However, due to higher than expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 C (356 F) instead of expected 100 C (212 F), drilling deeper was deemed infeasible and the drilling was stopped in 1992.[3] With the expected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 metres (49,210 ft) would have meant working at a projected 300 C (572 F), at which the drill bit would no longer work.
Clearly, heat was the factor that cause them to stop drilling. Maybe they have more advanced technology now (the Kola borehole was drilled two decades ago), but heat still becomes a problem at some point, and there's bound to be some sort of mathematical barrier where the cost of improving technology in order to drill deeper exceeds the expected value received from drilling deeper.
Well, for comparison, the Kora Borehole, which is the deepest achieved at 7.6 miles, was done at a point where the crust is estimated to be 22 miles thick.
Yes, because artists who release music in DTS and Dolby Digital format are just taking a studio CD and encoding it as DTS and Dolby Digital... It is the very fact that DTS and Dolby Digital have more "bandwidth" that is proof that there are limitations in CD storage capacity. If musicians don't record music in a way that is benefitted by having higher quality, it is because of the limitations of CDs, not the other way around.
But clearly you're just being belligerent, so there's no point in continuing this useless discussion.
You buy DVDs with DTS or 5.1 on them. You don't buy CDs with DTS or 5.1 on them, which is exactly my point. If the CDs don't have limited storage capacity, why don't they just do the DTS or 5.1 on a CD, since it would be cheaper? My point is that even CDs don't have optimal sound quality. They simply don't have the ability to store all the information needed to reproduce any sound in any way desired. And CDs have much better sound quality than mp3s.
I can actually notice the deficiencies in CD audio better in the car than I can at the computer. My car has a better stereo than I have anywhere else, and I can actually notice the limited storage capacity of regular music CDs... When the music has too much going on, some of the sounds are compromised (most noticeably the bass). MP3s? They just sound flat.
And I don't change the CDs while driving, I just plop one in before I leave and take it out when I come back after work. If you take care of your CDs, they don't get damaged. Or you can just burn copies, which you have to do anyways if your stereo doesn't have an input.
Well, it's like tipping the waitstaff before you've been served.
What remains to be seen is if they do a "normal" release later on. My little quandary is that I'm perfectly willing to pay them (even up to $20 if the music is good enough) for a physical CD, but I'm not really getting much value for a digital download. I hardly ever listen to the music I download, because I mostly listen to music in the car, and mp3s don't sound so great (to me anyways) with relatively decent speakers.
They'll make up for the free digital download (and then some) with the $80 price tag on the discbox. There are easily enough Radiohead fanatics out there to make some major cash on this thing.
That being said, I wonder if this is some kind of strange social experiment to see if anyone actually puts more than $0 in the price box. I probably won't.
I don't know that people in grad school actually read the textbooks. I have only read textbooks when the professor is too horrible to do a good job teaching the material himself. And in those cases where I did read the textbook, I learned nothing from the professor. "Qualified" is also arguable when you're talking about the professors. Many of them have no knowledge whatsoever of the industry.
Networking? Ha. The only people you network with are those in academia, and unless that's your goal, it's useless. If you apply for a job and list some professor or student as a reference, they're going to say "So what? Can you work on a project? Are you familiar with any of the development tools of there?" You get a far more valuable network for working in industry by working in industry.
You're absolutely correct that real-world experience is no substitute for a graduate degree though. If you're looking for a job, it's better than a graduate degree. If a career outside of academia is your goal, in most cases, graduate school is just a waste of time. The undergraduate degree with give you a foundation and teach you how to learn, but formal education doesn't teach you practical applications, and sometimes doesn't even translate well to actual practical ability.
I'd take it further and say the only reason to get a graduate degree in CS is if you want to do research. Academic education, while fun, can only take you so far, and should only serve as a basis for real-world applications. Real world experience becomes far more valuable, even if you're talking about managing a project. If management is your goal, sign on with some company that pays for further education (this is the path I'm considering (I might even decide to take advantage of free education and get a graduate degree in CS, if I can convince them that it brings value)).
And yes, code written by grad students is quite often horrible. My senior year, I took a class that is also offered at the graduate level, so there were a few grad students in the class. They got to write a GUI for their database implementations for their graduate credit, and I have never seen more unusable GUIs in my life. It was horrible stuff. Instead of having a drop-down, they'd have a search box where you actually enter what you're looking for.
Who says you get that much more learning in a graduate program? It's just two more semesters of school and maybe some "project" that doesn't teach you as much real world experience as a year on the job. Yeah, school is fine because it teaches you some nice theoretical stuff, but a graduate degree in computer science doesn't buy you a whole lot.
I can learn just as much (or more, actually) by reading a textbook as I can by listening to a professor summarize the information in a textbook. And I think you'll find that many of those foreigners who crowd our graduate programs don't actually do so well in industry. That's why they're not in industry.
Another point of consideration is visas. The company I work for hired a new graduate from India (who had gone to one of the universities in this state), but they couldn't get the work visa for her. So, what's she going to do? Go back to school, of course.
You can do it illegally without the source, but it will take a heck of a lot more work than it would if you have the source. Tweaking source code and selling it is a little bit easier than reverse engineering, or rebuilding from scratch.
As far as how Coca-Cola recipes are or aren't protected, that's irrelevant. Even if you can't protect your recipe the same way, they'd want it protected for the same reason. And that's what this discussion is about: why they'd want to protect their source code.
I think #2 would be the major reason here. It's not just to hide "bad code". Why would you put all kinds of money and resources into your work, just to have someone else take it and profit off it after just a few tweaks? It's like asking, "Why doesn't Coca-Cola release their secret recipe?" Is it because it's bad?
See, the American sense of entitlement is what enables overreaching government programs. If there weren't that sense of entitlement, it wouldn't have been appealing, and therefore politically profitable.
You're absolutely correct that there are things that the government is better empowered to provide--and those things can generally be characterized as public goods. The government is better equipped to protect rights because rights are an inherantly legal concept. They're better equipped to provide police force because police force is a public good (The market doesn't compel you to pay for police force because if your next door neighbor pays for it, you're pretty much covered. Hence, true demand is obscured.).
Now, I think maybe you have a point about libertarianism being someone "trendy" in some ways, but that's not always the case. It's a legitimate political philosophy that simply stems from a different interpretation of the role of government, not necessarily the ability of government. Even if it is a cool fad, that doesn't make the philosophy incorrect. Where I live, though, libertarian has historically been more prominent... Indeed, those who have grown up here tend to be more libertarian, while the transplants are more traditionally republican or democrat. Our congressman (Jeff Flake), while in the republican party, labels himself as libertarian, and has frequently lashed out against republican spending; and in the last round of elections, his closest challenger was not Democrat but Libertarian. And then you have Barry Goldwater, who was basically libertarian... Libertarian is, at least here, not just a "cool fad".
Mostly because it caused the depression. FDR's policies pulled the US out of the depression and put in place measures to prevent that sort of catastrophe from ever happening again. Right-wing nuts (As I define them; like all scare words it's fuzzy) are generally wanton to point at any attempt by any government at doing anything at all (With a few exceptions like "matters of national security," which usually means killing people, or economic intervention that is pro-business) and scream "nanny state."
1) Libertarianism did NOT cause the great depression. I guess the most obvious reason that is wrong is that economists don't agree on what caused the great depression. Most probably causes I've seen (gold standard, etc) are not actually libertarian. Care to explain how a gold standard is tied to libertarianism?
2) Economic intervention that is "pro-business" is not libertarian. Economic intervention that is anti-competitive is distinctly not libertarian.
Plus, the idea that FDR "pulled the US out of the great depression" is laughable. There's no reasonable way to determine exactly what effect FDR's programs had on the depression (maybe we would have gotten out faster without them? who knows when there's no control), if any. It could also be argued that FDR's programs caused the 35-37 recession.
The US never had anything that qualifies as a nanny state. The US doesn't even have national healthcare! Virtually all "nanny state" policies of the US government were introduced by conservatives - namely the ridiculously high drinking age, the stupid restrictions on most drugs, and the continued attempt of the US government to keep people from contracting STDs or get pregnant by telling them nothing about prophylactics.
Relatively speaking, of course...
One could argue that social security, the "war on poverty", and, like you said, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war on dirty disgusting immorality, etc. are definitely "nanny state" practices. Slice the policies out any way you want, but it's really tough to argue that there's not a general view by the population that the government is supposed to bail us out, protect our little way of life, etc. And yes, Republicans are at least as interested in a nanny state as the Democrats.
Besides - Your argument is that FDR attempted to solve all of the nation's problems through government programs. That can be said of anyone president, prime minister, senator, MP or representative, anywhere, ever - Their ONLY tool is government programs and legislation.
Sure, government programs are the most obvious way to solve problems, but not all problems should be solved by the government. Sometimes the "solution" only creates a new problem, and in the case of the depression, the "solution" created a crippling beauracracy that costs taxpayers 30% of their earnings to support.
Finally, your argument about Libertarianism in general (I'll use the capital 'L' here) seems to demonstrate a belief on your part that libertarian policies have to be extreme, black and white, all-or-nothing policies. One could very easily be libertarian, but recognize the need for some government intervention (for example, even libertarian economists argue that public goods have to be managed by the government, as supply and demand are obfuscated). It's absurd to say, "Extreme libertarianism has a certain pitfalls, so we need to abandon the idea completely." I'm not an anarchist by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems completely obvious that we rely too much on the government to solve our problems, that 100 years ago we were much more self-reliant, that 100 years ago we weren't as interested in policing the world, and that we'll be much better off if our government becomes more frugal and fiscally responsible (and yes, the Republicans have been more fiscally irresponsible than the Democrats over the last two decades).
What do the gold standard and libertarianism have to do with each other?
But to address the rest of what you said... First of all, I don't know in what way I'd be considered a "right-wing nut". I thought right-wing nuts want to police the war, teach creationism in schools, and shoot fags. But perhaps my interpretation there is a little off.
Secondly, I don't know how what FDR did could NOT be considered a "nanny state." His entire policy was to take care of all of America's problems by government projects. The cost of the government ballooned, and we got useless bureaucracies in return. The thirties is regarded as the US's Socialist period, while FDR futily attempted to get us out of the depression through public works programs. And it's well-documented that economic liberalism was abandoned for the most part during the depression.
Do not--I repeat, do NOT--make a career out of writing Java GUI code. Maybe there will be a career for you, but what kind of career do you have if you're writing Java GUI code? One of the most tediously boring things I've ever had to do was to write Java GUI code.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly, heat was the factor that cause them to stop drilling. Maybe they have more advanced technology now (the Kola borehole was drilled two decades ago), but heat still becomes a problem at some point, and there's bound to be some sort of mathematical barrier where the cost of improving technology in order to drill deeper exceeds the expected value received from drilling deeper.
Well, for comparison, the Kora Borehole, which is the deepest achieved at 7.6 miles, was done at a point where the crust is estimated to be 22 miles thick.
Actually, their drill began melting. Heat is the biggest obstacle to drilling further than 7 or 8 miles into the earth.
I thought they hit parity just a few weeks ago?
You're going to risk going to jail, and your price tag is only $2000?
But maybe that's why this guy is in this situation to begin with...
Yes, because artists who release music in DTS and Dolby Digital format are just taking a studio CD and encoding it as DTS and Dolby Digital... It is the very fact that DTS and Dolby Digital have more "bandwidth" that is proof that there are limitations in CD storage capacity. If musicians don't record music in a way that is benefitted by having higher quality, it is because of the limitations of CDs, not the other way around.
But clearly you're just being belligerent, so there's no point in continuing this useless discussion.
You buy DVDs with DTS or 5.1 on them. You don't buy CDs with DTS or 5.1 on them, which is exactly my point. If the CDs don't have limited storage capacity, why don't they just do the DTS or 5.1 on a CD, since it would be cheaper? My point is that even CDs don't have optimal sound quality. They simply don't have the ability to store all the information needed to reproduce any sound in any way desired. And CDs have much better sound quality than mp3s.
So surround sound/DTS/5.1 is a hoax?
I can actually notice the deficiencies in CD audio better in the car than I can at the computer. My car has a better stereo than I have anywhere else, and I can actually notice the limited storage capacity of regular music CDs... When the music has too much going on, some of the sounds are compromised (most noticeably the bass). MP3s? They just sound flat.
And I don't change the CDs while driving, I just plop one in before I leave and take it out when I come back after work. If you take care of your CDs, they don't get damaged. Or you can just burn copies, which you have to do anyways if your stereo doesn't have an input.
Keep in mind that a regular release is planned for early next year. You could very easily have a physical CD for well under $20.
I think he's living in some strange world where 2+2=5.
Well, it's like tipping the waitstaff before you've been served.
What remains to be seen is if they do a "normal" release later on. My little quandary is that I'm perfectly willing to pay them (even up to $20 if the music is good enough) for a physical CD, but I'm not really getting much value for a digital download. I hardly ever listen to the music I download, because I mostly listen to music in the car, and mp3s don't sound so great (to me anyways) with relatively decent speakers.
They'll make up for the free digital download (and then some) with the $80 price tag on the discbox. There are easily enough Radiohead fanatics out there to make some major cash on this thing.
That being said, I wonder if this is some kind of strange social experiment to see if anyone actually puts more than $0 in the price box. I probably won't.
I don't know that people in grad school actually read the textbooks. I have only read textbooks when the professor is too horrible to do a good job teaching the material himself. And in those cases where I did read the textbook, I learned nothing from the professor. "Qualified" is also arguable when you're talking about the professors. Many of them have no knowledge whatsoever of the industry.
Networking? Ha. The only people you network with are those in academia, and unless that's your goal, it's useless. If you apply for a job and list some professor or student as a reference, they're going to say "So what? Can you work on a project? Are you familiar with any of the development tools of there?" You get a far more valuable network for working in industry by working in industry.
You're absolutely correct that real-world experience is no substitute for a graduate degree though. If you're looking for a job, it's better than a graduate degree. If a career outside of academia is your goal, in most cases, graduate school is just a waste of time. The undergraduate degree with give you a foundation and teach you how to learn, but formal education doesn't teach you practical applications, and sometimes doesn't even translate well to actual practical ability.
I'd take it further and say the only reason to get a graduate degree in CS is if you want to do research. Academic education, while fun, can only take you so far, and should only serve as a basis for real-world applications. Real world experience becomes far more valuable, even if you're talking about managing a project. If management is your goal, sign on with some company that pays for further education (this is the path I'm considering (I might even decide to take advantage of free education and get a graduate degree in CS, if I can convince them that it brings value)).
And yes, code written by grad students is quite often horrible. My senior year, I took a class that is also offered at the graduate level, so there were a few grad students in the class. They got to write a GUI for their database implementations for their graduate credit, and I have never seen more unusable GUIs in my life. It was horrible stuff. Instead of having a drop-down, they'd have a search box where you actually enter what you're looking for.
Who says you get that much more learning in a graduate program? It's just two more semesters of school and maybe some "project" that doesn't teach you as much real world experience as a year on the job. Yeah, school is fine because it teaches you some nice theoretical stuff, but a graduate degree in computer science doesn't buy you a whole lot.
I can learn just as much (or more, actually) by reading a textbook as I can by listening to a professor summarize the information in a textbook. And I think you'll find that many of those foreigners who crowd our graduate programs don't actually do so well in industry. That's why they're not in industry.
Another point of consideration is visas. The company I work for hired a new graduate from India (who had gone to one of the universities in this state), but they couldn't get the work visa for her. So, what's she going to do? Go back to school, of course.
You can do it illegally without the source, but it will take a heck of a lot more work than it would if you have the source. Tweaking source code and selling it is a little bit easier than reverse engineering, or rebuilding from scratch.
As far as how Coca-Cola recipes are or aren't protected, that's irrelevant. Even if you can't protect your recipe the same way, they'd want it protected for the same reason. And that's what this discussion is about: why they'd want to protect their source code.
I think #2 would be the major reason here. It's not just to hide "bad code". Why would you put all kinds of money and resources into your work, just to have someone else take it and profit off it after just a few tweaks? It's like asking, "Why doesn't Coca-Cola release their secret recipe?" Is it because it's bad?
Wow, two typos in one post... Perhaps I shouldn't post right after getting home from work..
My Con vs. Info flaimwar is scheduled using the staircase scheduler, not the regular one.
Sorry, I couldn't resist...
See, the American sense of entitlement is what enables overreaching government programs. If there weren't that sense of entitlement, it wouldn't have been appealing, and therefore politically profitable.
You're absolutely correct that there are things that the government is better empowered to provide--and those things can generally be characterized as public goods. The government is better equipped to protect rights because rights are an inherantly legal concept. They're better equipped to provide police force because police force is a public good (The market doesn't compel you to pay for police force because if your next door neighbor pays for it, you're pretty much covered. Hence, true demand is obscured.).
Now, I think maybe you have a point about libertarianism being someone "trendy" in some ways, but that's not always the case. It's a legitimate political philosophy that simply stems from a different interpretation of the role of government, not necessarily the ability of government. Even if it is a cool fad, that doesn't make the philosophy incorrect. Where I live, though, libertarian has historically been more prominent... Indeed, those who have grown up here tend to be more libertarian, while the transplants are more traditionally republican or democrat. Our congressman (Jeff Flake), while in the republican party, labels himself as libertarian, and has frequently lashed out against republican spending; and in the last round of elections, his closest challenger was not Democrat but Libertarian. And then you have Barry Goldwater, who was basically libertarian... Libertarian is, at least here, not just a "cool fad".
1) Libertarianism did NOT cause the great depression. I guess the most obvious reason that is wrong is that economists don't agree on what caused the great depression. Most probably causes I've seen (gold standard, etc) are not actually libertarian. Care to explain how a gold standard is tied to libertarianism?
2) Economic intervention that is "pro-business" is not libertarian. Economic intervention that is anti-competitive is distinctly not libertarian.
Plus, the idea that FDR "pulled the US out of the great depression" is laughable. There's no reasonable way to determine exactly what effect FDR's programs had on the depression (maybe we would have gotten out faster without them? who knows when there's no control), if any. It could also be argued that FDR's programs caused the 35-37 recession.
The US never had anything that qualifies as a nanny state. The US doesn't even have national healthcare! Virtually all "nanny state" policies of the US government were introduced by conservatives - namely the ridiculously high drinking age, the stupid restrictions on most drugs, and the continued attempt of the US government to keep people from contracting STDs or get pregnant by telling them nothing about prophylactics.
Relatively speaking, of course...
One could argue that social security, the "war on poverty", and, like you said, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war on dirty disgusting immorality, etc. are definitely "nanny state" practices. Slice the policies out any way you want, but it's really tough to argue that there's not a general view by the population that the government is supposed to bail us out, protect our little way of life, etc. And yes, Republicans are at least as interested in a nanny state as the Democrats.
Besides - Your argument is that FDR attempted to solve all of the nation's problems through government programs. That can be said of anyone president, prime minister, senator, MP or representative, anywhere, ever - Their ONLY tool is government programs and legislation.
Sure, government programs are the most obvious way to solve problems, but not all problems should be solved by the government. Sometimes the "solution" only creates a new problem, and in the case of the depression, the "solution" created a crippling beauracracy that costs taxpayers 30% of their earnings to support.
Finally, your argument about Libertarianism in general (I'll use the capital 'L' here) seems to demonstrate a belief on your part that libertarian policies have to be extreme, black and white, all-or-nothing policies. One could very easily be libertarian, but recognize the need for some government intervention (for example, even libertarian economists argue that public goods have to be managed by the government, as supply and demand are obfuscated). It's absurd to say, "Extreme libertarianism has a certain pitfalls, so we need to abandon the idea completely." I'm not an anarchist by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems completely obvious that we rely too much on the government to solve our problems, that 100 years ago we were much more self-reliant, that 100 years ago we weren't as interested in policing the world, and that we'll be much better off if our government becomes more frugal and fiscally responsible (and yes, the Republicans have been more fiscally irresponsible than the Democrats over the last two decades).
What do the gold standard and libertarianism have to do with each other?
But to address the rest of what you said... First of all, I don't know in what way I'd be considered a "right-wing nut". I thought right-wing nuts want to police the war, teach creationism in schools, and shoot fags. But perhaps my interpretation there is a little off.
Secondly, I don't know how what FDR did could NOT be considered a "nanny state." His entire policy was to take care of all of America's problems by government projects. The cost of the government ballooned, and we got useless bureaucracies in return. The thirties is regarded as the US's Socialist period, while FDR futily attempted to get us out of the depression through public works programs. And it's well-documented that economic liberalism was abandoned for the most part during the depression.
Isn't it possible for the same office tramp to have kissed several male employees?
Do not--I repeat, do NOT--make a career out of writing Java GUI code. Maybe there will be a career for you, but what kind of career do you have if you're writing Java GUI code? One of the most tediously boring things I've ever had to do was to write Java GUI code.