Search Results

Search found 83 results on 4 pages for 'j noel'.

Page 4/4 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 

  • Oracle Social Network Developer Challenge: TEAM Informatics

    - by Kellsey Ruppel
    Originally posted by Jake Kuramoto on The Apps Lab blog. Here comes another Oracle Social Network Developer Challenge entry, this one courtesy of TEAM Informatics (@teaminformatics). As their name suggests, their entry was a true team effort, featuring the work of Jon Chartrand, Deepthi Sanikommu, Dmitry Shtulman, Raghavendra Joshi, and Daniel Stitely with Wayne Boerger doing the presentation honors. Speaking of the presentation, Wayne’s laptop wouldn’t project onto the plasma we had in the OTN Lounge, but luckily, Noel (@noelportugal) had his iPad and VGA dongle in his backpack of goodies, so they were able to improvise by using the iPad camera to capture Wayne’s demo and project the video to the plasma. Code will find a way. Anyway, TEAM built Do Over, an integration with Atlassian’s JIRA, coincidentally something I’ve chatted with Rich (@rmanalan) about in the past. The basic idea is simple; integrate JIRA issues with Oracle Social Network to expand and centralize the conversation around issue resolution. In Dmitry’s words: We were able to put together a team on fairly short notice and, after batting a few ideas around, decided to pursue an integration with JIRA, an issue and project tracking tool used in-house at TEAM.  After getting to know WebCenter Social, we saw immediate benefits that a JIRA integration could bring, primarily due to the fact that JIRA only allows assignment of an issue to one person at a time.  Integrating Social would allow collaboration and issue resolution to happen right from the JIRA Issue interface. TEAM tackled a very common pain point among developers, i.e. including everyone who needs to be involved in issue resolution into a single thread. If you’ve ever fixed bugs or participated in that process, you’ll know that not everyone has access to the issue resolution system, which makes consolidating discussion time-consuming and fragmented. Why? Because we typically use email as the tool for collaboration. Oracle Social Network allows for all parties involved to work in a single, private and secure conversation, and through its RESTful Public API, information from external systems like JIRA can be brought in for context. TEAM only had time to address half the solution, but given more time, I’m sure they would have made the integration bidirectional, allowing for relevant commentary to be pushed back to JIRA, closing the loop. Here are some screenshot of their integration. #gallery-1 { margin: auto; } #gallery-1 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-1 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-1 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } When Oracle Social Network is released, TEAM will have something they use internally to work on issues, and maybe they’ll even productize their work and add it to the Atlassian Marketplace so that other JIRA users can benefit from the combination of Oracle Social Network and JIRA. Thanks to everyone at TEAM for participating in our challenge. We hope they had a good experience. Look for the details of the other entries this week. Be sure to check out a full recap from Dmitry over on the TEAM blog.

    Read the article

  • cascading combo box causing empty fields in next record

    - by glinch
    Hi there, I'm having problems with a cascading combo box. Everything works fine with the combo boxes and the values get populated correctly. Private Sub cmbAdjComp_AfterUpdate() Me.cboAdjOff.RowSource = "SELECT AdjusterCompanyOffice.ID, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address1, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address2, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address3, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address4, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address5 FROM" & _ " AdjusterCompanyOffice WHERE AdjusterCompanyOffice.AdjCompID = " & Me.cmbAdjComp.Column(1) & _ " ORDER BY AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address1" Me.cboAdjOff = Me.cboAdjOff.ItemData(0) End Sub The secondary combo box has a row source query: SELECT AdjusterCompanyOffice.ID, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address1, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address2, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address3, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address4, AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address5 FROM AdjusterCompanyOffice ORDER BY AdjusterCompanyOffice.Address1; Both comboboxes have the same controlsource. Everything works fine and dandy moving between records and the boxes show the correct fields for each record. When i use the first combo box, and then select the appropriate option in the second combo box, everything works great on the specific record. However when I move to the next record, the values in the second combo box are all empty. If i close the form and reopen it, and avoid using the cascading combo boxes all the values are all correct when i move between records. Somehow using the cascading combo boxes creates a conflict with the row source of the secondary combo box. Hope that is clear! Have been rummaging around for an answer but cant find anything. any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Noel

    Read the article

  • Problem creating simple "windows script components" on Windows 7.

    - by Bigtoe
    Hi folks, I'm trying to get a Windows Script Component working on and x64 development machine. Works fine on x32 bit. But can't seem to get it running, I have the same problem with both JScript and VBScript. Here's the most simple wsc component possible. All that it does it pop up "Hello" in a message box. If you save the snippit below to a file called test_lib.wsc, you'll then be able to right click and register it. It's now available as a COM Component. <?xml version="1.0"?> <component> <?component error="true" debug="true"?> <registration description="Test Script Library" progid="TestScript.Lib" version="1.00" classid="{314042ea-1c42-4865-956f-08d56d1f00a8}" > </registration> <public> <method name="Hello"> </method> </public> <script language="VBScript"> <![CDATA[ Option Explicit Function Hello() MsgBox("Hello.") End Function ]]> </script> </component> Next create the following sample vb-script and save it to a file called test.vbs dim o set o = createobject("TestScript.Lib") o.hello() When I run the test.vbs with cscript or wscript I always get the following. "C:\test.vbs(3, 1) Microsoft VBScript runtime error: ActiveX component can't create object: 'TestScript.Lib'" This works perfectly fine on a 32 bit XP. Anyone got any ideas about what could be wrong? Thanks a bunch Noel.

    Read the article

  • Oracle’s Web Experience Management

    - by Christie Flanagan
    Today’s guest post on Oracle’s Web Experience Management comes from a member of our WebCenter Evangelist team, Noël Jaffré, a Principal Technologist based in France.Oracle’s Web Experience Management (WEM) solution enables organizations to optimize the online channel for driving marketing and customer experience management success. It empowers business users to manage the web presence and create rich and engaging online experiences for customers and prospects. Oracle's WEM platform provides a framework to simplify the integration of Oracle, third-party and custom-built applications. This framework essentially allows the creation and integration of applications using one single business interface called the WEM interface. It includes the following: Single sign-on access control for all integrated applications using the Central Authentication Service (CAS) component. A single centralized administration window for user, role, and native applications management including site management. Community server management, gadget server management as well as management for partner integrated technologies. A Representational State Transfer (REST) API for accessing WebCenter Sites data. REST services are supported on both Oracle WebCenter Sites and Oracle WebCenter Sites Satellite Server to leverage the satellite server cache. All REST requests are cached for web consuming applications as well for the high performance delivery of native applications on the mobile channel. Oracle WebCenter Sites’ Web Experience Management environment enables organizations to deliver a compelling online experience to customers by simplifying the deployment and management of sophisticated and engaging websites. The WebCenter Sites platform automates the entire process of managing web content including: Authoring:  Business users can easily contribute and manage web content in real-time, with intuitive interfaces and drag-and-drop content authoring and layout capabilities designed for the non-technical user. Contextual Content Targeting: Marketers are empowered to create and manage targeted campaigns with relevant recommendations and promotions based on the context of the session of the visitor such as his or her navigation history, user profile, language, location or other information shared during the visitor session. Content Publishing and Deployment: It offers advanced multi-site management capabilities for departmental or regional sites, as well as strong multi-lingual and multi-locale content management. The remote satellite server caching infrastructure provides high-performance, distributed caching, tuned to deliver high-volume, targeted and multi-lingual sites. Analytics and Optimization: Business users and marketers have the ability to measure the effectiveness of their online content and campaigns at a granular level. Editors and marketers can immediately determine whether a given article or promotion is relevant to a particular customer segment. User-generated Content: Marketers can enable blogs, comments, rating and reviews on the website.  All comments and reviews posted to the website can be moderated from the administrator interface either manually or automatically using filters, whitelists, blacklists or community based moderation. Personalized Gadget Dashboards:  Site managers can deploy gadgets, small applications using web content, individually or as part of dashboards containing multiple gadgets.  These gadget dashboards enable site visitors to create their own “MyPage” on a given site where they can select and customize the gadgets that the site administrator has made available.  Any gadget that conforms to the iGoogle/OpenSocial standard can be made available to site visitors, or they can be created within the WEM interface. Oracle's WEM platform also provides a unique environment for the delivery of a rich, multichannel online experience for site visitors through its advanced management modules for mobile. With Oracle’s WEM solution, it’s easy to control branding and deliver a consistent message while repurposing web content for publication to mobile devices, kiosks and much more. This distinctive approach provides: HTML5 Delivery: HTML5 delivery which includes native support for adaptive design that responds to the user’s computer screen resolution and orientation. The approach is less driven by the particular hardware and more driven by the user’s interactions with the device. In other words, this approach takes both the screen interactions (either cursor or touch) and screen sizes and orientation into consideration. A Unique Native Mobile Extension Environment for Contributors: From the WEM interface, a contributor can directly manage their mobile channel, using the tooling already in place for driving the traditional web presence. This includes the mobile presentation, as well as mobile insite editing, drag and drop page layout, and in-context recommendations and personalization. Optimized REST APIs for High Performance Content Delivery on Native Mobile Device Applications: WebCenter Sites’ REST API uses the underlying HTTP methods (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) to interact with resources. Resources support two types of input and output formats -- XML and JSON. REST calls are customizable to optimize the interactions between the content repositories and the client applications. Caching is essential to decrease network loads and improve overall reliability and usability of the applications and user interactions. REST results are cached through the highly efficient Oracle WebCenter Sites caching architecture.

    Read the article

  • Entity Attribute Value Database vs. strict Relational Model Ecommerce question

    - by Dr. Zim
    It is safe to say that the EAV/CR database model is bad. That said, Question: What database model, technique, or pattern should be used to deal with "classes" of attributes describing e-commerce products which can be changed at run time? In a good E-commerce database, you will store classes of options (like TV resolution then have a resolution for each TV, but the next product may not be a TV and not have "TV resolution"). How do you store them, search efficiently, and allow your users to setup product types with variable fields describing their products? If the search engine finds that customers typically search for TVs based on console depth, you could add console depth to your fields, then add a single depth for each tv product type at run time. There is a nice common feature among good e-commerce apps where they show a set of products, then have "drill down" side menus where you can see "TV Resolution" as a header, and the top five most common TV Resolutions for the found set. You click one and it only shows TVs of that resolution, allowing you to further drill down by selecting other categories on the side menu. These options would be the dynamic product attributes added at run time. Further discussion: So long story short, are there any links out on the Internet or model descriptions that could "academically" fix the following setup? I thank Noel Kennedy for suggesting a category table, but the need may be greater than that. I describe it a different way below, trying to highlight the significance. I may need a viewpoint correction to solve the problem, or I may need to go deeper in to the EAV/CR. Love the positive response to the EAV/CR model. My fellow developers all say what Jeffrey Kemp touched on below: "new entities must be modeled and designed by a professional" (taken out of context, read his response below). The problem is: entities add and remove attributes weekly (search keywords dictate future attributes) new entities arrive weekly (products are assembled from parts) old entities go away weekly (archived, less popular, seasonal) The customer wants to add attributes to the products for two reasons: department / keyword search / comparison chart between like products consumer product configuration before checkout The attributes must have significance, not just a keyword search. If they want to compare all cakes that have a "whipped cream frosting", they can click cakes, click birthday theme, click whipped cream frosting, then check all cakes that are interesting knowing they all have whipped cream frosting. This is not specific to cakes, just an example.

    Read the article

  • What am I missing about WCF?

    - by Bigtoe
    I've been developing in MS technologies for longer than I care to remember at this stage. When .NET arrived on the scene I thought they hit the nail on the head and with each iteration and version I thought their technologies were getting stronger and stronger and looked forward to each release. However, having had to work with WCF for the last year I must say I found the technology very difficult to work with and understand. Initially it's quite appealing but when you start getting into the guts of it, configuration is a nightmare, having to override behaviours for message sizes, number of objects contained in a messages, the complexity of the security model, disposing of proxies when faulted and finally moving back to defining interfaces in code rather than in XML. It just does not work out of the box and I think it should. We found all of the above issues while either testing ourselves or else when our products were out on site. I do understand the rationale behind it all, but surely they could have come up with simpler implementation mechanism. I suppose what I'm asking is, Am I looking at WCF the wrong way? What strengths does it have over the alternatives? Under what circumstances should I choose to use WCF? OK Folks, Sorry about the delay in responding, work does have a nasty habbit of get in the way somethimes :) Some clarifications My main paint point with WCF I suppose falls down into the following areas While it does work out of the box, your left with some major surprises under the hood. As pointed out above basic things are restricted until they are overridden Size of string than can be passed can't be over 8K Number of objects that can be passed in a single message is restricted Proxies not automatically recovering from failures The amount of configuration while it's there is a good thing, but understanding it all and what to use what and under which circumstances can be difficult to understand. Especially when deploying software on site with different security requirements etc. When talking about configuration, we've had to hide lots of ours in a back-end database because security and network people on-site were trying to change things in configuration files without understanding it. Keeping the configuration of the interfaces in code rather than moving to explicitly defined interfaces in XML, which can be published and consumed by almost anything. I know we can export the XML from the assembley, but it's full of rubbish and certain code generators choke on it. I know the world moves on, I've moved on a number of times over the last (ahem 22 years I've been developing) and am actively using WCF, so don't get me wrong, I do understand what it's for and where it's heading. I just think there should be simplier configuration/deployment options available, easier set-up and better management for configuration (SQL config provider maybe, rahter than just the web.config/app.config files). OK, back to the daily grid. Thanks for all your replies so far. Kind Regards Noel

    Read the article

  • User created Validator wont call Client side validation Javascript on 'complex' user control.

    Hi All, I have created a user control (from System.Web.UI.UserControl), and created my own validator for the user control (from System.Web.UI.WebControls.BaseValidator). Everything works ok until I try to get the user control to do client side validation. While trying to debug this issue I have set 'Control to Validate' to a text box instead of the custom user control, and the client side script works fine! It appears to me that it has an a issue with my composite user control I have created. Has anyone encountered this issue before? Has anyone else seen client side validation fail on custom user controls? Some extra info : The composite control is a drop down list and 'loader image', as it is a ajax enabled drop down list (using ICallbackEventHandler). I know that the client side javascript is being written to the page, and have placed an alert('random message') as the first line in the validator function that only appears if it is validating a text box (i.e. not when it is validating my custom control) Language : C# (ASP.NET 2.0) and jQuery 1.2.6 in aspx file : <rms:UserDDL ID="ddlUserTypes" runat="server" PreLoad="true" /> <rms:DDLValidator ID="userTypesVal" ControlToValidate="ddlUserTypes" ErrorMessage="You have not selected a UserType" runat="server" Text="You have not selected a UserType" Display="Dynamic" EnableClientScript="true" /> in validator code behind protected string ScriptBlock { get { string nl = System.Environment.NewLine; return "<script type=\"text/javascript\">" + nl + " function " + ScriptBlockFunctionName + "(ctrl)" + nl + " {" + nl + " alert('Random message'); " + nl + " var selVal = $('#' + ctrl.controltovalidate).val(); " + nl + " alert(selVal);" + nl + " if (selVal === '-1') return false; " + nl + " return false; " + nl + " }" + nl + "</script>"; } } protected override void OnPreRender(EventArgs e) { if (this.DetermineRenderUplevel() && this.EnableClientScript) { Page.ClientScript.RegisterExpandoAttribute(this.ClientID, "evaluationfunction", this.ScriptBlockFunctionName); Page.ClientScript.RegisterClientScriptBlock(GetType(), this.ScriptBlockKey, this.ScriptBlock); } base.OnPreRender(e); } I know my ControlPropertiesValid() and EvaluateIsValid() work ok. I appreciate any help on this issue. Noel.

    Read the article

  • Ada and 'The Book'

    - by Phil Factor
    The long friendship between Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace created one of the most exciting and mysterious of collaborations ever to have resulted in a technological breakthrough. The fireworks that created by the collision of two prodigious mathematical and creative talents resulted in an invention, the Analytical Engine, which went on to change society fundamentally. However, beyond that, we just don't know what the bulk of their collaborative work was about:;  it was done in strictest secrecy. Even the known outcome of their friendship, the first programmable computer, was shrouded in mystery. At the time, nobody, except close friends and family, had any idea of Ada Byron's contribution to the invention of the ‘Engine’, and how to program it. Her great insight was published in August 1843, under the initials AAL, standing for Ada Augusta Lovelace, her title then being the Countess of Lovelace. It was contained in a lengthy ‘note’ to her translation of a publication that remains the best description of Babbage's amazing Analytical Engine. The secret identity of the person behind those enigmatic initials was finally revealed by Prince de Polignac who, seventy years later, wrote to Ada's daughter to seek confirmation that her mother had, indeed, been the author of the brilliant sentences that described so accurately how Babbage's mechanical computer could be programmed with punch-cards. L.F. Menabrea's paper on the Analytical Engine first appeared in the 'Bibliotheque Universelle de Geneve' in October 1842, and Ada translated it anonymously for Taylor's 'Scientific Memoirs'. Charles Babbage was surprised that she had not written an original paper as she already knew a surprising amount about the way the machine worked. He persuaded her to at least write some explanatory notes. These notes ended up extending to four times the length of the original article and represented the first published account of how a machine could be programmed to perform any calculation. Her example of programming the Bernoulli sequence would have worked on the Analytical engine had the device’s construction been completed, and gave Ada an unassailable claim to have invented the art of programming. What was the reason for Ada's secrecy? She was the only legitimate child of Lord Byron, who was probably the best known celebrity of the age, so she was already famous. She was a senior aristocrat, with titles, a fortune in money and vast estates in the Midlands. She had political influence, and was the cousin of Lord Melbourne, who was the Prime Minister at that time. She was friendly with the young Queen Victoria. Her mathematical activities were a pastime, and not one that would be considered by others to be in keeping with her roles and responsibilities. You wouldn't dare to dream up a fictional heroine like Ada. She was dazzlingly beautiful and talented. She could speak several languages fluently, and play some musical instruments with professional skill. Contemporary accounts refer to her being 'accomplished in science, art and literature'. On top of that, she was a brilliant mathematician, a talent inherited from her mother, Annabella Milbanke. In her mother's circle of literary and scientific friends was Charles Babbage, and Ada's friendship with him dates from her teenage zest for Mathematics. She was one of the first people he'd ever met who understood what he had attempted to achieve with the 'Difference Engine', and with whom he could converse as intellectual equals. He arranged for her to have an education from the most talented academics in the country. Ada melted the heart of the cantankerous genius to the point that he became a faithful and loyal father-figure to her. She was one of the very few who could grasp the principles of the later, and very different, ‘Analytical Engine’ which was designed from the start to tackle a variety of tasks. Sadly, Ada Byron's life ended less than a decade after completing the work that assured her long-term fame, in November 1852. She was dying of cancer, her gambling habits had caused her to run up huge debts, she'd had more than one affairs, and she was being blackmailed. Her brilliant but unempathic mother was nursing her in her final illness, destroying her personal letters and records, and repaying her debts. Her husband was distraught but helpless. Charles Babbage, however, maintained his steadfast paternalistic friendship to the end. She appointed her loyal friend to be her executor. For years, she and Babbage had been working together on a secret project, known only as 'The Book'. We have a clue to what it was in a letter written by her nine years earlier, on 11th August 1843. It was a joint project by herself and Lord Lovelace, her husband, and was intended to involve Babbage's 'undivided energies'. It involved 'consulting your Engine' (it required Babbage’s computer). The letter gives no hint about the project except for the high-minded nature of its purpose, and its highly mathematical nature.  From then on, the surviving correspondence between the two gives only veiled references to 'The Book'. There isn't much, since Babbage later destroyed any letters that could have damaged her reputation within the Establishment. 'I cannot spare the book today, which I am very sorry for. At the moment I want it for constant reference, but I think you can have it tomorrow' (Oct 1844)  And 'I will send you the book directly, and you can say, when you receive it, how long you will want to keep it'. (Nov 1844)  The two of them were obviously intent on the work: She writes, four years later, 'I have an engagement for Wednesday which will prevent me from attending to your wishes about the book' (Dec 1848). This was something that they both needed to work on, but could not do in parallel: 'I will send the book on Tuesday, and it can be left with you till Friday' (11 Feb 1849). After six years work, it had been so well-handled that it was beginning to fall apart: 'Don't forget the new cover you promised for the book. The poor book is very shabby and wants one' (20 Sept 1849). So what was going on? The word 'book' was not a code-word: it was a real book, probably a 'printer's blank', plain paper, but properly bound so printers and publishers could show off how the published work might look. The hints from the correspondence are of advanced mathematics. It is obvious that the book was travelling between them, back and forth, each one working on it for less than a week before passing it back. Ada and her husband were certainly involved in gambling large sums of money on the horses, and so most biographers have concluded that the three of them were trying to calculate the mathematical odds on the horses. This theory has three large problems. Firstly, Ada's original letter proposing the project refers to its high-minded nature. Babbage was temperamentally opposed to gambling and would scarcely have given so much time to the project, even though he was devoted to Ada. Secondly, Babbage would have very soon have realized the hopelessness of trying to beat the bookies. This sort of betting never attracts his type of intellectual background. The third problem is that any work on calculating the odds on horses would not need a well-thumbed book to pass back and forth between them; they would have not had to work in series. The original project was instigated by Ada, along with her husband, William King-Noel, 1st Earl of Lovelace. Charles Babbage was invited to join the project after the couple had come up with the idea. What could William have contributed? One might assume that William was a Bertie Wooster character, addicted only to the joys of the turf, but this was far from the truth. He was a scientist, a Cambridge graduate who was later elected to be a Fellow of the Royal Society. After Eton, he went to Trinity College, Cambridge. On graduation, he entered the diplomatic service and acted as secretary under Lord Nugent, who was Lord Commissioner of the Ionian Islands. William was very friendly with Babbage too, able to discuss scientific matters on equal terms. He was a capable engineer who invented a process for bending large timbers by the application of steam heat. He delivered a paper to the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1849, and received praise from the great engineer, Isambard Kingdom Brunel. As well as being Lord Lieutenant of the County of Surrey for most of Victoria's reign, he had time for a string of scientific and engineering achievements. Whatever the project was, it is unlikely that William was a junior partner. After Ada's death, the project disappeared. Then, two years later, Babbage, through one of his occasional outbursts of temper, demonstrated that he was able to decrypt one of the most powerful of secret codes, Vigenère's autokey cipher.  All contemporary diplomatic and military messages used a variant of this cipher. Babbage had made three important discoveries, namely, the mathematical law of this cipher, the principle of the key periodicity, and the technique of the symmetry of position. The technique is now known as the Kasiski examination, also called the Kasiski test, but Babbage got there first. At one time, he listed amongst his future projects, the writing of a book 'The Philosophy of Decyphering', but it never came to anything. This discovery was going to change the course of history, since it was used to decipher the Russians’ military dispatches in the Crimean war. Babbage himself played a role during the Crimean War as a cryptographical adviser to his friend, Rear-Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort of the Admiralty. This is as much as we can be certain about in trying to make sense of the bulk of the time that Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace worked together. Nine years of intensive work, involving the 'Engine' and a great deal of mathematics and research seems to have been lost: or has it? I've argued in the past http://www.simple-talk.com/community/blogs/philfactor/archive/2008/06/13/59614.aspx that the cracking of the Vigenère autokey cipher, was a fundamental motive behind the British Government's support and funding of the 'Difference Engine'. The Duke of Wellington, whose understanding of the military significance of being able to read enemy dispatches, was the most steadfast advocate of the project. If the three friends were actually doing the work of cracking codes by mathematical techniques that used the techniques of key periodicity, and symmetry of position (the use of a book being passed quickly to and fro is very suggestive), intending to then use the 'Engine' to do the routine cracking of each dispatch, then this is a rather different story. The project was Ada and William's idea. (William had served in the diplomatic service and would be familiar with the use of codes). This makes Ada Lovelace the initiator of a project which, by giving both Britain, and probably the USA, a diplomatic and military advantage in the second part of the Nineteenth century, changed world history. Ada would never have wanted any credit for cracking the cipher, and developing the method that rendered all contemporary military and diplomatic ciphering techniques nugatory; quite the reverse. And it is clear from the gaps in the record of the letters between the collaborators that the evidence was destroyed, probably on her request by her irascible but intensely honorable executor, Charles Babbage. Charles Babbage toyed with the idea of going public, but the Crimean war put an end to that. The British Government had a valuable secret, and intended to keep it that way. Ada and Charles had quite often discussed possible moneymaking projects that would fund the development of the Analytic Engine, the first programmable computer, but their secret work was never in the running as a potential cash cow. I suspect that the British Government was, even then, working on the concealment of a discovery whose value to the nation depended on it remaining so. The success of code-breaking in the Crimean war, and the American Civil war, led to the British and Americans  subsequently giving much more weight and funding to the science of decryption. Paradoxically, this makes Ada's contribution even closer to the creation of Colossus, the first digital computer, at Bletchley Park, specifically to crack the Nazi’s secret codes.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4