Discussions

I was thinking about doing mobile development but its difficult to find information on the mobile markets (reports by orgs. like Canalys cost thousands and not really useful for an indie like me).

From what I've been able to gather, current market share stands at something like 60% Symbian, and 20% Windows and the rest to others (a large part of which is Linux).

I can't find any good numbers/info on the managed platforms for mobile devices: J2ME & .NET CF. I think Symbian and Linux devices support J2ME? But I can't figure out which of the J2ME Configs & Profiles and optional packages (like MMAPI) are supported in the market.

Anyone know general numbers for these things?

For the .NET CF: From what I understand, the CF itself is just redistributable to the devices? So, people can easily get CF 2.0 on their devices, right? Is there a particular version of Windows Mobile that is required for CF 2.0?

Puttanesca?

anirban.d.das wrote:

gee.
that was fast 3 replies in 5 mins!
cravikiran already placed but thanks for the luck
unfortunately there wasnt any particular technology i was hired for
also if some1 could tell me what a tester does,id be grateful

Ah, sorry, I thought you got "placed" into an interview? Guess not. Still, good luck at the job then

Tester, if you mean a SDET, either writes test code or codes utilties used in testing. Essentially, I'd imagine you write unit tests, maintain unit tests, do regression testing, ensure coverage, come up with automation for those, etc, etc.

In general for interviews: knowing one imperative language pretty well helps - C#, C++ would help for ex. Also, knowing algorithms, data structures well helps too of course.

Aside from that, for specific techniques/technologies - depends very much on the position and teams.

Ah, and good luck.

This was on digg a few days ago (thats how I know about it)...

Has anyone else seen Bigelow Aerospace - they launched an orbiting inflatable spacecraft a few days ago (on top of a Russian ICBM).

The site has some photos and videos: http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/index.html 

Interesting that this didn't get much media coverage - I didn't hear a thing about it on any of the TV stations (though on their site it looks like it got a bit of coverage).

What's amazing is that by looking at the site, you almost get a sense that they're pretty laid back - interesting comparing their attitude to NASA's. But they look to be doing pretty good - with a second launch scheduled in fall of 2006.

shreyasonline wrote:

This Thread Is USELESS. I request you all to stop-doing-this-s.h.it. (Bush style )

Shreyas Zare

Of course, most of these types of debates are usually just academic in nature. But, its vacation time and some of us have a bit of time to waste.

jsampsonPC wrote:



cravikiran wrote: It's not really a "good feeling" (I wonder if this is just bad translation?). I think the position is better described as an illusion or a perception of having free will. That is, our neual networks and the algorithmic processes taking place are so complex that we get an illusion that we have some sort of free will when in fact it is just an illusion resulting from complex algorithms and interactions.

Then you open a whole new can of worms. You see, if you can be tricked by your own mind, then there is some other consciousness aside from your mind. . . or else your mind is tricking itself?

In the position I am arguing, I am saying the mind is "tricking" itself (a matter of rhetoric I guess but I would say you have a perception of having free will not that you are tricking yourself).

jsampsonPC wrote:


If that is the case, do you have the free will to acknowledge that you may have been tricked into believing an illusion originating from your mind? Or, if you have no free will, how did you even come to the conclusion that you are being tricked? Wouldn't that require some abstract thinking, on part of the receiver? Which, goes back around, demonstrates free will.

It does demonstrate that I am exhibiting the "end results" of free will. But I am saying that this free will does not need to be some inexplicable variable - something that we cannot hope to ever explain as an algorithmic process.

I'm saying the behavior you and humans attribute to free will may actually be the result of complex workings. In this manner, free will is some sort of huge function that we just don't know all the inputs, the outputs and the workings to yet.

jsampsonPC wrote:



borosen wrote: jsampsonPC wrote: borosen wrote: There are scientists who do believe free will is just a 'good feeling'.... And there are some that don't...stalling! Besides, did you choose to write this message? Or was it just to give you a 'good feeling'? Probably just to give me a good feeling. That interview with Wolf Singer seemed to fit right into this discussion.

Actually, doing anything to get a 'good feeling' from it is an expression of your free-will.

It's not really a "good feeling" (I wonder if this is just bad translation?). I think the position is better described as an illusion or a perception of having free will. That is, our neual networks and the algorithmic processes taking place are so complex that we get an illusion that we have some sort of free will when in fact it is just an illusion resulting from complex algorithms and interactions.

Wow, this thread could easily get out of hand but I'll join in as it seems kind of civil so far.

I'll address the brain is just chemicals and reactions bit... research is in fact being conducted at universities (including the one I went to) to figure out what various structures in the brain do. Check out this page at University of California, Irvine (where I went): http://www.brainengineering.com/Research1Intro.html . They're essentially figuring out specific algorithms (described in pseudo-code) that specific pieces of the brain carry out.

I myself don't find it hard to think that the whole complexity (emotions, thoughts, etc, etc.) of a human being arises from such algorithms and the higher level interaction of such algorithms. I'm sure there's a more profound way to say it. Essentially, in computer science, we can easily realize the complex functionality exhibited by the interaction of much simpler algorithms that have been tied together at higher levels. Why is it so hard to think that emotions and thoughts and everything else we do are due to a similar thing?

I find the other side to be more like someone giving up prematurely - to me (and clearly this is opinion) it sounds like - "emotions and thoughts are just way too complex that I won't even try to see if they can be based on various algorithms, etc. - I'll just say they're inexplicable things that humans just have".

There's a few folks on digg that said it was cause Materazzi gave him a nipple pinch and was insulting his mother, etc.  Don't know how credible it is but you can see some mischief by Materazzi in the very beginning of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C58zxHgo8Y . I don't think anyone honestly feels it was unprovoked but it may have been more than just words from the other guy.