|
That was before everyone was preaching that compilers are better than the average assembly programmer and also before processors that were not meant to be programmed in assembly anymore. Over in Q&A you can see what you get when teachers destroy all confidence students may have before they even had a chance to try.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: Over in Q&A you can see what you get when teachers destroy all confidence students may have before they even had a chance to try.
I don't think that's whats happening, the problem seems to be the kids* aren't interested in how programming/machines work in general. What they want to do is cobble together an app as quickly as possible from a set of readily downloadable parts, preferable with a name related to caffine. It looks like old school hacking ( hacker - sense 1) but without the desire to know how any of it hangs together / works. They then leave university with huge amounts of confidence, but not the ability to match, because they've managed to tack together a few small lego-brick style systems. The immediate reaction also seems to be to seek help, rather than to try and figure out the problem individually first - and then we end up with the "send codez plz" requests.
Obviously that's a mahoooooooosive and sweeping generalisation on my part, but it does seem to be the trend, and not a new one. I remember experienced hands when I graduated saying similar things about my cohort when we entered the jobs market. Perhaps it's because we've been deskilling the task of programming and the "hard" knowledge has become less necessary until you hit actual problems?
* anyone under, say, 30. Mutters under own breath. Exhorts people to get of my lawn. Uses words like exhorts.
|
|
|
|
|
I always feel a little sorry for them. At every corner they are being told that nobody uses this oldschool stuff anymore. Very much of that is fueled by an industry that only wants to sell some more stuff. Trust the marketing. They will happily tell you what you need to know.
Don't you think that they would learn a little more by building a small 8 bit computer and then programming a simple BIOS than by learning yet some more JavaScript? When nobody teaches them the basics, how are they supposed to undestand what they are doing on their own?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I remeber the Computer Shopper magazine, not sure if it was just local, but they had all the computer hardware that was available listed. I used to drool ove it!
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, had I read it back in 1981, I would have still laughed at this article. This guy was out of touch even back then.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. Let's bring our boxes online and send each other mails. Later we can perhaps even reach 9600 bps. Our computers back then had bit banged software controlled serial communication at 300 bps. Later we optimized it up to 2400 bps in software and 4800 bps if we raised the CPU's clock frequency. 9600 bps does not sound totally out of the question.
As for the modem - we tried, but our contraption did not work. At least our poor parents honestly could not explain what happened and their innocence was absolutely plausible. 
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, modems definitely sucked back then...I still remember the acoustically coupled ones where you actually had to put the phone's headset into a rubber cup-like receptacle.
That said, the direction of e-mail was fairly obvious even back then. They started standardizing e-mail headers as far back as the early 70's (RFC 561). Arpanet had been kicking around for a while, when CSNET debuted in 1981...the year this guy wrote the article. I remember actually sending e-mails over CSNET as early as 1982.
So, a small amount of reading, even back then, should have exposed this as an idea who's time had already passed.
Though, starting in 1983, that didn't stop products like MCI Mail from making money on a slight variation of the idea...for quite a while. Heck, over its 20 year lifetime, that product alone made a fair amount of money. If you add in similar products, collectively they probably did make a billion
|
|
|
|
|
BY 1981 I was using a home built IBM clone and running Fidonet at 2400 baud, leter went up to 96000 baud a few years later..
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Really? The IBM PC was first sold in September 1981 and you already had a built a clone? Was it perhaps a CP/M machine instead and the PC came later?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Good to know that they described a fax machine essentially and that the author was right. Had he known that in another 4 years that there would be a full stack of networking protocols finished on BSD he would have described the rough system of Email. John C. Dvorak would have probably written a similar article. Also don't look up the address in the ad to the right of the article. It's not exactly in the good part of Cleveland.
I also like the author's byte encoded word dictionary compression rom idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes, I really wish Randall wouldn't get it quite so right[^] - particularly the mouse over text ... 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Those were the days...
Nothing to do all day but making holes into things with guns and other even better means.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to have a toy called Super Flight Deck - if the plane was replaced with a small marble which was then fired at a standard single pane of glass (such as one might find in one's parent's sitting room) the marble shattered on impact while punching a perfectly circular marble sized hole through the glass. The presence of several such holes were evidence that the first one wasn't a fluke. My father was less than impressed by my experimentation.
|
|
|
|
|
What some people fail to understand is that it takes less time to drill the 500 holes manually than to have SW bug-free enough mechatronics that work-
|
|
|
|
|
  That's what I was thinking.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retro
|
|
|
|
|
I was looking for an email address and hit various sites. One of them, ripoff report, had the following across the top of the page:
Quote: NOTICE! Those consumers located in the European Union, effective 5/24/2018 due to the GDPR, citizens of any GDPR applicable country or anyone sitting in, or operating from, such country are prohibited from using this site. Read our Terms of Service to learn more. By using our site you understand and agree to these terms. Don't blame us... blame Europe! This site uses cookies to store information on your computer which may track your browsing behavior on our site and provide you with ads or other offers that may be relevant to you. Some are essential to make our site work; others help us improve the user experience. Read our Privacy Policy to learn more.
There are two ways to handle the EU's GDPR laws. One is to comply. The other, above, is a very valid alternative. (note: bold face in quote is mine)
Giving it some thought, I think I'd do the same for my websites that could possibly fall under the EU's jackboots.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
As a consumer I'm very much in favor of the GDPR.
If I do not wish to use a website anymore and I want to delete my account, for whatever reason, I want to be able to do that.
I'm also not very fond of companies selling whatever info they have of me to other companies that I have no knowledge of.
Etc. Etc. You've probably heard all of this before.
As a developer I also understand that this is very difficult to implement in existing systems.
In fact, I'm currently implementing it in a new and small application that I'm building and it's already a PITA (like, I need to be able to delete customers, but I want to keep their orders and some other data for reporting).
If you're not implementing this from the start you're in for a lot of hard work.
And I do understand that a lot of companies that have little or no business in Europe choose not to implement it.
It's a little ridiculous that Europeans are now excluded from many services that are not located in Europe though.
If non-European companies get excused from the rule everyone will move overseas though, so I get that too.
I hope GDPR is a worldwide future so no one is left out and everyone has their data at least a little bit protected.
It may not be perfect, but at least steps are made.
Your web and privacy laws pretty much come from a time where the web didn't even exist
I absolutely detest the "we use cookies" warning though 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I absolutely detest the "we use cookies" warning though
Once is OK and possibly needed, but those that show it every time are simply proving that they aren't capable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which shows they haven't bothered at all.
How many nags about cookies and GDPR have you recieved from Codeproject? One extra right?
That's because Chris actually found out what it all was about. And however much extra work it is for the developers, it's all about things you would want the companies you're dealing with to have control over in any case.
|
|
|
|
|
You get one for every time you clean out the cookies in your PC.
One way to reduce the amount of spying on you is to delete all cookies every Sunday night (at least). So you start every week with a "We use cookies" from every website you visit. After a few weeks, it becomes a habit to click that OK button without worrying about it at all.
If you want to be even more safe, delete all cookies after you've been visiting FB or any Google service or similar. And don't log in on any site until you have to. When you log in, they don't need the cookies to track your activities, and deleting the cookies doesn't delete the info that those sites store about you. Note that sometimes, it isn't enough to log out from the website to return to anonymous state: They may keep their eyes on you even if you don't have access to their services. You have to log out from the web site, delete all cookies and other info that web pages store on you machine, quit the browser and log out or restart your PC. (In other words: Visit FB at the end of the day, not in the morning.)
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: You get one for every time you clean out the cookies in your PC.
Which in my case is everytime I close the browser... (ESR version and Domain politics, no changeably for me) 
Member 7989122 wrote: After a few weeks, it becomes a habit to click that OK button without worrying about it at all.
Which can be a bigger danger than the cookie itself, if you don't pay attention to which "OK" you click, because you "automated" it
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Which can be a bigger danger than the cookie itself, if you don't pay attention to which "OK" you click, because you "automated" it
I never log in to any web site before I have to - I accept the reduced service level of not being logged in (such as web newspaper articles being available ony by heading/teaser).
Similarly, I do not OK cookies until I "have to". If I get what I want without accepting the cookies, I'm fine with a banner, usually atthe bottom of the window telling me to click OK. It reduces the usable part of the window a little bit, but that's usually OK.
Several times, when web sites force me to create an account or accept cookies before giving me enough of a teaser to reveal if they have anything to offer that I want, I don't trust them, press the 'Back' button and forget about that site. I very rarely "have to" visit an unknown web site.
So those that I OK are usually well known web sites (like CP or Google or web shops I use regularly). I do not OK by routine. But then again, I have not made myself dependent on e.g. asocial media and dozens of mobile apps. I can mostly do with old style solutions that are less suspectible to monitoring.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
