It's been before that the conservatives of today were the liberals of 30 years ago and that the liberals of today were the socialist party of 30 years ago. How much truth there is to that is probably moot, but the evidence from their platforms speaks volumes. Strange how time changes political stances. Of course, the south used to be a Democratic strong hold and now it's quite the opposite.
If they actually try this, how long until we see banners on websites advertising mod chips for apple motherboards so they'll take average off the shelf pc hardware? Shouldn't Apple of all companies, since I believe they are rather intelligent compared to most and take notice of computing trends, realize that putting hardware or software restrictions on a computer or device is tantamount to issuing a challenge for someone to break their control system? If this happens, it's going to go the way of Macrovision, iTunes DRM songs, and CD DRM in very short order and is just going to be a nuisance and extra cost for them to create new methods every new release.
Because a few people had the right drive and knowledge at the right time doesn't mean everyone can do it. In the real world, a college degree means either getting a job or not getting a job. You can't be a licensed professional in most fields without a degree. If you want to be an engineer, you can have all the insight and experience in the world, but no licensing board will administer the FE and PE exams without a college degree, that's a fact. Sure it might be possible to become a quick millionaire if you do an internet startup. You could think of something that no one's thought of before, or make a significant improvement on an existing idea, but that's rare. Taking chances isn't bad, but take chances that make sense. Just dropping out of school and selling software online might make you a few bucks, but come on, take a reality check. "Oh but Bill Gates did it and he's the richest man in the world!" Yeah, but look at all the other people who dropped out of school and failed. With a degree at the very worst you'll make probably $35k+ if you chose to study something worthwhile. That degree in Russian lit., yeah, probably not so much. I went to school, grad school too, I'll be a millionaire well before I'm 40 because I chose a profession that pays pretty decently. So will I be a loser because I went to college? Sure will, but I'll be a loser with a Porsche, big house, and a trophy wife. Life sure sucks for me with my Ph.D on the wall.
I'll bet Microsoft is kicking themselves for bailing out Apple back in the 90's, because now they might have some serious competition if a user has a choice between two mainstream, easy-to-use-right-from-the-box OS's that work on the same computer (I'm not forgetting Linux is a good desktop OS, but my mom can't use it so I don't consider is mainstream). If anything, Apple is going to quietly release a few more of these developer previews to let architecture bugs be found before they sell the OS to give them some good PR for having well tested software which may very well be at the heart of this scheme.
After thinking about it some, the most probable method is for microsoft's US portion to own the code and development, and sell licenses to regional microsoft corporations. That way they could get out of paying the larger revenue and holding taxes in the US if they sold their licenses at a cost of 1 penny per to it's other company that would then sell it for full retail price abroad, that way the US company wouldn't pay large revenues. That's how I think it's done, but I'm not an accountant and the IRS/SEC don't make a whole lot of sense anyway
That makes the most sense since that's kind of what Coca Cola does with having the corporate own the syrup and sell that at inflated prices to bottling companies abroad. Actually yeah, that's probably it, thanks
So should I get caught for pirating a copy of windows (which I'm not), can I cite this as a precedent for a settlement of $1 per copy? Or is it that since this is overseas that it doesn't count somehow, even though Microsoft would have to pay US taxes on the monies earned abroad under current laws? And should Microsoft be able to sue me for pirating their software, could I countersue them for price-gouging if their asking price is the US price while they demand a lesser price abroad? This is a serious question so don't waste your moderator points.
Seems to me like the major software companies have been harping for about 8 years on the 'fact' that linux is nothing but a minor nuisance and is going to disappear within the next year or so. I suppose this just shows a corporate strategic response to the trend in people going to lengths to get something different on their desktops than Windows or MacOS. First there were a few companies making their software available to linux, but not much that would be useable to most people (I use matlab, maple and industry codes on linux, so I don't do the web development stuff so this is only accurate to myself), but now common desktop software makers are porting to linux; nero, mcafee, large release games, etc. Looks like the doom and gloom prediction from the major software companies is turning out to be quite the opposite. Hopefully this trend will continue:-)
What good are hackers if you can't feed your own people? Is their goal to train people to knock other countries back to the same pitiful point of human rights that they're at? Same thing with their nuclear program, why not feed and educate your people before you start trying to throw your weight around.
There is no silver bullet that will put an end to drunk or distracted driver whether it be an expensive steering wheel or not. Might as well ban cell phones while you're at it or yelling at the kids in the backseat. But I'm still not convinced why I need to add an anti-drunk driving feature to my car when I don't even drink. That's just something I don't need. People with a history of drunk driving may need it, or maybe parents who haven't raised their kids well enough to trust them not to drink when they're at a friend's house, but I surely don't need it and I guarantee you my kids will know better that to do that. Perhaps we should legislate that people take an active role in their kid's lives instead, because I'd rather keep my $600, but you can give yours away if you want.
So is driving at night, in the ran, snow, sleet, hail, etc etc. Life has inherent risks associated with it. I'm all for reducing the chances of drunk driving, but there's a thing in my industry we do in safety called "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA). Reasonably being the keyword. Reduce the price of these things and who knows, maybe they can go mainstream, but if they cost $600 to add to a car, forget it. My brakes don't even cost that much. Education is the key and if that doesn't work, heavy penalties that lawyers can't slime their way out of.
Then by that logic are we going to mandate that everyone have anti-lock brakes, side impact airbags, and every other piece of optional safety equipment on a car? The last thing I need is the government telling me I have to live in a padded room because I might hurt myself. Do we really need to mandate that people buy a bunch of stuff that the vast majority don't need? If anything, teach responsibility with alcohol instead, that would do much more good than a piece of equipment on a car, because if a person makes the conscious decision not to drink in excess then the problem is solved before it has a chance to present itself.
It's not fair to me if I don't even drink. I don't think I should be forced to replace my perfectly good steering wheel in my car with a $600 one that, to me, would be completely worthless. Making people wear seatbelts is one thing because that is by far the cheapest safety feature ever invented for a car, but forcing people to put in a $600 steering wheel? Come on. At the most it could be an option for people to have installed on their cars, but by no means should it be mandatory unless a person has a history of DUI.
Kids shouldn't be drinking anyway if it's illegal for them to be! Whoever is buying them said alcohol should go to jail, especially considering that it's usually the kid's own parents. If they condone their child drinking in their own home that's one thing, but to let them go out to a party that isn't supervised and has alcohol is just insane. It's lazy parenting, ask your kid where they're going, have them leave a number where they can be reached, make sure they'll be back by a certain time or suffer the consequences. Those aren't too terribly difficult or invasive rules to follow, afterall, would you rather put your trust in your own child or a $600 steering wheel?
Don't know where most of my last post went, so I'll submit it again
If that were the case, natural uranium ore would be a critical system with itself as a moderator, but that just isn't the case. If you look at the cross section graphs for Pu-239 as compared to U-238 for the fast energy range from greater than 1eV to ~10MeV, you'll see that the microscopic cross sections for absorption are relatively similar between the two isotopes which is ~1 barn, as to be expected since both are fertile isotopes that absorb to higher-Z elements, but that is for only for absorption which has mixed effects for a supercritical system. What you have to look at is what the isotope does with that absorbed neutron, which is referred to as the fission cross section. That for the Pu-239 is close to 1 barn for the entire fast spectrum including resonances, yet the fission cross section for U-238 is on the order of 10^-5 barns, which means that this is extremely, extremely unlikely to occur. So you must have read a typo or they meant to say U-235, because U-238 does not fast fission often as it is considered non-fissile, otherwise the Navy would be using natural uranium in their subs and carriers because it is loads cheaper than plutonium.
If that were the case, natural uranium ore would be a critical system with itself as a moderator, but that just isn't the case. If you look at the cross section graphs for Pu-239 as compared to U-238 for the fast energy range http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/index.html
I don't get what's so wrong with having a national ID card. We already have Passports that are managed by the State dept, and driver's licenses that are managed by our state's, why not combine the systems? Is there much use in carrying around 2+ government issued ID cards? I do think it should be for ID, driving, and border crossing purposes ONLY. I don't like these ideas that I saw flying around on tv news networks about incorporating our ATM/credit cards, because that's too much. If it's just a driver's license and passport combined, what's the big problem? Don't tell me it's the computer system required to make it because most geeks I know would kill (not literally) to get on a big project like that.
It's not simple at all, there's a reason why it took billions of 1940 dollars to develop a nuclear weapons program. There were thousands of scientists and engineers working on it. There was nothing simple about the initial creation of it except for saying that mass can equal energy, and that in itself isn't inherently simple. They had to create a large number of nucear theories which took quite a bit of time because the underlying theories were still in their infancy not to mention the lack of computers. You can't simply take uranium from the ground and put it next to another piece of ore and expect it to blow up or even go critical. They had to create diffusion theory to model the entire system to see if it would go critical. In addition to knowing how to build separation plants, they had to build chemical refineries, design various solvent extraction processes, water reclaimation plants, high and low level liquid waste storage facilities, the list goes on. If you combined just about every type of engineering (nuclear, mechanical, chemical, civil, etc), then you might be able to grasp what a process goes into creating these weapons. There is a reason why people don't just make a nuclear bomb in a year or two. There was nothing simple about it, and if you think there is, maybe you need to be the graduate student instead of me.
I think you mean Pu-239 since 92% of that by atom percent is "weapons grade." The 238 is an neutron absorber, which is opposite to what you want in a highly supercritical system. Also it absorbs more at thermal energy ranges and not so much the fast/resonance region of plutonium. The initial fusion design used the compression method, but that was jamming one side of a sphere against the other creating the "critial mass" (amount of fuel required by diffusion theory to create a self sustaining reaction), from there the fuel begins a highly supercritical reaction and explodes mostly inwards due to blocking by the shell of the warhead. Then the D-T reaches high enough temperatures ~5keV and the fusion takes place which overshadows any yield by the fission portion.
Do the voip providers not inform their subscribers that they do not have 911 access? If they don't, then I can see a problem, but I'm pretty sure they do. In which case, last I checked, the Bell's still drop off a phone book at just about every house, so a person could use that to look up an actual emergency number beforehand to keep by the phone just in case. If they don't have a phone book, they must have internet access if they're using voip, so why not use that to look up an emergency number? The people who are at risk are the ones who haven't taken any precautionary steps. It's a shame that people have died as a result of not being able to call 911, but there are ways to get the same thing done if only they would have checked beforehand.
Very true, longevity of new systems is very important for not only the safety, but the value of the vehicle. If it is known that a car will not last past so many miles, either the engine needing rebuilding or something like it, people will be very, very hesitant to spend money on it and the value of the cars will drop significantly. Say the bushings or something needs replacing in an electric motor, that could be a pretty expensive replacement that people may be reluctant to spend on. It's largely a materials issue because we know that we can do just about anything required on a conventional car with electric motors and whatnot, but the longevity of electric motors with current materials isn't exactly the best. Normal wear and tear is a huge problem with electric motors because they are used and abused (the whole max torque at t=0 thing), so much so that I'm curious to see how people respond when their 1st gen hybrids start having problems in a year or two. I know they fixed the starting torque problem by using the gas engine to initially move the car and switch with the electric motor at a split second or so afterwards so as not to overtorque the motor since it's really, really bad for the coils, but who knows how long the individual motors for the brakes, steering, etc will last since they're used all the time and are much smaller. Anyway, it's really up to the materials scientists for the longevity issue. So if you know any engineering student who's undecided for a field, suggest materials since there is going to be a whole lot of money in there, probably more so than chemical and nuclear (mine) in a few years.
Seriously, give me fly by wire any day. I had to change the brakes on my car last weekend. The front cylinders were fine, but the back I noticed that there was a developing fissure in the drum. Brake fluid was just barely coming out, but all it would take to bust the drum open would be a really hard brake to avoid a deer, child, or an alien on a back country road. Reason I tell this little story, most people just know if their car is working or not. Binary. No middle ground of developing material failure because few people know how to look at that stuff anymore, it either works or it doesn't. I think most people could be handed a hamster powered car and wouldn't notice so long as it kept running. But to say that a technology is bad simply because there is no physical linkage between two components is a little ridiculous given the rapid acceptance of new technologies in the past 100 years. If we believed that, then we wouldn't have remotes for our TV because the battery could fail at the exact moment we need to change channels to save our eyes from witnessing the latest Old Navy commercial. We wouldn't have large jets because we'd still have extremely heavy and redundant hydraulic systems on planes which would require smaller aircraft. Simply put, this is a technology in adolescence, it's very advanced, but still can have some bugs now and then. We shouldn't pass it off simply because we don't understand it or fear change. We should look at this as the next evolution of our transportation system and then bitch about fuel prices.
PS. I'd love some redundant remote servos on my brakes or steering in case one control system fails. Get on it Ford/Toyota/Honda.
Fortran, like it or not, is still the de-facto basis for the vast majority of engineering modelling programs. MCNP, SCALE, FLUENT, or basically any type of monte carlo calculation is going to be based off of fortran 77 and possibly written in F90 or F95. When I started as an undergrad, I refused to learn fortran saying that it was a dinosaur and outdated by every new programming language available; however, when you get into the real world, you'll notice that the guys that have been doing that stuff for 20+ years don't want to change so new codes will come out but will still be written in good ol' fortran. Needless to say, I know fortran not because I want to, but because it's a necessity as an engineer doing computational methods.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been before that the conservatives of today were the liberals of 30 years ago and that the liberals of today were the socialist party of 30 years ago. How much truth there is to that is probably moot, but the evidence from their platforms speaks volumes. Strange how time changes political stances. Of course, the south used to be a Democratic strong hold and now it's quite the opposite.
If they actually try this, how long until we see banners on websites advertising mod chips for apple motherboards so they'll take average off the shelf pc hardware? Shouldn't Apple of all companies, since I believe they are rather intelligent compared to most and take notice of computing trends, realize that putting hardware or software restrictions on a computer or device is tantamount to issuing a challenge for someone to break their control system? If this happens, it's going to go the way of Macrovision, iTunes DRM songs, and CD DRM in very short order and is just going to be a nuisance and extra cost for them to create new methods every new release.
Because a few people had the right drive and knowledge at the right time doesn't mean everyone can do it. In the real world, a college degree means either getting a job or not getting a job. You can't be a licensed professional in most fields without a degree. If you want to be an engineer, you can have all the insight and experience in the world, but no licensing board will administer the FE and PE exams without a college degree, that's a fact. Sure it might be possible to become a quick millionaire if you do an internet startup. You could think of something that no one's thought of before, or make a significant improvement on an existing idea, but that's rare. Taking chances isn't bad, but take chances that make sense. Just dropping out of school and selling software online might make you a few bucks, but come on, take a reality check. "Oh but Bill Gates did it and he's the richest man in the world!" Yeah, but look at all the other people who dropped out of school and failed. With a degree at the very worst you'll make probably $35k+ if you chose to study something worthwhile. That degree in Russian lit., yeah, probably not so much. I went to school, grad school too, I'll be a millionaire well before I'm 40 because I chose a profession that pays pretty decently. So will I be a loser because I went to college? Sure will, but I'll be a loser with a Porsche, big house, and a trophy wife. Life sure sucks for me with my Ph.D on the wall.
I'll bet Microsoft is kicking themselves for bailing out Apple back in the 90's, because now they might have some serious competition if a user has a choice between two mainstream, easy-to-use-right-from-the-box OS's that work on the same computer (I'm not forgetting Linux is a good desktop OS, but my mom can't use it so I don't consider is mainstream). If anything, Apple is going to quietly release a few more of these developer previews to let architecture bugs be found before they sell the OS to give them some good PR for having well tested software which may very well be at the heart of this scheme.
" Oh, that words's already been patented - you're not allowed to use it!"
;-) I don't mean to nitpick
I believe it's a registered trademark of Parker Brothers and not a patent
After thinking about it some, the most probable method is for microsoft's US portion to own the code and development, and sell licenses to regional microsoft corporations. That way they could get out of paying the larger revenue and holding taxes in the US if they sold their licenses at a cost of 1 penny per to it's other company that would then sell it for full retail price abroad, that way the US company wouldn't pay large revenues. That's how I think it's done, but I'm not an accountant and the IRS/SEC don't make a whole lot of sense anyway
That makes the most sense since that's kind of what Coca Cola does with having the corporate own the syrup and sell that at inflated prices to bottling companies abroad. Actually yeah, that's probably it, thanks
So should I get caught for pirating a copy of windows (which I'm not), can I cite this as a precedent for a settlement of $1 per copy? Or is it that since this is overseas that it doesn't count somehow, even though Microsoft would have to pay US taxes on the monies earned abroad under current laws? And should Microsoft be able to sue me for pirating their software, could I countersue them for price-gouging if their asking price is the US price while they demand a lesser price abroad? This is a serious question so don't waste your moderator points.
Seems to me like the major software companies have been harping for about 8 years on the 'fact' that linux is nothing but a minor nuisance and is going to disappear within the next year or so. I suppose this just shows a corporate strategic response to the trend in people going to lengths to get something different on their desktops than Windows or MacOS. First there were a few companies making their software available to linux, but not much that would be useable to most people (I use matlab, maple and industry codes on linux, so I don't do the web development stuff so this is only accurate to myself), but now common desktop software makers are porting to linux; nero, mcafee, large release games, etc. Looks like the doom and gloom prediction from the major software companies is turning out to be quite the opposite. Hopefully this trend will continue :-)
What good are hackers if you can't feed your own people? Is their goal to train people to knock other countries back to the same pitiful point of human rights that they're at? Same thing with their nuclear program, why not feed and educate your people before you start trying to throw your weight around.
There is no silver bullet that will put an end to drunk or distracted driver whether it be an expensive steering wheel or not. Might as well ban cell phones while you're at it or yelling at the kids in the backseat. But I'm still not convinced why I need to add an anti-drunk driving feature to my car when I don't even drink. That's just something I don't need. People with a history of drunk driving may need it, or maybe parents who haven't raised their kids well enough to trust them not to drink when they're at a friend's house, but I surely don't need it and I guarantee you my kids will know better that to do that. Perhaps we should legislate that people take an active role in their kid's lives instead, because I'd rather keep my $600, but you can give yours away if you want.
So is driving at night, in the ran, snow, sleet, hail, etc etc. Life has inherent risks associated with it. I'm all for reducing the chances of drunk driving, but there's a thing in my industry we do in safety called "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA). Reasonably being the keyword. Reduce the price of these things and who knows, maybe they can go mainstream, but if they cost $600 to add to a car, forget it. My brakes don't even cost that much. Education is the key and if that doesn't work, heavy penalties that lawyers can't slime their way out of.
Then by that logic are we going to mandate that everyone have anti-lock brakes, side impact airbags, and every other piece of optional safety equipment on a car? The last thing I need is the government telling me I have to live in a padded room because I might hurt myself. Do we really need to mandate that people buy a bunch of stuff that the vast majority don't need? If anything, teach responsibility with alcohol instead, that would do much more good than a piece of equipment on a car, because if a person makes the conscious decision not to drink in excess then the problem is solved before it has a chance to present itself.
It's not fair to me if I don't even drink. I don't think I should be forced to replace my perfectly good steering wheel in my car with a $600 one that, to me, would be completely worthless. Making people wear seatbelts is one thing because that is by far the cheapest safety feature ever invented for a car, but forcing people to put in a $600 steering wheel? Come on. At the most it could be an option for people to have installed on their cars, but by no means should it be mandatory unless a person has a history of DUI.
Kids shouldn't be drinking anyway if it's illegal for them to be! Whoever is buying them said alcohol should go to jail, especially considering that it's usually the kid's own parents. If they condone their child drinking in their own home that's one thing, but to let them go out to a party that isn't supervised and has alcohol is just insane. It's lazy parenting, ask your kid where they're going, have them leave a number where they can be reached, make sure they'll be back by a certain time or suffer the consequences. Those aren't too terribly difficult or invasive rules to follow, afterall, would you rather put your trust in your own child or a $600 steering wheel?
Don't know where most of my last post went, so I'll submit it again
If that were the case, natural uranium ore would be a critical system with itself as a moderator, but that just isn't the case. If you look at the cross section graphs for Pu-239 as compared to U-238 for the fast energy range from greater than 1eV to ~10MeV, you'll see that the microscopic cross sections for absorption are relatively similar between the two isotopes which is ~1 barn, as to be expected since both are fertile isotopes that absorb to higher-Z elements, but that is for only for absorption which has mixed effects for a supercritical system. What you have to look at is what the isotope does with that absorbed neutron, which is referred to as the fission cross section. That for the Pu-239 is close to 1 barn for the entire fast spectrum including resonances, yet the fission cross section for U-238 is on the order of 10^-5 barns, which means that this is extremely, extremely unlikely to occur. So you must have read a typo or they meant to say U-235, because U-238 does not fast fission often as it is considered non-fissile, otherwise the Navy would be using natural uranium in their subs and carriers because it is loads cheaper than plutonium.
Former BNL site for table of the nuclides, now at KAERI if you want to compare cross sections.
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/index.html
If that were the case, natural uranium ore would be a critical system with itself as a moderator, but that just isn't the case. If you look at the cross section graphs for Pu-239 as compared to U-238 for the fast energy range http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/index.html
I don't get what's so wrong with having a national ID card. We already have Passports that are managed by the State dept, and driver's licenses that are managed by our state's, why not combine the systems? Is there much use in carrying around 2+ government issued ID cards? I do think it should be for ID, driving, and border crossing purposes ONLY. I don't like these ideas that I saw flying around on tv news networks about incorporating our ATM/credit cards, because that's too much. If it's just a driver's license and passport combined, what's the big problem? Don't tell me it's the computer system required to make it because most geeks I know would kill (not literally) to get on a big project like that.
I still think OS/2 Warp was a great idea!
;-)
Ah geez, who am I kidding
It's not simple at all, there's a reason why it took billions of 1940 dollars to develop a nuclear weapons program. There were thousands of scientists and engineers working on it. There was nothing simple about the initial creation of it except for saying that mass can equal energy, and that in itself isn't inherently simple. They had to create a large number of nucear theories which took quite a bit of time because the underlying theories were still in their infancy not to mention the lack of computers. You can't simply take uranium from the ground and put it next to another piece of ore and expect it to blow up or even go critical. They had to create diffusion theory to model the entire system to see if it would go critical. In addition to knowing how to build separation plants, they had to build chemical refineries, design various solvent extraction processes, water reclaimation plants, high and low level liquid waste storage facilities, the list goes on. If you combined just about every type of engineering (nuclear, mechanical, chemical, civil, etc), then you might be able to grasp what a process goes into creating these weapons. There is a reason why people don't just make a nuclear bomb in a year or two. There was nothing simple about it, and if you think there is, maybe you need to be the graduate student instead of me.
I think you mean Pu-239 since 92% of that by atom percent is "weapons grade." The 238 is an neutron absorber, which is opposite to what you want in a highly supercritical system. Also it absorbs more at thermal energy ranges and not so much the fast/resonance region of plutonium. The initial fusion design used the compression method, but that was jamming one side of a sphere against the other creating the "critial mass" (amount of fuel required by diffusion theory to create a self sustaining reaction), from there the fuel begins a highly supercritical reaction and explodes mostly inwards due to blocking by the shell of the warhead. Then the D-T reaches high enough temperatures ~5keV and the fusion takes place which overshadows any yield by the fission portion.
Do the voip providers not inform their subscribers that they do not have 911 access? If they don't, then I can see a problem, but I'm pretty sure they do. In which case, last I checked, the Bell's still drop off a phone book at just about every house, so a person could use that to look up an actual emergency number beforehand to keep by the phone just in case. If they don't have a phone book, they must have internet access if they're using voip, so why not use that to look up an emergency number? The people who are at risk are the ones who haven't taken any precautionary steps. It's a shame that people have died as a result of not being able to call 911, but there are ways to get the same thing done if only they would have checked beforehand.
Very true, longevity of new systems is very important for not only the safety, but the value of the vehicle. If it is known that a car will not last past so many miles, either the engine needing rebuilding or something like it, people will be very, very hesitant to spend money on it and the value of the cars will drop significantly. Say the bushings or something needs replacing in an electric motor, that could be a pretty expensive replacement that people may be reluctant to spend on. It's largely a materials issue because we know that we can do just about anything required on a conventional car with electric motors and whatnot, but the longevity of electric motors with current materials isn't exactly the best. Normal wear and tear is a huge problem with electric motors because they are used and abused (the whole max torque at t=0 thing), so much so that I'm curious to see how people respond when their 1st gen hybrids start having problems in a year or two. I know they fixed the starting torque problem by using the gas engine to initially move the car and switch with the electric motor at a split second or so afterwards so as not to overtorque the motor since it's really, really bad for the coils, but who knows how long the individual motors for the brakes, steering, etc will last since they're used all the time and are much smaller. Anyway, it's really up to the materials scientists for the longevity issue. So if you know any engineering student who's undecided for a field, suggest materials since there is going to be a whole lot of money in there, probably more so than chemical and nuclear (mine) in a few years.
Seriously, give me fly by wire any day. I had to change the brakes on my car last weekend. The front cylinders were fine, but the back I noticed that there was a developing fissure in the drum. Brake fluid was just barely coming out, but all it would take to bust the drum open would be a really hard brake to avoid a deer, child, or an alien on a back country road. Reason I tell this little story, most people just know if their car is working or not. Binary. No middle ground of developing material failure because few people know how to look at that stuff anymore, it either works or it doesn't. I think most people could be handed a hamster powered car and wouldn't notice so long as it kept running. But to say that a technology is bad simply because there is no physical linkage between two components is a little ridiculous given the rapid acceptance of new technologies in the past 100 years. If we believed that, then we wouldn't have remotes for our TV because the battery could fail at the exact moment we need to change channels to save our eyes from witnessing the latest Old Navy commercial. We wouldn't have large jets because we'd still have extremely heavy and redundant hydraulic systems on planes which would require smaller aircraft. Simply put, this is a technology in adolescence, it's very advanced, but still can have some bugs now and then. We shouldn't pass it off simply because we don't understand it or fear change. We should look at this as the next evolution of our transportation system and then bitch about fuel prices.
PS. I'd love some redundant remote servos on my brakes or steering in case one control system fails. Get on it Ford/Toyota/Honda.
Fortran, like it or not, is still the de-facto basis for the vast majority of engineering modelling programs. MCNP, SCALE, FLUENT, or basically any type of monte carlo calculation is going to be based off of fortran 77 and possibly written in F90 or F95. When I started as an undergrad, I refused to learn fortran saying that it was a dinosaur and outdated by every new programming language available; however, when you get into the real world, you'll notice that the guys that have been doing that stuff for 20+ years don't want to change so new codes will come out but will still be written in good ol' fortran. Needless to say, I know fortran not because I want to, but because it's a necessity as an engineer doing computational methods.