You know, you take things on the Internet way too seriously. I suspect you do in life, too. You're probably the classic Road Rager. I know sarcasm doesn't translate well over TCP/IP, but maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider cutting down on your caffeine intake. And possibly getting laid.... waiting for your next tirade... or not, I have better things to do, like watch paint dry.
I think he proved exactly who he was and what he was capable of BY lying about his credentials on Wikipedia.
Short of that, yes, it sounds as though he was showing his merit. I will grant him that, at times, particularly IN academia, people will give you less credit than you're due, for poor reasons, such as not having a degree. That said, if you have intelligence, the wit to use it, and are a subject matter expert, I don't think you should have to lie in any fashion in order to demonstrate said intelligence. Find a good way to put it to use, and it will be recognized.
Personally I started to lose some of my own introverted-ness when I started cold-calling prospects when I was freelancing websites in high school. Later, the process of going through interview after interview helped me along even further. Also, simply being very good at what I do, and knowing it, and knowing it in the context of having friends who also were very good at what they do, who then showed me a great deal of respect for what I do, sealed the deal. Refine your capabilities, and grow your social activities. Yes, some bastards are naturally charismatic, social butterfly types. I'm not one of them, but having confidence in yourself is the place to start.
See my reply above. There are plenty of ways to show your merit, no matter what the field. Volunteer -- donate your time, your services to a relevant cause or organization. Intern. Write, and self-publish if you have to. Participate in relevant groups, discussions, debates.
I contest that statement -- heatedly. I'm a software engineer, I've been writing BASIC since I was 6, n-tiered web apps for a decade,.NET enterprise applications for several years now. At the age of 19, no degree, I had my first fulltime software job, making just under $35kUSD salary. I then hopped up the contract ladder, making $35/hour, with medical benefits, at the age of 21 -- still no degree. I was the webmaster for one of Gannett's top 10 websites at the age of 23 -- still no degree. I was in Xerox's Software Development Infrastucture department at the age of 26 -- still no degree. I finally killed an associate's while working for Xerox. I'm now an enterprise software engineer for a major vision insurance company, with just an associate's. Sure, getting a foot in the door isn't always easy, but there is DEFINITELY opportunity to show your merit. 1. Network. 2. Have a demonstration-friendly portfolio. 3. Know your stuff -- participate in the local and worldwide community.
I too think that what you do, not what paper you hold, defines you, and your abilities, but to lie about holding said paper is inexcusable. It then brings into question your credibility over all. Prove yourself on your own merit, not on falsehoods.
I enjoy coding in Windows, and I do so for work, and on my own time. I enjoy being able to program multiple devices I happen to own -- Smartphones, Pocket PCs, desktops, servers, and soon probably a media center as well. I've done Java. I did VB6 for years. I've done a bit of C++. I've dabbled in Perl. I've written PHP when my arm's been twisted. I've been writing SQL against various datasources for years.
When it comes down to it, I find I'm able to most quickly create a pleasant GUI app in Visual Studio, using.NET. Maybe that's my lack of exposure to Java tools... please feel free to show me where I'm deficient here. I started out in BASIC 20 years ago, I've run various Linux installations. I can still, quite honestly, say that I do in fact enjoy programming in Windows.
With your postulations aside, huge corporations don't take huge risks. It's as simple of that. Something that's already failed is not likely to be given a go-ahead once again. Once bitten, twice shy. Good night Sally.
Way to selectively quote a single comment from the responses to the article.
How about the main body?
"I flew SAS flight to Copenhagen 1.5 years ago and paid my $30. But I could only use the Wifi service for two hours because my laptop's battery wouldn't last longer than that.
. . .
Sorry, normal people will do without wifi if they have to pay $30 for two hours."
You can't justify ANY cost, whether to implement or to maintain, with LITTLE OR NO revenue.
Boeing didn't kill its existing wifi because of cost to implement -- it was already implemented. Ongoing costs of basic service weren't justified when so few passengers were willing to pay for the service to begin with.
Considering every commercial airline's effort to offer WiFi to date has been scrapped either before takeoff (pun intended), or not long after launch. The costs are simply not supported by the revenue, simple as that. Other considerations like weight and maintenance complexity are secondary.
We have a host of active COBOL programmers where I work... anyplace with an existing mainframe architecture is a candidate for hiring COBOL programmers. Yes, we're phasing that out, but no, it won't happen anytime soon, and I can't imagine there aren't other insurance or financial enterprises in the same boat. Too much money and manhours invested over too many years.
Actually I'm pretty familiar with the massive amount of energy required. You're excused for not being literate and thoughtful enough to think outside the box and understand that our own progress in physics may in absolutely no way nor fashion represent the achievements of another civilization.
No, I'm not a rocket scientist nor an astrophysicist, just a software engineer with an open mind that doesn't limit itself to think that humanity is the pinnacle of ANYTHING. I've been reading Asimov and Sagan and Clarke and that whole cabal for nearly 20 years, while I may not do the math, I've certainly cleaned the kitchen sink.
That's pretty narrow minded. A thousand years ago people would tell you a metal box couldn't show people talking to or at you, either. Several thousand years before that, people would tell you you couldn't have a "metal" box, whatever that "metal" stuff is. In a few hundred years, modern society will be laughing at you, the same way we laugh at peoples who believed their god threw lightning bolts and lived on a mountain top, the same way they probably laughed at the mindset pervasive prior to their own time, a la snake worship.
Before we begin the discussion, I wanted to go over the basic idea of what we mean by FTL travel. To do so, we should start by noting that most of space-time through which we would want to travel is fairly flat. For those who have not read Part III of this FAQ, that means that special relativity describes the space-time fairly well without having resorting to general relativity (which applies when a gravitational field is present). Sources of gravity are few and far between, and even if you travel "close" to one, it would have to be a significant source of gravity in order to destroy our flat space-time approximation. Now, some FTL travel concepts we consider will involve using certain areas of space-time which are not flat (and I will go over them when we get there); however, the important thing for us is that all around these non-flat areas, the space-time can be approximated fairly well as being flat.
Thus, for our purposes, we can use the following to describe FTL travel. Consider some observer traveling from point A to point B. At the same time this observer leaves A, a light beam is sent out towards the destination, B. This light travels in the area of fairly flat space-time outside of any effects that might be caused by the method our observer uses to travel from A to B. If the observer ends up at B in time to see the light beam arrive, then the observer is said to have traveled "faster than light".
Notice that with this definition we don't care where the observer is when he or she does the traveling. Also, if some space-time distortion is used to drive the ship, then even if the ship itself doesn't move faster than light within that distortion, the ship still travels faster than the light which is going through the normal, flat space-time that is not effected by the ship's FTL drive. Thus, this ship still fits our definition of FTL travel.
So, with this basic definition in mind, let's take a look at the problems involved with FTL Travel./quote
Wormhole travel is FTL, aka faster than c... falls in the same class. I've been a fan of wormholes for 15 years or so now, since first really reading about them as a kid -- not just hearing the name bandied about in sci fi shows and movies... exotic matter, vacuum energy, the possibilities fascinate me. I've also been an SG fan since the movie.
But the bad assumption remains: rocket technology. Like I said, who's to say they haven't gone further with physics, or pursued a different, or completely unthought-of (to us) means of travel?
Why 1/10th c? Why not 99% of c? Why not faster than c? Granted faster than light travel is nothing more than theory and dreams at this point, but this article makes the assumption that other civilizations have not progressed in the field of physics any faster nor further than we ourselves have, to date.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, you take things on the Internet way too seriously. I suspect you do in life, too. You're probably the classic Road Rager. I know sarcasm doesn't translate well over TCP/IP, but maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider cutting down on your caffeine intake. And possibly getting laid. ... waiting for your next tirade ... or not, I have better things to do, like watch paint dry.
I think he proved exactly who he was and what he was capable of BY lying about his credentials on Wikipedia.
Short of that, yes, it sounds as though he was showing his merit. I will grant him that, at times, particularly IN academia, people will give you less credit than you're due, for poor reasons, such as not having a degree. That said, if you have intelligence, the wit to use it, and are a subject matter expert, I don't think you should have to lie in any fashion in order to demonstrate said intelligence. Find a good way to put it to use, and it will be recognized.
Personally I started to lose some of my own introverted-ness when I started cold-calling prospects when I was freelancing websites in high school. Later, the process of going through interview after interview helped me along even further. Also, simply being very good at what I do, and knowing it, and knowing it in the context of having friends who also were very good at what they do, who then showed me a great deal of respect for what I do, sealed the deal. Refine your capabilities, and grow your social activities. Yes, some bastards are naturally charismatic, social butterfly types. I'm not one of them, but having confidence in yourself is the place to start.
Only when they attempt to shill my content as their own. Welcome to the intraweb.
Perhaps you should have just quoted me, and appended your sig?
See my reply above. There are plenty of ways to show your merit, no matter what the field. Volunteer -- donate your time, your services to a relevant cause or organization. Intern. Write, and self-publish if you have to. Participate in relevant groups, discussions, debates.
I contest that statement -- heatedly. I'm a software engineer, I've been writing BASIC since I was 6, n-tiered web apps for a decade, .NET enterprise applications for several years now. At the age of 19, no degree, I had my first fulltime software job, making just under $35kUSD salary. I then hopped up the contract ladder, making $35/hour, with medical benefits, at the age of 21 -- still no degree. I was the webmaster for one of Gannett's top 10 websites at the age of 23 -- still no degree. I was in Xerox's Software Development Infrastucture department at the age of 26 -- still no degree. I finally killed an associate's while working for Xerox. I'm now an enterprise software engineer for a major vision insurance company, with just an associate's. Sure, getting a foot in the door isn't always easy, but there is DEFINITELY opportunity to show your merit. 1. Network. 2. Have a demonstration-friendly portfolio. 3. Know your stuff -- participate in the local and worldwide community.
I too think that what you do, not what paper you hold, defines you, and your abilities, but to lie about holding said paper is inexcusable. It then brings into question your credibility over all. Prove yourself on your own merit, not on falsehoods.
I enjoy coding in Windows, and I do so for work, and on my own time. I enjoy being able to program multiple devices I happen to own -- Smartphones, Pocket PCs, desktops, servers, and soon probably a media center as well. I've done Java. I did VB6 for years. I've done a bit of C++. I've dabbled in Perl. I've written PHP when my arm's been twisted. I've been writing SQL against various datasources for years.
.NET. Maybe that's my lack of exposure to Java tools ... please feel free to show me where I'm deficient here. I started out in BASIC 20 years ago, I've run various Linux installations. I can still, quite honestly, say that I do in fact enjoy programming in Windows.
When it comes down to it, I find I'm able to most quickly create a pleasant GUI app in Visual Studio, using
That's a lot of maybes, pal.
With your postulations aside, huge corporations don't take huge risks. It's as simple of that. Something that's already failed is not likely to be given a go-ahead once again. Once bitten, twice shy. Good night Sally.
of intergalactic alien porn will surely suffer :(
Way to selectively quote a single comment from the responses to the article.
How about the main body?
"I flew SAS flight to Copenhagen 1.5 years ago and paid my $30. But I could only use the Wifi service for two hours because my laptop's battery wouldn't last longer than that.
.
.
.
Sorry, normal people will do without wifi if they have to pay $30 for two hours."
You can't justify ANY cost, whether to implement or to maintain, with LITTLE OR NO revenue.
Discussion here:
w ifi-service-die/
http://scobleizer.com/2006/08/17/why-did-boeings-
Boeing didn't kill its existing wifi because of cost to implement -- it was already implemented. Ongoing costs of basic service weren't justified when so few passengers were willing to pay for the service to begin with.
Considering every commercial airline's effort to offer WiFi to date has been scrapped either before takeoff (pun intended), or not long after launch. The costs are simply not supported by the revenue, simple as that. Other considerations like weight and maintenance complexity are secondary.
but what does that matter if the limitation is imposed by the underlying architecture, not the software?
We have a host of active COBOL programmers where I work ... anyplace with an existing mainframe architecture is a candidate for hiring COBOL programmers. Yes, we're phasing that out, but no, it won't happen anytime soon, and I can't imagine there aren't other insurance or financial enterprises in the same boat. Too much money and manhours invested over too many years.
Actually I'm pretty familiar with the massive amount of energy required. You're excused for not being literate and thoughtful enough to think outside the box and understand that our own progress in physics may in absolutely no way nor fashion represent the achievements of another civilization.
No, I'm not a rocket scientist nor an astrophysicist, just a software engineer with an open mind that doesn't limit itself to think that humanity is the pinnacle of ANYTHING. I've been reading Asimov and Sagan and Clarke and that whole cabal for nearly 20 years, while I may not do the math, I've certainly cleaned the kitchen sink.
That's pretty narrow minded. A thousand years ago people would tell you a metal box couldn't show people talking to or at you, either. Several thousand years before that, people would tell you you couldn't have a "metal" box, whatever that "metal" stuff is. In a few hundred years, modern society will be laughing at you, the same way we laugh at peoples who believed their god threw lightning bolts and lived on a mountain top, the same way they probably laughed at the mindset pervasive prior to their own time, a la snake worship.
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html# sec:ftlnotes
/quote
6.1 A Few Notes On The Meaning of FTL Travel
Before we begin the discussion, I wanted to go over the basic idea of what we mean by FTL travel. To do so, we should start by noting that most of space-time through which we would want to travel is fairly flat. For those who have not read Part III of this FAQ, that means that special relativity describes the space-time fairly well without having resorting to general relativity (which applies when a gravitational field is present). Sources of gravity are few and far between, and even if you travel "close" to one, it would have to be a significant source of gravity in order to destroy our flat space-time approximation. Now, some FTL travel concepts we consider will involve using certain areas of space-time which are not flat (and I will go over them when we get there); however, the important thing for us is that all around these non-flat areas, the space-time can be approximated fairly well as being flat.
Thus, for our purposes, we can use the following to describe FTL travel. Consider some observer traveling from point A to point B. At the same time this observer leaves A, a light beam is sent out towards the destination, B. This light travels in the area of fairly flat space-time outside of any effects that might be caused by the method our observer uses to travel from A to B. If the observer ends up at B in time to see the light beam arrive, then the observer is said to have traveled "faster than light".
Notice that with this definition we don't care where the observer is when he or she does the traveling. Also, if some space-time distortion is used to drive the ship, then even if the ship itself doesn't move faster than light within that distortion, the ship still travels faster than the light which is going through the normal, flat space-time that is not effected by the ship's FTL drive. Thus, this ship still fits our definition of FTL travel.
So, with this basic definition in mind, let's take a look at the problems involved with FTL Travel.
cliff's notes: Wormholes -- non-localized FTL travel.
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html
I'd be more about Grace Park I think ... or a menage a all of the Cylon femmes ...
Wormhole travel is FTL, aka faster than c ... falls in the same class. I've been a fan of wormholes for 15 years or so now, since first really reading about them as a kid -- not just hearing the name bandied about in sci fi shows and movies ... exotic matter, vacuum energy, the possibilities fascinate me. I've also been an SG fan since the movie.
But the bad assumption remains: rocket technology. Like I said, who's to say they haven't gone further with physics, or pursued a different, or completely unthought-of (to us) means of travel?
Psssh, enough of that hippie dudley do-right love and flowers attitude, that will get you nowhere in this life.
(That said, I totally agree with you.)
Wow, it's almost as though you're quoting from my post that already existed at the time you hit reply ...
8 &cid=17668728
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21759
*scratching head*
Why 1/10th c? Why not 99% of c? Why not faster than c? Granted faster than light travel is nothing more than theory and dreams at this point, but this article makes the assumption that other civilizations have not progressed in the field of physics any faster nor further than we ourselves have, to date.