Businesses--or rather small businesses that are more prone to vulnerabilities due to poor maintenance--are largely going over to cloud services which filter outbound and inbound e-mail. The cloud service anti-spam engines gain more data for heuristics which applies to all customers.
IT administrators have probably also become more aware of restricting outbound SMTP traffic at the firewall or client level.
expect a technician to mess up the PC when replacing HW, then get refusal from HP to do anything until you have reinstalled to factory defaults, if you'd even know how to do that.
This move is about the complexity of programming computers. By removing the GUI dependency, you simplify the life of the developer, not to mention the savings you get from not having to design, program, localize, and test a GUI in various builds.--MicroSoft is free to repeat the mistake with Excel, though--localizing function names and keywords.
That said, you're always going to have a GUI anyway (if you're sane), like forms for user account creation, but then you'd have to roll your own (fragmented), and since you're rolling your own, you are going to make mistakes or miss something at some level, and all of these mistakes are multiplied by the number of scripters, but at least you'd have the freedom to do so.
Scripts are about removing the concept of applications (to some degree) and focus on services and functionality. This is a good thing, since you can now roll your own user interface.
The purpose of in-code documentation is to bring awareness to the various situations surrounding certain parts of a program. Contracts, parameters, and protocols already have a place in documentation of its own.
You simply need to realize that the human mind goes through a lot context changes when doing programming--it's not likely that anyone has the same mindset the next time they touch the same logic.
Documentation in this sense is to write as much or as little required to bring awareness to assumptions, consequences, etc--it's not like writing the philosophy of the API, defining its parameters and protocols. You may have already written that, as it's the reference for both your own code, and for the users of the API, and other programmers.
BACK THE FUCK UP!
It's business, you're not supposed to care, but people won't stop you from feeling guilty.
Nobody cares about you getting stressed or losing sleep over some unsolved problem.
If they can make you feel bad without even trying, then they're not going to stop; it's working to their advantage.
You're there because they don't know the quirks of the "let's just ship it" piece of shit software we have to make work or troubleshoot at times.
Also, if they can't afford to pay what it costs to have an IT person, then why give them the advantage over other businesses by working for a substantially lower pay?
Of course, unless you're living at home with your parents, you can't really be that choosey.
That's also the fundamental flaw that keeps certain shitty businesses alive.
Working in IT, you're bound to come across pirated software from time to time.
a) When I find some pirated software or license misuses, I could for instance tell the client that "I'm not the police, but..."
I might also make them aware that there is this company that looks out for software vendors--the business software alliance, for instance.
b) When a client is aware that they're asking me to do something illegal, like ignoring license agreements etc, I tell them that I don't care what people do privately (nor do I assist them in that case either), but this is not the act of doing serious business--or tell them sorry, and explain that the company I work for won't allow me to do this, etc. If they still insist, they are a lost cause. You can only spend so much energy on these matters.
I'd prefer that more commercial business software would come with some activation mechanism. I've seen cases where clients have ordered one license, then gone ahead installing the software on most every PC, and when confronted about this, they've argued that only one of them uses it at the time--but the license agreement does not allow it to be installed on more than one PC.
You'll most often find that objectivity is the first thing to be sacrificed in business, so hang on to it, tight, or lose it.
http://embedded.com/columns/technicalinsights/218401508?pgno=1
"Calculating trajectories for Apollo program"
"Jack Crenshaw describes what he and team members did to research trajectories for the Apollo missions."
lol Cheyenne Mountain doesn't exist.
There won't be a problem connecting the hard disk to newer systems, as there will always be adapters, like we have today with the PATA/SATA bridge to USB products.
However, there are far more points of failure with hard disks than with optical media.
Those who sell hard disks in an external closure as a backup solutions have failed as much as those who use RAID as backup today, but what's worse is that these external hard disk products can't handle any impact at all, and they come with vertical stands (!), and dubious power supply connectors to add to the dependencies.
As for optical media:
- the label surface seems to be the most fragile of the two surfaces during reading.
- should be stored away from heat sources, ultraviolet radiation, and avoid high fluctuations in humidity.
- should (apparently) be stored vertically.
- you lose less data than with a hard disk.
- burn multiple copies
- reburn after N years
- competence/awareness of sessions/closed sessions, optical media file systems, etc
Print everything in base 16 to paper and rely on OCR to get your zip files back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl2qocBpM1U
"Lars congratulates YouTube users for their great versions of Metallica songs. Metallica's new album "Death Magnetic" released September 12th, 2008."
If by Japanese you mean "Konnichiwa, mothafuckaaa", then no.
From the fine article: "We also wanted to introduce modern concepts, such as object orientation, type safety, garbage collection"
These are modern concepts?
Simula. Simula. Simula.
This was defined in the 1960s, and sadly, it's become worse today.
Dynamic OOP is one of the earliest *good* concepts in computing, along with virtualization ("byte-code").
Verdict:
C# is a poor attempt at making something good.
C# is developed by MiC#roSoft--those who brought us Windows and New Technology technology.
C# not very popular.
One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.
