Well the fire could do a fair amount of damage before it used up all the Oxygen... These subs are designed to keep people alive for extended periods... I would expect there is enough oxygen for a wide spreading fire.
The problem is Sci-Fi in some regards had made the impossible/impractical come seem like the norm... This is why we put way too much time and money into the shuttle program, We wanted a "reusable" spacecraft like we see in Sci-Fi. Even though it is cheaper per flight to make disposable space craft. But we spent decades on the idea of the Reusable Space craft. I wonder how much further ahead we would be if we focused on the disposable craft. For one every launch there will be improvements to the craft, because they can. Second you would get a new fresh group of people making crafts all the time so the knowledge and experience is passed to each generation. Third we would have crafts specialized for each mission, the shuttle is a general purpose device... Thus not really fit for any mission.
Yes every decision the president makes has this huge political meaning... He was probably at a meeting, and one of his aids tried to look up the data on his phone and couldn't access it because it was flash... And Obama was like. Why don't we make sure all the government websites work on mobile browsers?
When asked people they didn't come up with a good argument against the idea so he put it into practice.
By giving the other extream you are not invaladiting the nuclear energy is a valid and safe power source when managed properly.
Nuclear energy is a very efficient power source, and we should be expanding it, and stop falling pry to the feet mongers who doesn't know the difference between nuclear energy and a nuclear bomb.
That said it does have some responsibility because it does have dangerious after products, and needs tone well maintain.
However right now, the left is afraid of nuclear, and the right doesn't want to control it. A stupid combination.
The amount of problems you get really depends on what you are sending and what your customer needs. I had experience mostly in terms of Calendar Sharing. Some of it has been fixed. but I randomly got that Calendar Invite that only work in Outlook.
But these problems are smaller now then when I had the bulk of the issues, mostly due to the popularity on Non-Microsoft Cell phones, where you can say I am not using a Microsoft product and not look like you are cheeping out your organization.
Don't forget your customer needs. A lot of these tools are 99% Microsoft office compatible... That means 3 to 4 time a year you will have some issue that will require Microsoft to fix the issue, or the data that you give to your customer just doesn't load right for them.
Telling them that they should try this free software put extra burden on your customers and that isn't good. I am not saying go all out with a Microsoft Solution... But I am stating you should understand the abilities and infrastructure your customers use. As a consideration.
I have seen some rather successful methods where they have one PC with Microsoft Office for conversions and checking, where they RDP into the system to do the final check and cleanup work. Also I have seen companies work fine with OpenOffice/LibreOffice and all open source tools... However these companies tend to have customers with a similar acceptance towards open source and is willing to take the trade off.
Also I would expect you want your company to expand. If so diverging from the big name solutions can get costly as new hires may need more training, on the average a new hire costs the company 150% of their salary compared to the next year , when you calculate initial lack of productivity, and learning the ropes, adding unfamiliar tools may add to this. Also if you try to hire people with a wider set of skills you will need to pay more for them.
I worked at a start-up. I liked to program in Python, we needed more developers, it was tough to find affordable python coders, However there were a bunch of C# programmers, so we switched to C# instead, and we got a bunch of good Developers and a better price.
"So Mr Romney is going to do better? you want to see a HUGE sell out, look at him and is multiple stances on every issue depending on who is paying the most"
One could say when they have multiple stances on every issue, it is because he understands the complexity of the issues, and realizes it. I spent a little time listening to his "Waffling" he isn't waffling his views are consistent to the complexity of the issue.
You can be both morally against abortion and still believe to support the existing law to keep it legal. It is just the Partisan idiots who cannot understand that.
Your argument sounds like a lets go back to the old ways. Because the old ways we didn't have all these problems. The issue is we got on the net and we were hooked. When I first got online I used metered Internet. I payed by the hour. Then when I got to college I had unlimited High Speed internet. After I got out of college I bought Unlimited High Speed Internet, why because I got use to it, and it solved more problems then it created.
The real problem is the High Speed internet providers are in a conflict of interests with their products. Consumer High speed internet is running off the infrastructure of their biggest competitors Cable and Telephone. So Cable Companies and Telephone companies are the ones offering Internet... And they are the the ones with the most to lose with larger internet adoption, with VoIP and Streaming Media.
We need to work on a method of getting Internet threw many other companies. A wider selection of wireless Internet services, Internet via power grid, cheaper and faster satellite internet, communities of shared wi-fi signals....
But the EU likes to push hard against Companies (US based or not) that have a European competitor. Such as the case against Intel, the fact that the European company of AMD is one of their biggest competitors had nothing to do with it? Or Nokia vs. Apple and Samsung.
Just admit it, Europe is just as corrupt as the rest of the first world. Once you admit it, then you can start spotting it, and fixing it.
If you are coding using macros chances are you are doing it wrong. I am not defending Visual Studios. But if you need macros all the time like you are implying then you are doing your code wrong. You may use macros occasionally as there may be some jobs that may need them to code faster. But for the most part of there is a patern that you can use a macro, you can fix your code so you don't need to and your code will be easier to maintain.
As a buyer you want your product as cheap as possible. As a seller you want to sell your product as much as possible.
The fare price is the point where both sides feels like they got value from it.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley wanted it shoot way up. Because then they would have got the stock at a discount. However, they didn't their numbers should have shone that, so they may have got a stable stock.
When I was younger, I use to get jealous towards kids like that. I though if only I was in an environment that allowed me to do this type of stuff I can get famous for being that kid... As I got older, I am more satisfied with my lot in life, and I am happy to see kids coming up with new cheaper and better ways to do things, it keeps me more optimistic towards the future.
Science needs more kids, as we get older we become more institutionalized and experienced, this isn't bad, there is a lot to say about experience... However we sometimes need someone who doesn't have the experience to try something different because our approach is based on following the old procedure. The worst thing you can tell a kid, is don't do it that way, you can however say, I tried that a while back with these tools and this is what happened back then. Now the kid may know of newer or better tools or have the ability to do things you couldn't do back then.
Outside of Medical science just in terms of programming.
Back when I started programming, Software was very buggy and crashed all the time, so you couldn't really trust your program for months until you got all the kinks out... But today it is much easier to make a solid running program, why because our tools for programming have improved. We no longer need to manipulate strings with a CHAR *NAME array, we have a solid string class. We have a wide set of common libraries that does a lot of the heavy work for us... So that experiment that you did back 10 years ago that failed miserable because it was too slow or just never worked, may be valid now with the new tool set and faster computers. So if that young kid is willing to try a similar Idea, he will either succeed or fail. If he fails he has gained experience, if he succeeds then that is good too. Saying you shouldn't do that because it is wrong, the kid will learn nothing.
Well for the "make websites that purposely only work with Chrome" They are taking advantage that Chrome is very strong in supporting HTML5... Other browsers can support those features too, they just didn't yet. And If the browsers did support those features do you expect Google to have a fit for other browsers using the Standard?
Googles fight with IE, is the fact that it is so far behind other browsers... Still... That supporting IE is hampering Googles style. That is why they made chrome, They needed a browser that supports the standards well. Not so much to corner the Browser Market but to be able to make its sites do what they want it to do... Then we get to use those standards and make better apps because of this. This is different then Microsoft or Netscape attempt to corner the browser market, where their goal was to be the company that made the standards to force other vendors to choose which browser they will support.
Companies Goals are to make money Giving Browsers away from free, cost the companies money. So you need to figure out what their profit motive for the effort.
For Microsoft they wanted to win the browser war and make IE as a platform to run Active X and pushing their.NET technologies. Give the browser for free make it popular try to keep all the developers using Microsoft Development schemes if possible, and make sure all the browsers are using Microsoft approved OS (most notably their own)
For Google their goal is to sell services and display adds, they don't need to lock you in to an OS or lock the developers in, it is in their best interest to maximize users and developers. To sell more services and display more adds, they need a wider group of people. To keep you using Google services, you need to be kept up to date on the browsers to get the new stuff available. Firefox was Ok, however I expect Google wanted priorities in the stuff that is supported, to match their product plans.
Netscape goal was to sell the browser, when IE came out for free, they had to give it for free and try to sell their other services such as their Web Server solutions... Part of Netscape's failure was they lost their business model, and couldn't compete with their other ones for more then a few years. As Netscape wasn't pushing Developer tools (as much) most developers went with Microsoft who had nicer output tools.
Opera was in the selling browser market. Their goal is to make a fast browser and they sell it to mostly mobile devices. Because of this they try to keep it fast and as standard compliment as possible, as to leverage their partners devices to keep them successful so they will buy their browser again.
However people were hoping to see Bubble like growth. We think back of the good times during the 1990's where a Web Developer who just used Front Page would get a low 6 figure salary. Getting paid in Stock Options seemed like a good deal. Then we had the Pop where a lot of these jobs were outsourced. Stocks dropped, where a lot of these company who did nothing went out of business, and the ones that were over valued dropped a lot.
The companies that took on more modest growth, when times went bad went to a modest declined, they didn't have to layoff thousands of workers, they operated in their means. If Facebook doesn't plummet or shoot crazy up, then it was priced fairly and both sides got a good deal.
I remember in college there was a guy who was an Orthodox Jew. For the most part he was like everyone else, however he had a tenancy, of being in a mind set that when something is going on that was against his religion (Friday night parties, Pork BBQ, or His roommates forgot to turn keep the Bathroom light on during the Sabbath) The school I went to had a large Jewish population (about 1/3) and there was a lot of resources towards kosher and other Jewish friendly activities, however it is nearly impossible for the rest of the population (the 2/3 non Jewish, and a large percentage of the Jewish population who wasn't so reverent) to keep them fully involved in everything that is going on because his religion demands it.
The same thing with the internet, It is has too many people and the internet cannot be PC.
Because as a person with good site your views on accessibility features are quite different then someone who is blind. A webpage using graphic as text without a good alt tag could be the difference between a good ui and a bad one. Or even just the fact that someone when a form requires something to be filled in it may just be in a different color. Most UI enhancements are visual. I myself have good eye site, and operate my computer with the speakers on Mute, So my perception of a good UI is based on my site. Having known a few people who are blind, I understand that their perception of computing is much different, and you things that you take for granted are much different.
If an organization lies half the time and tells the truth the other half. You really shouldn't listen to them because you never know if it is a lie or not. There are other organizations out there that are more honest. Listen to them... They may say the same thing as Greenpeace or they may say something else. Listening to them empowers them, and then they talk more with more 50% lies and 50% truth, confusing the general public and giving the GOP excuses to make the Liberals seem out of touch and just a bunch of corrupt idiots.
Well any pollution that is happening will happen local to someone. If there are strong local environmental groups globally then then there will be better protection globally. These global institutions are ineffective and stupid, they will let some things slides and others that don't mean anything go threw. With local stuff things like this will happen however their effect will be minimized as multiple groups each with a different set of priorities.
Yes Patent applications cost money. Home much money will one loose as an opportunity cost developing hours of their life in create an open source program? Creating software isn't cheap. If you are doing something new and unique your group should find a way to get the money to patent the idea so your group can control who uses the idea. Now those big corps may have to pay you to use your patented code. Which you can put right back into supporting your project.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the fire could do a fair amount of damage before it used up all the Oxygen... These subs are designed to keep people alive for extended periods... I would expect there is enough oxygen for a wide spreading fire.
The problem is Sci-Fi in some regards had made the impossible/impractical come seem like the norm... This is why we put way too much time and money into the shuttle program, We wanted a "reusable" spacecraft like we see in Sci-Fi. Even though it is cheaper per flight to make disposable space craft. But we spent decades on the idea of the Reusable Space craft. I wonder how much further ahead we would be if we focused on the disposable craft.
For one every launch there will be improvements to the craft, because they can. Second you would get a new fresh group of people making crafts all the time so the knowledge and experience is passed to each generation. Third we would have crafts specialized for each mission, the shuttle is a general purpose device... Thus not really fit for any mission.
No it wasn't run by NASA... NASA was the customer and gave a list of conditions to be met... However it was ran by Space X and not NASA
Yes every decision the president makes has this huge political meaning...
He was probably at a meeting, and one of his aids tried to look up the data on his phone and couldn't access it because it was flash... And Obama was like. Why don't we make sure all the government websites work on mobile browsers?
When asked people they didn't come up with a good argument against the idea so he put it into practice.
By giving the other extream you are not invaladiting the nuclear energy is a valid and safe power source when managed properly.
Nuclear energy is a very efficient power source, and we should be expanding it, and stop falling pry to the feet mongers who doesn't know the difference between nuclear energy and a nuclear bomb.
That said it does have some responsibility because it does have dangerious after products, and needs tone well maintain.
However right now, the left is afraid of nuclear, and the right doesn't want to control it. A stupid combination.
Yet...
The amount of problems you get really depends on what you are sending and what your customer needs.
I had experience mostly in terms of Calendar Sharing. Some of it has been fixed. but I randomly got that Calendar Invite that only work in Outlook.
But these problems are smaller now then when I had the bulk of the issues, mostly due to the popularity on Non-Microsoft Cell phones, where you can say I am not using a Microsoft product and not look like you are cheeping out your organization.
Don't forget your customer needs. A lot of these tools are 99% Microsoft office compatible... That means 3 to 4 time a year you will have some issue that will require Microsoft to fix the issue, or the data that you give to your customer just doesn't load right for them.
Telling them that they should try this free software put extra burden on your customers and that isn't good. I am not saying go all out with a Microsoft Solution... But I am stating you should understand the abilities and infrastructure your customers use. As a consideration.
I have seen some rather successful methods where they have one PC with Microsoft Office for conversions and checking, where they RDP into the system to do the final check and cleanup work. Also I have seen companies work fine with OpenOffice/LibreOffice and all open source tools... However these companies tend to have customers with a similar acceptance towards open source and is willing to take the trade off.
Also I would expect you want your company to expand. If so diverging from the big name solutions can get costly as new hires may need more training, on the average a new hire costs the company 150% of their salary compared to the next year , when you calculate initial lack of productivity, and learning the ropes, adding unfamiliar tools may add to this. Also if you try to hire people with a wider set of skills you will need to pay more for them.
I worked at a start-up. I liked to program in Python, we needed more developers, it was tough to find affordable python coders, However there were a bunch of C# programmers, so we switched to C# instead, and we got a bunch of good Developers and a better price.
Which isn't a big deal... It is too expensive to host a company in New York. You host it in an other state.
"So Mr Romney is going to do better? you want to see a HUGE sell out, look at him and is multiple stances on every issue depending on who is paying the most"
One could say when they have multiple stances on every issue, it is because he understands the complexity of the issues, and realizes it. I spent a little time listening to his "Waffling" he isn't waffling his views are consistent to the complexity of the issue.
You can be both morally against abortion and still believe to support the existing law to keep it legal. It is just the Partisan idiots who cannot understand that.
Your argument sounds like a lets go back to the old ways. Because the old ways we didn't have all these problems.
The issue is we got on the net and we were hooked.
When I first got online I used metered Internet. I payed by the hour. Then when I got to college I had unlimited High Speed internet. After I got out of college I bought Unlimited High Speed Internet, why because I got use to it, and it solved more problems then it created.
The real problem is the High Speed internet providers are in a conflict of interests with their products.
Consumer High speed internet is running off the infrastructure of their biggest competitors Cable and Telephone. So Cable Companies and Telephone companies are the ones offering Internet... And they are the the ones with the most to lose with larger internet adoption, with VoIP and Streaming Media.
We need to work on a method of getting Internet threw many other companies. A wider selection of wireless Internet services, Internet via power grid, cheaper and faster satellite internet, communities of shared wi-fi signals....
But the EU likes to push hard against Companies (US based or not) that have a European competitor. Such as the case against Intel, the fact that the European company of AMD is one of their biggest competitors had nothing to do with it? Or Nokia vs. Apple and Samsung.
Just admit it, Europe is just as corrupt as the rest of the first world. Once you admit it, then you can start spotting it, and fixing it.
If you are coding using macros chances are you are doing it wrong. I am not defending Visual Studios. But if you need macros all the time like you are implying then you are doing your code wrong. You may use macros occasionally as there may be some jobs that may need them to code faster. But for the most part of there is a patern that you can use a macro, you can fix your code so you don't need to and your code will be easier to maintain.
More to the point I wonder what company in the EU is a competitor to Google to spark the action.
As a buyer you want your product as cheap as possible.
As a seller you want to sell your product as much as possible.
The fare price is the point where both sides feels like they got value from it.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley wanted it shoot way up. Because then they would have got the stock at a discount. However, they didn't their numbers should have shone that, so they may have got a stable stock.
When I was younger, I use to get jealous towards kids like that. I though if only I was in an environment that allowed me to do this type of stuff I can get famous for being that kid... As I got older, I am more satisfied with my lot in life, and I am happy to see kids coming up with new cheaper and better ways to do things, it keeps me more optimistic towards the future.
Science needs more kids, as we get older we become more institutionalized and experienced, this isn't bad, there is a lot to say about experience... However we sometimes need someone who doesn't have the experience to try something different because our approach is based on following the old procedure. The worst thing you can tell a kid, is don't do it that way, you can however say, I tried that a while back with these tools and this is what happened back then. Now the kid may know of newer or better tools or have the ability to do things you couldn't do back then.
Outside of Medical science just in terms of programming.
Back when I started programming, Software was very buggy and crashed all the time, so you couldn't really trust your program for months until you got all the kinks out... But today it is much easier to make a solid running program, why because our tools for programming have improved.
We no longer need to manipulate strings with a CHAR *NAME array, we have a solid string class. We have a wide set of common libraries that does a lot of the heavy work for us... So that experiment that you did back 10 years ago that failed miserable because it was too slow or just never worked, may be valid now with the new tool set and faster computers. So if that young kid is willing to try a similar Idea, he will either succeed or fail. If he fails he has gained experience, if he succeeds then that is good too. Saying you shouldn't do that because it is wrong, the kid will learn nothing.
Well for the "make websites that purposely only work with Chrome" They are taking advantage that Chrome is very strong in supporting HTML5... Other browsers can support those features too, they just didn't yet.
And If the browsers did support those features do you expect Google to have a fit for other browsers using the Standard?
Googles fight with IE, is the fact that it is so far behind other browsers... Still... That supporting IE is hampering Googles style. That is why they made chrome, They needed a browser that supports the standards well. Not so much to corner the Browser Market but to be able to make its sites do what they want it to do... Then we get to use those standards and make better apps because of this. This is different then Microsoft or Netscape attempt to corner the browser market, where their goal was to be the company that made the standards to force other vendors to choose which browser they will support.
Companies Goals are to make money Giving Browsers away from free, cost the companies money. So you need to figure out what their profit motive for the effort.
For Microsoft they wanted to win the browser war and make IE as a platform to run Active X and pushing their .NET technologies. Give the browser for free make it popular try to keep all the developers using Microsoft Development schemes if possible, and make sure all the browsers are using Microsoft approved OS (most notably their own)
For Google their goal is to sell services and display adds, they don't need to lock you in to an OS or lock the developers in, it is in their best interest to maximize users and developers. To sell more services and display more adds, they need a wider group of people. To keep you using Google services, you need to be kept up to date on the browsers to get the new stuff available. Firefox was Ok, however I expect Google wanted priorities in the stuff that is supported, to match their product plans.
Netscape goal was to sell the browser, when IE came out for free, they had to give it for free and try to sell their other services such as their Web Server solutions... Part of Netscape's failure was they lost their business model, and couldn't compete with their other ones for more then a few years. As Netscape wasn't pushing Developer tools (as much) most developers went with Microsoft who had nicer output tools.
Opera was in the selling browser market. Their goal is to make a fast browser and they sell it to mostly mobile devices. Because of this they try to keep it fast and as standard compliment as possible, as to leverage their partners devices to keep them successful so they will buy their browser again.
However people were hoping to see Bubble like growth. We think back of the good times during the 1990's where a Web Developer who just used Front Page would get a low 6 figure salary. Getting paid in Stock Options seemed like a good deal. Then we had the Pop where a lot of these jobs were outsourced. Stocks dropped, where a lot of these company who did nothing went out of business, and the ones that were over valued dropped a lot.
The companies that took on more modest growth, when times went bad went to a modest declined, they didn't have to layoff thousands of workers, they operated in their means. If Facebook doesn't plummet or shoot crazy up, then it was priced fairly and both sides got a good deal.
I remember in college there was a guy who was an Orthodox Jew. For the most part he was like everyone else, however he had a tenancy, of being in a mind set that when something is going on that was against his religion (Friday night parties, Pork BBQ, or His roommates forgot to turn keep the Bathroom light on during the Sabbath) The school I went to had a large Jewish population (about 1/3) and there was a lot of resources towards kosher and other Jewish friendly activities, however it is nearly impossible for the rest of the population (the 2/3 non Jewish, and a large percentage of the Jewish population who wasn't so reverent) to keep them fully involved in everything that is going on because his religion demands it.
The same thing with the internet, It is has too many people and the internet cannot be PC.
Because as a person with good site your views on accessibility features are quite different then someone who is blind. A webpage using graphic as text without a good alt tag could be the difference between a good ui and a bad one. Or even just the fact that someone when a form requires something to be filled in it may just be in a different color. Most UI enhancements are visual. I myself have good eye site, and operate my computer with the speakers on Mute, So my perception of a good UI is based on my site. Having known a few people who are blind, I understand that their perception of computing is much different, and you things that you take for granted are much different.
If an organization lies half the time and tells the truth the other half. You really shouldn't listen to them because you never know if it is a lie or not.
There are other organizations out there that are more honest. Listen to them... They may say the same thing as Greenpeace or they may say something else. Listening to them empowers them, and then they talk more with more 50% lies and 50% truth, confusing the general public and giving the GOP excuses to make the Liberals seem out of touch and just a bunch of corrupt idiots.
Well any pollution that is happening will happen local to someone. If there are strong local environmental groups globally then then there will be better protection globally. These global institutions are ineffective and stupid, they will let some things slides and others that don't mean anything go threw. With local stuff things like this will happen however their effect will be minimized as multiple groups each with a different set of priorities.
But you care enough to post a comment about it.
As you sit alone. Lonely and Miserable.
I agree Facebook is too mainstream to be news for nerds. If he married a Robot or an executive from Google. That may be a little different.
Yes Patent applications cost money. Home much money will one loose as an opportunity cost developing hours of their life in create an open source program?
Creating software isn't cheap. If you are doing something new and unique your group should find a way to get the money to patent the idea so your group can control who uses the idea. Now those big corps may have to pay you to use your patented code. Which you can put right back into supporting your project.