http://shallwelearn.com/joomla/
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/shallwelearn/1630038
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
две иконки
новая иконка: выключить комп:
%windir%\system32\shutdown.exe -s -t 00
перезагрузка:
%windir%\system32\shutdown.exe -r -t 00
контрольная панель для настоящих пацанов
да хоть на рабочем столе:
новая папка, наименовать вот так:
XXX.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}
все до точки - на усмотрение.
красота.
новая папка, наименовать вот так:
XXX.{ED7BA470-8E54-465E-825C-99712043E01C}
все до точки - на усмотрение.
красота.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
мысли от умных
http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2011/10/04/what-tdd-means-to-me/
What I do before writing code is thinking about the testability of my design. Thinking hard.
Design usually means breaking the solution into components (or modules, or whatever you want to call them), figuring out the responsibility of each component and the interactions between them. There are many aspects to consider when judging a certain design, and I add testability as an important first-class criterion. A design that doesn’t lend itself to being tested, is in my view a bad design, so I start thinking about alternatives.
How does a design lend itself to being tested? By being composed of components that can be tested in isolation.
Isolation is extremely important for debugging problems when they unavoidably arise. It is not easy to achieve – good isolation (a.k.a. encapsulation) of components is a kind of holy grail – you never really find the best division into components, you only approximate it.
I think that testability serves as a good guide – components that are easy to test in separation usually make up a pretty good design. This is because testability and isolation usually go hand in hand. The more coupled a design is, the harder it makes testing its components in isolation. As a corollary – when components are easy to test in isolation, the design is well decoupled.
What I do before writing code is thinking about the testability of my design. Thinking hard.
Design usually means breaking the solution into components (or modules, or whatever you want to call them), figuring out the responsibility of each component and the interactions between them. There are many aspects to consider when judging a certain design, and I add testability as an important first-class criterion. A design that doesn’t lend itself to being tested, is in my view a bad design, so I start thinking about alternatives.
How does a design lend itself to being tested? By being composed of components that can be tested in isolation.
Isolation is extremely important for debugging problems when they unavoidably arise. It is not easy to achieve – good isolation (a.k.a. encapsulation) of components is a kind of holy grail – you never really find the best division into components, you only approximate it.
I think that testability serves as a good guide – components that are easy to test in separation usually make up a pretty good design. This is because testability and isolation usually go hand in hand. The more coupled a design is, the harder it makes testing its components in isolation. As a corollary – when components are easy to test in isolation, the design is well decoupled.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
что такое синхронно и что такое асинхронно
When you execute something synchronously, you wait for it to finish before moving on to another task. When you execute something asynchronously, you can move on to another task before it finishes.
That being, said, in the context of computers this translates into executing a process or task on another "thread." A thread is a series of commands--a block of code--that exists as a unit of work. The operating system can manage multiple threads and assign a thread a piece ("slice") of processor time before switching to another thread to give it a turn to do some work. At its core (pardon the pun), a processor can simply execute a command--it has no concept of doing two things at one time. The operating system simulates this by allocating slices of time to different threads.
Now, if you introduce multiple cores/processors into the mix, then things CAN actually happen at the same time. The operating system can allocate time to one thread on the first processor, then allocate the same block of time to another thread on a different processor.
All of this is about allowing the operating system to manage the completion of your task while you can go on in your code and do other things. Asynchronous programming is a complicated topic because of the semantics of how things tie together when you can do them at the same time...
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Глобализм и Образование
Как русскому студенту прослушать курсы лекций звезд Стенфорда, Беркли и Йеля.
Возможно вы знаете, что не обязательно платить 50 тысяч долларoв в год чтобы прослушатъ курсы звезд MIT или Стенфорда? Стартовые страницы к систематическим курсам тут, или тут, или тут (много курсов истории, языков, и т.п.) отсылают в сайтам соответствующих Университетов. Среди них MIT (пионер этого дела), Berkeley, Stanford, Yale, Notre Dame, NYU, University of Washington. Курсы адресованы студентов всех уровней, от старшеклассников и первокурсников до аспирантов, их читают известные ученые, например, легендарный Gilbert Strang. Кстати, полулярные видео лекции лучших ученых мира тоже висят в Интернете.
Эти видеокурсы, учебники с emule и торрентов плюс Wiki позволяют умным и мотивированным ребятам получить все лучшее и современное, дома, бесплатно. Валить не обязательно. Подумайте, еще 10 лет назад никому было невозможно прослушать сразу двух лекторов разных Университетов. Утверждалось, что большинство стран навсегда отрезаны от передовой науки из–за неподъемных цен на Университеты и учебники. И вот проблема начала решаться, без Сколково и Фурсенко.
Я очень рекомендую видеокурсы студентам (смотреть параллельно своим курсам), преподавателям (теперь вы nolens volens с ними конкурируете), аспирантам, специалистам и любителям. Пожалуйста, оповестите своих коллег и знакомых студентов и присоединяйтесь сами. Не осталось причин для неученой тьмы.
Как русскому студенту прослушать курсы лекций звезд Стенфорда, Беркли и Йеля.
Возможно вы знаете, что не обязательно платить 50 тысяч долларoв в год чтобы прослушатъ курсы звезд MIT или Стенфорда? Стартовые страницы к систематическим курсам тут, или тут, или тут (много курсов истории, языков, и т.п.) отсылают в сайтам соответствующих Университетов. Среди них MIT (пионер этого дела), Berkeley, Stanford, Yale, Notre Dame, NYU, University of Washington. Курсы адресованы студентов всех уровней, от старшеклассников и первокурсников до аспирантов, их читают известные ученые, например, легендарный Gilbert Strang. Кстати, полулярные видео лекции лучших ученых мира тоже висят в Интернете.
Эти видеокурсы, учебники с emule и торрентов плюс Wiki позволяют умным и мотивированным ребятам получить все лучшее и современное, дома, бесплатно. Валить не обязательно. Подумайте, еще 10 лет назад никому было невозможно прослушать сразу двух лекторов разных Университетов. Утверждалось, что большинство стран навсегда отрезаны от передовой науки из–за неподъемных цен на Университеты и учебники. И вот проблема начала решаться, без Сколково и Фурсенко.
Я очень рекомендую видеокурсы студентам (смотреть параллельно своим курсам), преподавателям (теперь вы nolens volens с ними конкурируете), аспирантам, специалистам и любителям. Пожалуйста, оповестите своих коллег и знакомых студентов и присоединяйтесь сами. Не осталось причин для неученой тьмы.
максимальная длина url
WWW FAQs: What is the maximum length of a URL?
Although the specification of the HTTP protocol does not specify any maximum length, practical limits are imposed by web browser and server software.
Microsoft Internet Explorer (Browser)
Microsoft states that the maximum length of a URL in Internet Explorer is 2,083 characters, with no more than 2,048 characters in the path portion of the URL. In my tests, attempts to use URLs longer than this produced a clear error message in Internet Explorer.
Firefox (Browser)
After 65,536 characters, the location bar no longer displays the URL in Windows Firefox 1.5.x. However, longer URLs will work. I stopped testing after 100,000 characters.
Safari (Browser)
At least 80,000 characters will work. I stopped testing after 80,000 characters.
Opera (Browser)At least 190,000 characters will work. I stopped testing after 190,000 characters. Opera 9 for Windows continued to display a fully editable, copyable and pasteable URL in the location bar even at 190,000 characters.
Apache (Server)
My early attempts to measure the maximum URL length in web browsers bumped into a server URL length limit of approximately 4,000 characters, after which Apache produces a "413 Entity Too Large" error. I used the current up to date Apache build found in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4. The official Apache documentation only mentions an 8,192-byte limit on an individual field in a request.
Microsoft Internet Information Server
The default limit is 16,384 characters (yes, Microsoft's web server accepts longer URLs than Microsoft's web browser). This is configurable.
и снова альфред томпсон
Hacking Vs. Programming
27 Jul 2011 3:01 AM
What is the difference between Hacking and programming? One opinion I have heard expressed is that a hacker can put a lot of code together in a hurry but if a change is needed the code has to be completely rewritten. A programmer may take a little longer but if changes are needed they are more quickly and easily installed without the need for a complete rewrite. One source I heard attributed an observation like this to Maggie Johnson of Google. It rings true to me though. Hacking is usually described as “quick and dirty.” You though a bunch of code together and make it up as you go along. Some hackers are quite brilliant and can do amazing things in incredibly short periods of time. And then they move to the next thing. Or perhaps they stay with the same thing because no one else can understand it well enough to fix it, modify it or improve it. Job security? Perhaps but not a good thing for the people who use, or importantly pay for, the software.
I do a little hacking – that is to say toss something together in a short period of time without a lot of planning – from time to time. I’m not a genius though and typically this ends poorly. The performance is poor, the maintainability is poor, and no one else wants to use it. This may make be biased against this way of doing things I guess. I prefer to program – to think things out, to plan, to proceed in an organized fashion. I saw the difference made clear to me my first year of teaching (a long time ago). I was working on a little game programming of my own and decided to show it to some of my students. As I explained how I had set things up around a number of constants that is hoped would make the program more easily expandable one of the students turned to another and said “Look at that. He’s just starting and already he is planning for additions.” That is one of the real keys, in my opinion, to real programming.
I was a major in Systems Analysis in college. This was during a time when computer science majors were rare and software engineering majors rarer still. But one of the things my professors drilled into our heads was that programs had to be maintainable and extensible. We were taught from day one that programs are not finished but, in a sense, abandoned. More likely at some point you declare victory and more on. But others will maintain these programs and expand them and adapt them. Making their lives easier is a good thing. Think of the Golden Rule – program was you would want the programmers whose code you are modifying to have programmed. I think that is how it is written. 
The hackers get a lot of attention these days. These are the basketball players who make the slam dunk that makes it to the highlight reel. But basketball games are won by teams of players executing on the basics – the solid play well executed, the dribble, the layup, the pass that gets the ball to the star. In the long run we need more real programmers to make solid, dependable programs that don’t have be be rewritten from scratch when a change is needed.
мысли. ссылка
NoSQL standouts: New databases for new applications
Cassandra, CouchDB, MongoDB, Redis, Riak, Neo4J, and FlockDB reinvent the data store
By Peter Wayner | InfoWorld
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
