|
For those with an aversion to clicking Farcebook links: direct link to the image[^]
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exceptional lady!
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
I know the voices in my head are not real but damn they come up with some good ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: Exceptional lady!
Yeah right? Especially considering the year. Must've been challenging for women in those jobs. Here are some more (not sure if it's a Leslie): http://modernnotion.com/human-computers-broke-barriers-women-science/[^]
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
They've definitely had obstacles to overcome.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
I know the voices in my head are not real but damn they come up with some good ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
Quite the legacy! She is even credited with coining the term "Software Engineering", which is a term that is on my business card today... And I had never even heard of her. Fascinating story -- thanks for posting!
|
|
|
|
|
Might need to ask Leslie whether or not he's seen it.
|
|
|
|
|
With the photo being 40 years old, I wouldn't be surprised. However, I'm not as bothered by Leslie as some people.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Countess Ada Lovelace
Rear Admiral Grace Hopper
Margaret Hamilton
...
I've just read the Wiki page about Ms. Hamilton. It makes me wonder how many other (unsung, unknown) women laid the foundations of our craft?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Wiki Info[^]
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Linear feet of code was one of the unofficial metrics for the final project in my HS 2nd year programming class.
RIP Fanfold Paper. ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
@ all re Margaret Hamilton
I discovered her and her work recently. Amazing woman whose engineering talent we should probably aspire to emulate where possible. Today, there's people trying to figure out how to eliminate interface errors, recovery properly, etc. which she invented and did successfully with 1960's hardware. Anyone interested can read this fascinating paper[^] on their work.
The fun part is that, by Richard Gabriel's classification, this crew stayed on The Right Thing throughout their work. Each problem was noted, understood, and mitigated with new methods/tech. They always tried to find the best approach to everything. They weren't afraid to throw away what wasn't good enough. They eventually developed methods to automate coding, testing and so on albeit with rigid modeling language. Here's what a NASA 2003 report said of the results:
"Her unique ideas included: using priority displays, establishing hard requirements on the engineering of all components and subsystems to eliminate interface errors with the flight software at the systems level, debugging all components and testing before assembly, and simulating every conceivable situation at the systems level before releasing the code. This made it possible to identify potential anomalies and resulted in ultra-reliable code. No software bug was ever found on any manned space flight Apollo mission. She demanded that the flight code be designed to work right the first time."
Great stuff. If I get enough time or funding, I plan to revitalize those efforts in a more usable way. She succeeded in semi-automating design and automating about everything else. There were performance and usability issues. I think, leveraging modern work, the best route to building on her work is to integrate a modeling language for arbitrary systems, a system-grade functional programming language (eg Habit from HASP project), powerful metaprogramming (eg Semantic Designs or Racket), and code generation (eg Esterel SCADE, Perfect Developer). This would let system be specified at a high level with safe, fast, low-level code generated through human directed, verified transformations. Being modular and functional, it could leverage any number of existing or future tools for static analysis, test generation, optimization, and so on.
What do you all think? Does this combination sound worth putting effort into? And clearly I'm talking about new projects rather than legacy applications. 
Nick P
Security Engineer & Researcher
(High Assurance focus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you have on clean under shorts.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no "I" in "under shorts". 
|
|
|
|
|
Create it... Create it...
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: if you have on clean under shorts.
Did you have an accident?
No, don't tell me.
What we got here is a failure to communicate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - amazing stuff. 
|
|
|
|
|
For starters, the flag is a big plus.
|
|
|
|
|
Swiss knives are multifunctional 
Life's like a nose, you've got to get out of it whats in it!
|
|
|
|
|
Only the Army ones
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Don't wait for your coat...
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
