they know nothing about marketing, nothing about support, and--progressively--less and less about designing products people want to buy. And, when they do put in features, they seldom work (ever tried WiFi from a Palm Tungsten?). The company is led by greedy, stupid people who's only consistency is their stoopidity. This is just another nail in their self-built coffin. And, yes, I still keep my Tungsten C's in good working order, and since spares now cost me only about $50, I expect my use of the Tungsten will outlive the company itself. From the trenches of modern technology, --Carol Anne
Put in a cheap WiFi Router in the Library (set for 802.11b only; the Palm can do 802.11g), and WEP for security (if you must; why not let others use the same database?). Cost: About $35 Now, buy a used Palm Tungsten C from eBay (about $75), and make sure the seller guarantees the WiFi will work (many don't). Now you have, for roughly $125, your own link to the network, and no further monthly expenses. I've got lots of clients where we do this; I use my Tungsten with those system almost every day.
After nine books, I've learned: Write the text, create the illustrations and diagrams, and stop worrying about how to format it. You're not going to have much control over that anyway (that's up to the publisher). On the other hand, if you're planning on pre-publishing your own work in draft, for feedback (and publicity), you will need to worry about formatting, appearance, layout, consistency, etc. Personally, my approach is to do my next book rough-draft as a blog (http://perfect-computer.blogspot.com; only a couple of weeks old). That keeps me focused on the ideas and concepts, and not on the exact wording, nor the formatting. Then, when I think I've said what I want to say, I'll assemble it all into a manuscript for publication. It's easier to get a contract that way, 'cause you can show "samples" of your work. Frankly, you can waste so much of your time on the publishing details you can lose enthusiasm for your work. Write. Write longhand, if you must, but Write. Let the publisher worry about the forms and formats.
I've got clients quite happy with RPE/CRE from www.pcamerica.com. Has full reporting capabilities, and a lot more flexibility than the vendor lets on (we change menu layouts every few days to maximize revenue; the documentation on how to do that is spare-to-non-existant from PCamerica...but the product is reliable.
The story ends with "Will more data usually perform better than a better algorithm?" All that does is expose the ignorance of the experimenter, and that of the writer. It is a well-known and easily demonstrated principal that more data and an algorithm are interchangeable; you can always do it either way. In "Software Physics," it was called the "space/time" tradeoff (i.e., the "space" in memory occupied by the data, the "time" occupied by the process). Imagine that you need to frequently obtain the square-root of an integer. If your integers range from 0..100 (with results from 0..10), all you need is a 101-entry lookup table with the values to whatever precision you require. However, the table grows larger when you have millions of potential values (actually, potentially infinitely large). This is a "data intensive" solution (with a negligible process...the table lookup is, afterall, a process); call it 99% data/1% process. It is also possible to create a program using any of the various time-tested algorithms which, when given a value, will compute the square-root. This is a "process intensive" solution (with a negligible amount of data...typically some constants); call it 99% process/1% data. Now, between the extremes of 1/99 and 99/1, there are an infinite varieties of solutions, each one customized and tailored to the specific needs of the application, each with their own data/process trades-off. To claim that one is inherently superior to the other is an exercise in futility (or ignorance, depending on your viewpoint). The correct answer is, "It depends..." What's totally unspoken in this report is the PROCESS involved in identifying and gathering the additional "data." It just exposes the original work (and the original reporter of that work here) as performed by incompetents who have nothing constructive to say on the subject. They might do some research in the field before drawing sweeping conclusions with no basis in fact. (And, a demonstration is NOT a proof.)
See the actual section of that section of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./tem p/~c110QVTqNO:e38473:
It says when an organization or individual is "...paid by a client..." to create a "grassroots" movement (called "astroturfing").
I don't read it to mean it would affect bloggers at all...UNLESS they're paid to write about something and induce others to take political action.
The language could be clearer, however.
The IETF sets standards that govern the Internet. We need a comparable body to establish standards for hardware for voting equipment and befoe-and-after testing procedures to ensure software and configuration integrity, coupled with Open-Source software for the voting software itself. Open source software would ensure that the code doesn't have latent (or intentional) bugs. Robust before-and-after testing (e.g., external validation of the software integrity from outside the computer) by law enforcement personnnel would ensure they haven't been tampered with. The hardware standards (for keyboard, video, touchscreens, access ports for testing, etc.) would ensure that vendors can still make money selling the hardware, and independent testing would provide "Seals of Approval" for valid equipment. Is this so hard for politicians to understand? After all, voting and Habeas Corpus are the fundamental underpinnings of democracy. Let's solve the first with a federally-funded OSS project, while the courts restore the latter. --Carol Anne
Use Acronis' TrueImage Home ($50 at http://www.acronis.com/
I allocate a partition, named "X:" and schedule a 100% image of all other drives to that partition (you can also do it to another hard drive, even a USB-connected external drive). You can compress, or not, as you wish (I use their standard compression, and have it configured to be broken in to 700MB chunks, in case I need to move it to CDs.) My backup runs automatically, every Sunday, at 2:30 am.
Make an occasional copy of the entire backup to CD or DVDs (I often use Dual-Layer DVDs to get 9GB commpressed, or about 18GB of original content, per disk).
Now, getting to back: Run TrueImage, use the option to "Mount the backup." It loads up the entire backup as a new set of drives (say, S: is your C: drive, T: is you D:, etc.). You can map the copy on the the X: partition, or the one from your disks (although the latter will require some disk-shuffling if its' a big backup). Now copy from the backup to your active drives at will. Then "Unmount" the drive. No clumsy "Recovery" like conventional backup tools like the excrable "Backup MyPC."
Nope it's useful. I've set up dozens of these at client sites, and they love it. They're always backed up (say, daily), and they can make easy off-site copies (say, typically 2 DVD, or one Dual-Layer DVD) once a week.
Try it. You'll like it.
It was about 1962, when IBM was touting something they called "Percolate & Drip" storage. The idea was that things that were used often "percolated" up to the fastest storage medium, while data that was only infrequently used would "drip" down to the most capacious media. Why do children get to claim everything they imagine is somehow NEW? Mature adults try to stand on the shoulders of giants.