Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Every organisation needs a "not boring" slot of time for their developers. Not for product that needs to ship NOW.. but for stuff that may need to ship next year.
Except I would add: "may never ship at all."
The key point here is you aren't betting the company on it, but you still should be doing it. Every company should encourage innovation - and even if the company isn't willing to bet any cash on it. Another way is to encourage your developers to spend some time on their own personal FOSS projects. What this gives you is experience - and from a risk vs. reward perspective, success is attained not by how much working (boring) code you produce, but really how many times you try something that fails, and get up again and keep pushing on with new/modified ideas based upon this experience giving your customers real value. Companies without this perseverance will fail, or at best will be mediocre.
On the flip side - if your core business (the part that you are trying to show your customers you are innovative and a leader in) becomes too boring - and by too boring I mean while it may 'work', it may not do what a customer really wants/needs - then you run the risk of losing those customers to someone who will try and be willing to fail.
Just like all oversimplified prescriptions, the article's concept does not take into account the nuances of business goals, risk aversion level, available human factors and skills, and so on.
just too funny. the MS guys really do think the whole world is MS.
It is funny, and I've had it happen in the past too - I think because of some misconfiguration, not from not using Outlook or Windows. But the idea is that the whole place uses a unified system, which does allow for nifty corporate functions like recalling emails. The issue you saw was that you were allowed to have a rogue setup.
On the other other hand, it is of course very hard to lock down what is by nature supposed to be extremely interoperable
It's the perfect mass murderer's weapon.
Then why isn't it already used for mass murder? It's apparently widely legal.
They should have viewed this presentation about increasing a python data crunching application 114,000 times faster before they set off on their research project.
To summarize - there are a multitude of ways to optimize your application including using the chip's onboard cache to avoid the overhead/delay of accessing memory on the motherboard across the bus
Yes - as we try to eek out more performance from our applications - we'll need to consider the relationship between our applications and the underlying implementation and capabilities of the hardware it lives on. Further - I would say we also should be considering how to make our tools do this sort of thing for us. Given the complexities we are seeing in the development arena today, including virtualization, the need to do more with less both on the back end, as well as on small hand held devices, and the need to build more faster while increasing security of what we build, I consider it imperative.
The Beschdel test is based on the idea that many writers will create female characters not as actual characters but as a love interest.
I'll bite; why is a love interest not an actual character?
For as long as old men, sit and talk about the weather,
For as long as old women, sit and talk about old men,
But then George was a man, so what does he know
A computer is not a smartphone. I guarantee kids today are not dissembling their smartphones, or writing code to try and figure out how they work. I have noticed that kids care far less about the actual technology now a days then we did back in the 70s-80s.
But it feels soooo good for them to say things that they think are sophisticated, that they can't apply some elementary logic to the situation.
A worm is not sophisticated because he thinks the whole world is mud. Kind of the opposite.
The only real solution is to educate kids on good internet practices -- and most parents aren't using them either, nor know what to do, or what to teach.
And where do you think we educate them on those good practices? That's right; it's not in their pocket with the smart phone.
There's no reason for most children to have pocket Internet connected computers.
Heck, we have our family computer in the living room. So a pocket Internet connected computer would kind of defeat the point
OK, now can we admit its not a "religion of peace"?
(quick, mod him down, he said something we don't like! Plus all religions are equally evil - Presbyterians are just itchin to shop off some heads! Plus, wascally wepubwicans!)
So how is this news?