I have read parts of the paper, but with regards to the chemistry side of pretty much anything, I'm generally hopeless. It's just not my cup of tea.
Hmm... let's pretend for the moment that I read the whole thing but might as well have been reading latin... which I don't speak.
Are there claims being made about "profitable energy" in the sense that it's producing more energy than it's consuming?
Is there anything special about the substrates involved which requires advanced techniques of production like silicon or nano tubes? What I mean is, when it comes to energy storage, I was generally under the impression that solids could often be produced which can yield better results than liquids if they were produced in specific molecular patterns. It sounds really cool to me, but I don't fully grasp the concepts as I don't understand the chemical reactions.
Is there anything in this claim being made about the cost of conversion? Is there something being said that there is no loss during conversion?
I was pretty sure that the fundamental points of the paper weren't centered on "Free energy" or voodoo of any sort, but instead was based on some sort of solid glass like substrate that could provide similar or better yields than liquid for storage and drain. Am I far off?
Isn't that one of those books on "Free Energy" which tend to go nutty on things like government conspiracies and how the oil market hunts down and assassinates anyone who tries to tell the truth?
I'm pretty sure that Goodenough has better sources if that's the case.
I worked as an assistant to Goodenough's peer in NiMH and sometimes lead acid for about a year.
When I see Goodenough's name, I feel sadness because I know that the name jokes will dominate the comments and finding anything written by a chemist or physicist of any sort that has actually read the paper is hopeless.
I spend most of my time on Slashdot looking for that diamond in the rough where a real expert with real knowledge is willing to engage in an intellectual discussion and help me improve myself.
The rest of the time I'm on Slashdot, I make bad jokes, flame people and wonder if I would be better off spending my time on PornHub.
Hmm... I just used the word snark for the first time in my life and I wanted to document this for posterity so that at some point I can look back on this day as the day when I evolved into a person who would employ the word snark.
Now I need to ask some Englishmen whether I used the word correctly as I'm not convinced after rereading my comment that I have.
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure I said "almost outright attacked Newton for making his own mathematics to explain his theories,"
They didn't accuse him of using Liebnitz's mathematics as they didn't give him an opportunity to explain where he got the theories and principles from for his papers. I assume that if they knew the mathematics had credibility and wasn't his personally hack and creation, they would have had to simply pick on his hair or boot buckles. But from what I read within the forward of the translation of his "Principia" which, while I don't feel like digging for the exact quote at the moment, should be found in the forward of the first translation here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846), states something along the lines of "The mathematical and scientific community accused Newton of developing mathematics for his own means to describe his theories and that his theories lacked any foundation in reality if he must reinvent math to describe them".
I think the point was they felt Newton's theories lacked merit because the only proof of their merits was in "his" mathematics and "his" mathematics lacked merit because the only proof of their merits were in his theories.
There were obviously later disputes which came up. I don't think I've dug deep enough to identify whether Newton was accused of "Stealing" Liebnitz's work, whether Newton claimed to make the same discoveries as Liebnitz or whether he simply gave him credit where credit was due. These types of arguments and debates generally always bother me since I tend to publish most of my ideas for other people to steal whether they give me credit or not. I also tend to find that more often than not, the community and history like to aggrandize some great battle between two colossi with weapons of such greatness as has yet been seen. Sides are chosen and damsels are deflowered. More often than not, people who are intelligent would rather just share their stuff with the world and don't necessarily mind who gets the credit... and even if they do... bygones. I know I'd rather move onto working on the next theory or next idea rather than debating and fighting over who did what first.
In the US, you have resources like Khan Academy, you have chat channels, you have endless resources available to find assistance with your academic needs without resorting to paying anyone. I haven't heard of any school systems in relatively populated areas that don't have free and generally good quality assistance programs to help kids who ask for it.
Talking with school teachers in the US, there seems to be a fundamental difference between Europe and the US. In Europe, if a child does poorly in school, it's the burden of the parent to ensure that the student does better. In the US, if a teacher gives a bad grade to a student, the teacher knows that the parents of the child will be sending mails, making calls, etc... to argue with the teacher regarding the grade.
This is a shortcoming in the US system which says that if you don't get perfect grades throughout your entire primary and secondary schooling, you should expect to ask "Would you like fries with that?" for most of your professional career. This is because you will not have access to good financial assistance via grants, loans and scholarships if you don't have a totally flawless childhood.
Here in Norway, kids don't even get grades until they start in middle school and then, the first two years of getting grades doesn't really count other than placement in later grades. If you spend most of high school drunk and delinquent, when you're done, you can do a year in the military or two years in civil service, get assistance from the government with college prep and then move onto other careers.
It is actually far more difficult to get into programs for trades following a misspent youth here than to get into the university. A few tests is all it takes to get into the university here. If you pass those with sufficient grades, they'll give more or less anyone a shot. Trades however tend to start education in the 10th or 11th grade and if you miss your chance when you're that age, getting into a program that can assist with an apprenticeship can be difficult.
As for universities in the US, anyone with enough money that can pass an entry exam can go to a junior college. Of course, most of Europe (so far as I am aware) don't have junior colleges. It's university or bust. And while you're not likely to be admitted to study to become a doctor after a certain age, most other options are in fact available to you.
This is simply because the government (at least in Norway) will do pretty much absolutely anything to help you into higher tax brackets.
Out of curiosity, are you asking poorly formed questions or are you just copying Donald Trump and randomly making shit up with no real knowledge of what you're talking about assuming someone will fact check and correct what you said for you?
P.S. I recommend doing some research to find out what the job position CEO actually means and also looking up what Europe is.
I honestly don't think you have a clear understanding of how civilized people behave.
We don't say things like "It's OK to do this because someone else is doing something worse."
I'm not religious and I don't believe in things like revenge or retribution which bibles are generally so fond of speaking of. I instead believe in right and wrong. For example
We do say things like "We do what is right because it is right. We know it is right because it will help people and hopefully not harm them. We also will try to make sure that we won't do harm either. We don't care who they are or where they come from or even what they believe in. Helping people be better off today than they were yesterday... even if it means taking something from ourselves... even something as simple as time... well it's right to do. We don't do it for reward. We don't do it for fame. We do it simply because we want this world to be a better place to live in."
So... I honestly don't care what the CIA response is. At least not with regard to whether we want to help people or not. We see if there's something that can be done about the CIA otherwise. These are simply two different issues.
That said, this is in fact extortion. It's like the guys who hack into websites and then call them and show them they've been hacked and "I've done it for your own good". Followed by "I'll fix it for you in exchange for $XXX"... or "I'll tell you how I hacked it for $XXX". Just because Wikileaks stole the information as opposed to having found it themselves doesn't make it ok.
There is little or no value to a full I frame anymore. These days, to handle better bitrate allocation within a video stream, it's better to avoid burstiness by spreading I macroblocks across more frames. Not only that, but I frames only provided good quality based on a timer, not based on when it was needed. So for example, a blinking traffic light might have had to be encoded as B blocks which are actually quite inefficient when handling major changes and also requires a great deal of stream latency since the forward prediction block might be quite far off in time. So, being able to inject a new I-block when needed instead of on a schedule could produce mostly I and P video while reducing latency and compensating for loss of bandwidth saved with long distance prediction with B blocks by sending less I data to begin with.
It's also nice in environments where pure I/P video can be popular and the companies delivering the media employ both spacial and temporal compression techniques as the I data when it is transmitted can be used to provide enough information per frame to allow for fast scrubbing of media in post production which would allow for better solutions than Avid or Apple codecs.
So, the guy was flown into space on a gigantic bomb at a cost roughly measurable as a year's salary per pound transported several times... and the only real injury he seemed to get from it was bad eyesight.
Ask him if he would change his mind and become a desk jockey or lab jockey if he could do it all over again knowing he would have to pay for contacts and eye exams.
Personally, I'd submit myself to annual proctology exams with a not so gentle handed doctor and then pay double for them if it would get me into space and I'm really not interested in anything going that way with me.
It's always been hard to get a job if you didn't know how.
College degrees were never and never will be a guarantee of a career. Let's look at a few:
1) Law
There are simply more lawyers than jobs for lawyers. Law might be the worst degree you can go for today since it is one of the fastest careers being automated. Graduate students hoped to get positions as junior lawyers which effectively are people paid to do the shit work for senior lawyers. A senior lawyer used to need 3-10 junior lawyers to do his shit work and then needed a bunch of legal researchers and paralegals etc... now, a senior lawyer needs maybe one or two juniors who are proficient with an iPad and Lexus Nexus.
2) Teachers
This has always been a safe career but over the years it has taken a beating. Secondary schools used to employ a great deal more teachers per student than they do now. Of course this leads to classes that are overfull, but it also has to do with hiring someone to be both a gym teacher and math teach (terrible combination) and maybe even the music teacher as well. New pedagogical methods are often researched and experimented with to provide "a better educational experience with less resources".
You know what... screw it, I can explain field by field for ages, but the truth is, there are far deeper reasons for the problem than what can be covered like that.
College graduates today simply do it wrong.
Let's talk about the choice of degree.
1) High school students entering college study what they want to study, not what there is or will be a market for. The.COM boom introduced a weird "don't worry, you can study anything and you can make your own job and get rich" idea. This is nonsense and was as stupid as the.COM boom.
2) Guidance counselors at high schools are absolute idiots in general. I've spoken with a few of them and they honestly haven't the slightest idea what the difference between a marine biologist and a nuclear physicist is. They offer career and educational advice to kids who will ruin their entire lives based on their ideas.
3) Just because there's a LOT of hot jobs in it today doesn't mean there will be in 5-6 years when you graduate. Corporate pedagogy was super-hot in 1998 and when the students graduated, there wasn't a single job to be found in it anywhere. Team building is another dumb one. HR as a college degree is toilet paper. While pedagogy has undeniable value, it doesn't necessarily translate as it's almost always a liability job for companies. There is absolutely no possible way a "pedagogy officer" in a company can be spun on the balance sheets to look like it's not in the same class as corporate massage therapist.
Let's talk about job hunting
1) What have you done?
I mean really, what have you done while you were in college. You had 6 years (no 2 and 4 years doesn't count, that's just extended high school) to do something. What did you do that has any value to anyone? Writing a paper doesn't mean anything anymore. A thesis is nifty, but unless you are planning on living as a theoretical scientist or graduate professor, you better have actually done something which can be applied
2) What's on your GitHub?
This is of course for people who actually make things. Where's your designs? Where are your programs? Show me something you built while you were in school. I want to be able to browse through 3 years of your code and actually see whether you improve or if you're the same schlump that you were when you started. I honestly don't give a shit whether you can memorize Donald Knuth's books. I wouldn't hire anyone who hasn't anyway. But I want to see what you have actually done. Show me a project that makes you look interesting.
3) What about your internships?
Paid internship? You managed that and in the end, you ended up without a job? Why didn't th
I can crash it occasionally. I don't tend to have many computer problems though. I think it has something to do with using them the same way as I always do and as a result they probably used to crash and I just stopped using it that way.
I had horrible problems with GCC for a long time and with Swift and it's impressively bad compiler front end... honestly, how hard is it to write a parser that actually can tell where it had problems parsing. It's like seeing a parser writing by a lazy oaf.
I've been a developer since I was a child. I became a software engineer after education. I have been a senior developer on at least 3 projects that have impacted a billion or more people for 5-10 years and have a list of "inventions" to my name that is quite long.
I am not properly educated. I couldn't afford to attend the university in America, so instead, I latched on to the head of science and engineering at a major university and traded work for books etc... but I received no paper. I was forced to know every book verbatim at all times for years because in order to work in generally Ph.D. level positions and be taken seriously, I had to be a walking reference at all times. It was a bumpy road, and I got my scars, but I made it.
I become a structure zealot. I became absolutely obsessed with Big-O, data structures in general, design patterns, etc... I rarely if ever wrote a piece of code without obsessing over its design extensively before doing it. I learned that all the best programming started on the backs of napkins at coffee shops. A local coffee shop even let me and a colleague use white board markers on their windows for an hour or two each day because we were costing them a fortune in napkins they said. We often had an audience, less professional developers wanting to learn how to plan and employ complex things.
Together my colleague and I reinvented methods of programming such as methods of decoding images using a push pipeline rather than simply a FIFO by designing state machines similar to VHDL coding that would decode and display pixel by pixel of an image (jpeg, png, gif) as soon as the data was available. We designed new methods of compiling lex and yacc grammars that would dispense of tables and handle contexts while also processing data as it arrives based on state machines and make corrections if new data changes the meaning of older data. We wrote memory allocators, just-in-time compilers (back before they were properly named).
None of these tasks could have been accomplished without
1) Education
2) Reading to further education
3) A thorough understanding of computers (we were both demo coders when that meant something)
4) Math
5) Patience
6) Respect for each other instead of competition.
Now, I've gotten old and I decided I liked money a lot, so I left my job as a programmer after nearly 20 years and moved onto being an network instructor. First of all, networking people are all very similar to informally trained programmers. They're typically more talk and less real knowledge. They spout off things they don't fully understand and they often find them to be mysterious and amazing. They learn a new acronym like HSM and even learn it means Hierarchical State Machine and before you know it, your code is littered with chaotic amounts of junk because every problem they try to solve, they employ their new toy to solve. Sadly, it's not magical and they make coding changes that will permanently impede your ability to work professionally since training new programmers on the project will now take 3 times as long.
Let's start with a few bullet points:
1) New languages can bring new methods, but new languages come and go
PERL, PHP, Ruby, Python, what's next?
Due to children making decisions all the time, there are companies with millions of likes of bad PERL, PHP, Ruby and Python code out there. Each time there's a new "hot language" we end up rewriting absolutely everything over and over and get it wrong over and over. Those languages are great for some reasons, but while I use Python once in a while, I generally limit how much I use it since I expect support to slowly taper off within 3-5 years. I may be wrong, but it's a "language of the week" and I don't believe in investing in languages of the week.
2) Communication is the absolutely most important thing
Algorithms, Desi
The purpose of letting electric cars drive in the bus lane is because electric cars had such limited range that it solved a few issues to have electric cars in that late.
- If the car died due to lack of charge, it was closer to where it could be pushed off the road.
- Sitting in stop and go traffic was devastating to battery life, so people couldn't get to or from work on a charge Basically, it made electric cars a practical option before the technology came up to speed.
This is 2017 where even a Twizzy gets nearly 100km on a charge. Teslas get 500km and BMW i3 gets 300km, etc...
In 2017, electric cars in the bus lane are actually far too plentiful. They're using the lane not as a means of maintaining their battery, but they're using it as an incentive to skip queues. On E18 on the east side of Oslo, traffic is completely stopped for non-electric cars except during 07:00-09:00 each morning because electric cars are claiming right of way at the front of the queue to merge at the bottleneck. Anyone sitting in traffic before 07:00 there will move at 2-3km/hr. Then 07:00 comes around and traffic is back to about 50km/hr. This is because the opportunists are no longer allowed to clog the bottleneck. Let me also say that the mentality of these drivers often is "screw the zipper effect. I have electric and am coming from the right. I have the right of way." and they force their ways in.
I have a BMW i3 in Oslo and I have never driven in the bus lane since I've never been near a bus lane when my charge is too low. Other electrics drive past me and some drivers slow down and glare at me because they think I'm screwing up the system for them.
They should have a new rule which allows city car electrics with a documented range of 70km or less to use the bus lane. This will promote more companies to use small city electrics for courier and food deliveries. Then all other electrics should be treated as normal cars. And they should ban Tesla from traffic during rush hour since Tesla drivers are the asshole types who traded in their Audi's just to take advantage of the bus lane and screw everything up for everyone else.
Remember... the bus lane rule is there because
"You're electric car is a piece of shit that can't even drive you to work.".
It's basically a handicap lane for handicapped cars.
We don't want to be stuck behind your dumb ass because you bought a car that sucks that bad.
It's not a right It's not a reward It's not a bonus It is not an incentive.
It was there because we wanted to build infrastructure to support electric cars even when they really sucked.
They don't suck anymore.
Ditch the rule.
My i3 which is really a piece of shit and couldn't hold a Toyota's (any model) jock strap is still good enough that there is absolutely no practical reason why it should be allowed in the bus lane.
Computer science is computer science. Abstract types exist even in most functional languages.
As for the validity of the question, the guy may be a programmer, but there are many pretty good web developers I know who couldn't even spell binary tree.
If you were a good C programmer, you'd still have moved to using better programming methodologies by now. It's probably people like you that make it so the software on my car sucks.
I don't understand... I remember broadcast TV from when I was young... is it still around?
I'm turning 42 this year (so I will soon be the answer) and I was under the impression that broadcast TV was for only old people. I wonder what old people would do with this.
Now if rednecks and hillbillies also do broadcast TV, then this make sense.
Of course, I wonder if there's anything that broadcast TV offers that you don't get with alternative options other than commercial interruptions.
Ok... let's start with making this simple. It's a rectangle screen with pictures playing on it. After watching everything from the recent Walt Disney documentary to Lawrence of Arabia or the classic version of Spartacus to Bill and Teds, etc... some of us have seen a lot of movies and a lot of DVD covers and trailers.
Most of us have already decided what we want to see and what is not worth the effort. Occasionally, we encounter someone saying "hey have you seen?"... like for example, I've never been ever slightly interested in seeing Clockwork Orange and I'm told by people who are obsessed with film that this is disgraceful.
I honestly enjoy a lot of modern "shit cinema" just as I enjoyed a lot of classic "shit cinema". But let me tell you a secret... unless there's inherent educational value to a film... it's all shit cinema. One could suggest you could get a better understanding of behavior in different cultures and eras simply by the shit cinema they watched, but you don't need much more than a small sample set to accomplish this. I for example really learned a great deal about culture from "Guys and Dolls"... for example, how Cuba was perceived by New Yorkers before the missile crisis. But still, it's mostly shit cinema and I like it.
Now... if you seem to think that there's more to watching a rectangular screen than simply putting your brain into "I'm stupid, I'll let someone else bombard my brain with lights and sounds while I sit here and rot for a while" mode, then you really need to consider a real life. Maybe join a gym or a chess club.
I hear there are now apps you can use to find experimental sex encounters with strangers. You can probably make the movies something more interesting by trying that out.
On the other hand... if you take movies seriously and you consider them a great part of your life and something that is part of defining you... excellent.
There are some of us who have seen thousands of movies and spent time trying to find something else to watch and simply decided it's not worth the effort. It's just a movie. We've seen everything that seems particularly interesting to us. We aren't interested in pissing away time we could be on Slashdot by researching yet another movie. New releases are nice because it makes it easier to find something and if our choice is "Paranormal Activity..." I think a nice walk or a visit to the coffee shop sounds better.
But really, if I can pay $50 to see a new release vs $10-$20 to see an old one which I probably haven't seen because I wasn't really willing to pay to see it earlier... I think that $50 is reasonable. Besides... I think if it's the family watching, $50 is MUCH cheaper than the theater.
The good news is, that if you stop watching commercial TV and you stop reading printed media, you probably are like me and have no idea that there's a new film out until it hits iTunes. So, I get to see things as soon as they come out:) Well as soon as I noticed they've come out.:)
I personally think it's more important for kids. My teenagers like to be able to talk about new films as they come out... especially ones like Warcraft and Assassin's Creed. So, as part of the community thing and avoiding being an outcast, etc... it's kinda important to see that film to fit in.
Agreed... my DVD/Bluray collection was well over 2000 discs before I packed them away and stored them in a closet where they'll be forgotten until I no longer have anything left to play them on (pretty sure that's soon).
I used to buy the discs and them immediately rip them to hard drive and store them on a server in my closet so we could watch them on any screen in the house.
These days we have a few alternatives
About 150-200 films and 2000 TV episodes on my iTunes library at this time... I was able to remove DRM until about 3 months ago without re-encoding. Now, I have to find a new place to buy since I don't have Apple Devices everywhere and HDCP restrictions limit my ability to playback on some of my screens that I connect via SDI instead of HDMI. I only buy films if I can strip the DRM to allow playback wherever I need it.
We have Netflix, but it's selection is nice for Netflix originals, but they are missing nearly every film I've searched for recently... for example Full Metal Jacket. So, I don't even bother with Netflix for anything other than a once in a while thing.
Youtube... I'm not 100% sure if it's always legal, I'm counting on Google to manage that, but we often find stuff like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, etc... and such on there.
Finally, there's the torrent sites.
I end up at the torrent sites because I have an iTunes Movie or DVD I can't play on a device or screen which I paid for. I sometimes feel mildly guilty if I own a DVD copy and I end up downloading the HD version as the studio has had to spend the money to release the HD version and I didn't pay for that. But if I want to watch a film I've bought and I can't because of DRM that's been put in place to deal with pirates, then I will resort to doing what the pirates do in order to be able to watch it.
The only time in the past 10 years I've watched a movie by straight out piracy was when I missed the last 20 minutes of one of the Hobbit films because the movie theater parking lot was prepay and I didn't realize that after paying about $125 to see a movie, I would have to watch... wait for it.... 40 minutes of trailers and commercials. So I let the wife and kids finish watching while I moved the car to a different parking space. So I came home and downloaded a cam and watched the ending at home.
I personally would gladly pay the studios $50 for a film... it's a total non-issue. I have absolutely no problem paying "gouging rates" to avoid having to deal with movie theaters. Besides, $50 is just not a lot of money anymore. The middle class (not middle income... middle income IS NOT middle class) should have a joint household income of a minimum of $60,000 a year in 1st world countries. It's far more likely to be between $100,000 and $200,000. I highly doubt the middle class will even notice the $50.
Pretty cool... I can sometimes find a sale on a tickets for about $12 a piece.
Besides, if you buy anything at all while watching that film... popcorn, soft drinks, etc... you're still making it profitable for the theater. I'm not sure how much the theater pays for you to see the film, but let's guess it's probably about $2.
Slashdot Mirror
I have read parts of the paper, but with regards to the chemistry side of pretty much anything, I'm generally hopeless. It's just not my cup of tea.
Hmm... let's pretend for the moment that I read the whole thing but might as well have been reading latin... which I don't speak.
Are there claims being made about "profitable energy" in the sense that it's producing more energy than it's consuming?
Is there anything special about the substrates involved which requires advanced techniques of production like silicon or nano tubes? What I mean is, when it comes to energy storage, I was generally under the impression that solids could often be produced which can yield better results than liquids if they were produced in specific molecular patterns. It sounds really cool to me, but I don't fully grasp the concepts as I don't understand the chemical reactions.
Is there anything in this claim being made about the cost of conversion? Is there something being said that there is no loss during conversion?
I was pretty sure that the fundamental points of the paper weren't centered on "Free energy" or voodoo of any sort, but instead was based on some sort of solid glass like substrate that could provide similar or better yields than liquid for storage and drain. Am I far off?
I thought I heard of that title before.
Isn't that one of those books on "Free Energy" which tend to go nutty on things like government conspiracies and how the oil market hunts down and assassinates anyone who tries to tell the truth?
I'm pretty sure that Goodenough has better sources if that's the case.
I worked as an assistant to Goodenough's peer in NiMH and sometimes lead acid for about a year.
When I see Goodenough's name, I feel sadness because I know that the name jokes will dominate the comments and finding anything written by a chemist or physicist of any sort that has actually read the paper is hopeless.
I spend most of my time on Slashdot looking for that diamond in the rough where a real expert with real knowledge is willing to engage in an intellectual discussion and help me improve myself.
The rest of the time I'm on Slashdot, I make bad jokes, flame people and wonder if I would be better off spending my time on PornHub.
Hmm... I just used the word snark for the first time in my life and I wanted to document this for posterity so that at some point I can look back on this day as the day when I evolved into a person who would employ the word snark.
Now I need to ask some Englishmen whether I used the word correctly as I'm not convinced after rereading my comment that I have.
Ain't you the party pooper?
P.S. - should I be concerned that I may have contributed to the accuracy of your snark?
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure I said "almost outright attacked Newton for making his own mathematics to explain his theories,"
They didn't accuse him of using Liebnitz's mathematics as they didn't give him an opportunity to explain where he got the theories and principles from for his papers. I assume that if they knew the mathematics had credibility and wasn't his personally hack and creation, they would have had to simply pick on his hair or boot buckles. But from what I read within the forward of the translation of his "Principia" which, while I don't feel like digging for the exact quote at the moment, should be found in the forward of the first translation here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846), states something along the lines of "The mathematical and scientific community accused Newton of developing mathematics for his own means to describe his theories and that his theories lacked any foundation in reality if he must reinvent math to describe them".
I think the point was they felt Newton's theories lacked merit because the only proof of their merits was in "his" mathematics and "his" mathematics lacked merit because the only proof of their merits were in his theories.
There were obviously later disputes which came up. I don't think I've dug deep enough to identify whether Newton was accused of "Stealing" Liebnitz's work, whether Newton claimed to make the same discoveries as Liebnitz or whether he simply gave him credit where credit was due. These types of arguments and debates generally always bother me since I tend to publish most of my ideas for other people to steal whether they give me credit or not. I also tend to find that more often than not, the community and history like to aggrandize some great battle between two colossi with weapons of such greatness as has yet been seen. Sides are chosen and damsels are deflowered. More often than not, people who are intelligent would rather just share their stuff with the world and don't necessarily mind who gets the credit... and even if they do... bygones. I know I'd rather move onto working on the next theory or next idea rather than debating and fighting over who did what first.
Agreed.... honestly, for that price, why not hire a tutor and get 30 hours a week of personal training and assistance to become a master at a topic?
Best part is that as jobs dry up, it will create more jobs.
Of course, there's the issue that often times, different educational tracks require expensive equipment.
Also, it would seriously impact the student's ability to work as part of a project.
You're going to become a project for me.
In the US, you have resources like Khan Academy, you have chat channels, you have endless resources available to find assistance with your academic needs without resorting to paying anyone. I haven't heard of any school systems in relatively populated areas that don't have free and generally good quality assistance programs to help kids who ask for it.
Talking with school teachers in the US, there seems to be a fundamental difference between Europe and the US. In Europe, if a child does poorly in school, it's the burden of the parent to ensure that the student does better. In the US, if a teacher gives a bad grade to a student, the teacher knows that the parents of the child will be sending mails, making calls, etc... to argue with the teacher regarding the grade.
This is a shortcoming in the US system which says that if you don't get perfect grades throughout your entire primary and secondary schooling, you should expect to ask "Would you like fries with that?" for most of your professional career. This is because you will not have access to good financial assistance via grants, loans and scholarships if you don't have a totally flawless childhood.
Here in Norway, kids don't even get grades until they start in middle school and then, the first two years of getting grades doesn't really count other than placement in later grades. If you spend most of high school drunk and delinquent, when you're done, you can do a year in the military or two years in civil service, get assistance from the government with college prep and then move onto other careers.
It is actually far more difficult to get into programs for trades following a misspent youth here than to get into the university. A few tests is all it takes to get into the university here. If you pass those with sufficient grades, they'll give more or less anyone a shot. Trades however tend to start education in the 10th or 11th grade and if you miss your chance when you're that age, getting into a program that can assist with an apprenticeship can be difficult.
As for universities in the US, anyone with enough money that can pass an entry exam can go to a junior college. Of course, most of Europe (so far as I am aware) don't have junior colleges. It's university or bust. And while you're not likely to be admitted to study to become a doctor after a certain age, most other options are in fact available to you.
This is simply because the government (at least in Norway) will do pretty much absolutely anything to help you into higher tax brackets.
Out of curiosity, are you asking poorly formed questions or are you just copying Donald Trump and randomly making shit up with no real knowledge of what you're talking about assuming someone will fact check and correct what you said for you?
P.S. I recommend doing some research to find out what the job position CEO actually means and also looking up what Europe is.
I honestly don't think you have a clear understanding of how civilized people behave.
We don't say things like "It's OK to do this because someone else is doing something worse."
I'm not religious and I don't believe in things like revenge or retribution which bibles are generally so fond of speaking of. I instead believe in right and wrong. For example
We do say things like "We do what is right because it is right. We know it is right because it will help people and hopefully not harm them. We also will try to make sure that we won't do harm either. We don't care who they are or where they come from or even what they believe in. Helping people be better off today than they were yesterday... even if it means taking something from ourselves... even something as simple as time... well it's right to do. We don't do it for reward. We don't do it for fame. We do it simply because we want this world to be a better place to live in."
So... I honestly don't care what the CIA response is. At least not with regard to whether we want to help people or not. We see if there's something that can be done about the CIA otherwise. These are simply two different issues.
That said, this is in fact extortion. It's like the guys who hack into websites and then call them and show them they've been hacked and "I've done it for your own good". Followed by "I'll fix it for you in exchange for $XXX"... or "I'll tell you how I hacked it for $XXX". Just because Wikileaks stole the information as opposed to having found it themselves doesn't make it ok.
Written in C but using a C++ compiler for namespace handling.
I can't provide a why or why not other than "does it really matter?"
They're leaving pretty soon.
There is little or no value to a full I frame anymore. These days, to handle better bitrate allocation within a video stream, it's better to avoid burstiness by spreading I macroblocks across more frames. Not only that, but I frames only provided good quality based on a timer, not based on when it was needed. So for example, a blinking traffic light might have had to be encoded as B blocks which are actually quite inefficient when handling major changes and also requires a great deal of stream latency since the forward prediction block might be quite far off in time. So, being able to inject a new I-block when needed instead of on a schedule could produce mostly I and P video while reducing latency and compensating for loss of bandwidth saved with long distance prediction with B blocks by sending less I data to begin with.
It's also nice in environments where pure I/P video can be popular and the companies delivering the media employ both spacial and temporal compression techniques as the I data when it is transmitted can be used to provide enough information per frame to allow for fast scrubbing of media in post production which would allow for better solutions than Avid or Apple codecs.
So, the guy was flown into space on a gigantic bomb at a cost roughly measurable as a year's salary per pound transported several times... and the only real injury he seemed to get from it was bad eyesight.
Ask him if he would change his mind and become a desk jockey or lab jockey if he could do it all over again knowing he would have to pay for contacts and eye exams.
Personally, I'd submit myself to annual proctology exams with a not so gentle handed doctor and then pay double for them if it would get me into space and I'm really not interested in anything going that way with me.
It's always been hard to get a job if you didn't know how.
:
.COM boom introduced a weird "don't worry, you can study anything and you can make your own job and get rich" idea. This is nonsense and was as stupid as the .COM boom.
College degrees were never and never will be a guarantee of a career. Let's look at a few
1) Law
There are simply more lawyers than jobs for lawyers. Law might be the worst degree you can go for today since it is one of the fastest careers being automated. Graduate students hoped to get positions as junior lawyers which effectively are people paid to do the shit work for senior lawyers. A senior lawyer used to need 3-10 junior lawyers to do his shit work and then needed a bunch of legal researchers and paralegals etc... now, a senior lawyer needs maybe one or two juniors who are proficient with an iPad and Lexus Nexus.
2) Teachers
This has always been a safe career but over the years it has taken a beating. Secondary schools used to employ a great deal more teachers per student than they do now. Of course this leads to classes that are overfull, but it also has to do with hiring someone to be both a gym teacher and math teach (terrible combination) and maybe even the music teacher as well. New pedagogical methods are often researched and experimented with to provide "a better educational experience with less resources".
You know what... screw it, I can explain field by field for ages, but the truth is, there are far deeper reasons for the problem than what can be covered like that.
College graduates today simply do it wrong.
Let's talk about the choice of degree.
1) High school students entering college study what they want to study, not what there is or will be a market for. The
2) Guidance counselors at high schools are absolute idiots in general. I've spoken with a few of them and they honestly haven't the slightest idea what the difference between a marine biologist and a nuclear physicist is. They offer career and educational advice to kids who will ruin their entire lives based on their ideas.
3) Just because there's a LOT of hot jobs in it today doesn't mean there will be in 5-6 years when you graduate. Corporate pedagogy was super-hot in 1998 and when the students graduated, there wasn't a single job to be found in it anywhere. Team building is another dumb one. HR as a college degree is toilet paper. While pedagogy has undeniable value, it doesn't necessarily translate as it's almost always a liability job for companies. There is absolutely no possible way a "pedagogy officer" in a company can be spun on the balance sheets to look like it's not in the same class as corporate massage therapist.
Let's talk about job hunting
1) What have you done?
I mean really, what have you done while you were in college. You had 6 years (no 2 and 4 years doesn't count, that's just extended high school) to do something. What did you do that has any value to anyone? Writing a paper doesn't mean anything anymore. A thesis is nifty, but unless you are planning on living as a theoretical scientist or graduate professor, you better have actually done something which can be applied
2) What's on your GitHub?
This is of course for people who actually make things. Where's your designs? Where are your programs? Show me something you built while you were in school. I want to be able to browse through 3 years of your code and actually see whether you improve or if you're the same schlump that you were when you started. I honestly don't give a shit whether you can memorize Donald Knuth's books. I wouldn't hire anyone who hasn't anyway. But I want to see what you have actually done. Show me a project that makes you look interesting.
3) What about your internships?
Paid internship? You managed that and in the end, you ended up without a job? Why didn't th
I can crash it occasionally. I don't tend to have many computer problems though. I think it has something to do with using them the same way as I always do and as a result they probably used to crash and I just stopped using it that way.
I had horrible problems with GCC for a long time and with Swift and it's impressively bad compiler front end... honestly, how hard is it to write a parser that actually can tell where it had problems parsing. It's like seeing a parser writing by a lazy oaf.
I've been a developer since I was a child. I became a software engineer after education. I have been a senior developer on at least 3 projects that have impacted a billion or more people for 5-10 years and have a list of "inventions" to my name that is quite long.
:
I am not properly educated. I couldn't afford to attend the university in America, so instead, I latched on to the head of science and engineering at a major university and traded work for books etc... but I received no paper. I was forced to know every book verbatim at all times for years because in order to work in generally Ph.D. level positions and be taken seriously, I had to be a walking reference at all times. It was a bumpy road, and I got my scars, but I made it.
I become a structure zealot. I became absolutely obsessed with Big-O, data structures in general, design patterns, etc... I rarely if ever wrote a piece of code without obsessing over its design extensively before doing it. I learned that all the best programming started on the backs of napkins at coffee shops. A local coffee shop even let me and a colleague use white board markers on their windows for an hour or two each day because we were costing them a fortune in napkins they said. We often had an audience, less professional developers wanting to learn how to plan and employ complex things.
Together my colleague and I reinvented methods of programming such as methods of decoding images using a push pipeline rather than simply a FIFO by designing state machines similar to VHDL coding that would decode and display pixel by pixel of an image (jpeg, png, gif) as soon as the data was available. We designed new methods of compiling lex and yacc grammars that would dispense of tables and handle contexts while also processing data as it arrives based on state machines and make corrections if new data changes the meaning of older data. We wrote memory allocators, just-in-time compilers (back before they were properly named).
None of these tasks could have been accomplished without
1) Education
2) Reading to further education
3) A thorough understanding of computers (we were both demo coders when that meant something)
4) Math
5) Patience
6) Respect for each other instead of competition.
Now, I've gotten old and I decided I liked money a lot, so I left my job as a programmer after nearly 20 years and moved onto being an network instructor. First of all, networking people are all very similar to informally trained programmers. They're typically more talk and less real knowledge. They spout off things they don't fully understand and they often find them to be mysterious and amazing. They learn a new acronym like HSM and even learn it means Hierarchical State Machine and before you know it, your code is littered with chaotic amounts of junk because every problem they try to solve, they employ their new toy to solve. Sadly, it's not magical and they make coding changes that will permanently impede your ability to work professionally since training new programmers on the project will now take 3 times as long.
Let's start with a few bullet points
1) New languages can bring new methods, but new languages come and go
PERL, PHP, Ruby, Python, what's next?
Due to children making decisions all the time, there are companies with millions of likes of bad PERL, PHP, Ruby and Python code out there. Each time there's a new "hot language" we end up rewriting absolutely everything over and over and get it wrong over and over. Those languages are great for some reasons, but while I use Python once in a while, I generally limit how much I use it since I expect support to slowly taper off within 3-5 years. I may be wrong, but it's a "language of the week" and I don't believe in investing in languages of the week.
2) Communication is the absolutely most important thing
Algorithms, Desi
Noah,
The purpose of letting electric cars drive in the bus lane is because electric cars had such limited range that it solved a few issues to have electric cars in that late.
- If the car died due to lack of charge, it was closer to where it could be pushed off the road.
- Sitting in stop and go traffic was devastating to battery life, so people couldn't get to or from work on a charge
Basically, it made electric cars a practical option before the technology came up to speed.
This is 2017 where even a Twizzy gets nearly 100km on a charge. Teslas get 500km and BMW i3 gets 300km, etc...
In 2017, electric cars in the bus lane are actually far too plentiful. They're using the lane not as a means of maintaining their battery, but they're using it as an incentive to skip queues. On E18 on the east side of Oslo, traffic is completely stopped for non-electric cars except during 07:00-09:00 each morning because electric cars are claiming right of way at the front of the queue to merge at the bottleneck. Anyone sitting in traffic before 07:00 there will move at 2-3km/hr. Then 07:00 comes around and traffic is back to about 50km/hr. This is because the opportunists are no longer allowed to clog the bottleneck. Let me also say that the mentality of these drivers often is "screw the zipper effect. I have electric and am coming from the right. I have the right of way." and they force their ways in.
I have a BMW i3 in Oslo and I have never driven in the bus lane since I've never been near a bus lane when my charge is too low. Other electrics drive past me and some drivers slow down and glare at me because they think I'm screwing up the system for them.
They should have a new rule which allows city car electrics with a documented range of 70km or less to use the bus lane. This will promote more companies to use small city electrics for courier and food deliveries. Then all other electrics should be treated as normal cars. And they should ban Tesla from traffic during rush hour since Tesla drivers are the asshole types who traded in their Audi's just to take advantage of the bus lane and screw everything up for everyone else.
Remember... the bus lane rule is there because
"You're electric car is a piece of shit that can't even drive you to work.".
It's basically a handicap lane for handicapped cars.
We don't want to be stuck behind your dumb ass because you bought a car that sucks that bad.
It's not a right
It's not a reward
It's not a bonus
It is not an incentive.
It was there because we wanted to build infrastructure to support electric cars even when they really sucked.
They don't suck anymore.
Ditch the rule.
My i3 which is really a piece of shit and couldn't hold a Toyota's (any model) jock strap is still good enough that there is absolutely no practical reason why it should be allowed in the bus lane.
Computer science is computer science. Abstract types exist even in most functional languages.
As for the validity of the question, the guy may be a programmer, but there are many pretty good web developers I know who couldn't even spell binary tree.
GObject is an abstract class.
If you were a good C programmer, you'd still have moved to using better programming methodologies by now. It's probably people like you that make it so the software on my car sucks.
I don't understand... I remember broadcast TV from when I was young... is it still around?
I'm turning 42 this year (so I will soon be the answer) and I was under the impression that broadcast TV was for only old people. I wonder what old people would do with this.
Now if rednecks and hillbillies also do broadcast TV, then this make sense.
Of course, I wonder if there's anything that broadcast TV offers that you don't get with alternative options other than commercial interruptions.
I'm actually 100% dedicated to taking my job and automating it.
If I do my job well, I'll be obsolete soon.
Then I'll get another job and do the same thing.
"No respect for the history of film"?
"Is too young to know what the fuck you want"?
Are you seriously thinking like that?
Ok... let's start with making this simple. It's a rectangle screen with pictures playing on it. After watching everything from the recent Walt Disney documentary to Lawrence of Arabia or the classic version of Spartacus to Bill and Teds, etc... some of us have seen a lot of movies and a lot of DVD covers and trailers.
Most of us have already decided what we want to see and what is not worth the effort. Occasionally, we encounter someone saying "hey have you seen?"... like for example, I've never been ever slightly interested in seeing Clockwork Orange and I'm told by people who are obsessed with film that this is disgraceful.
I honestly enjoy a lot of modern "shit cinema" just as I enjoyed a lot of classic "shit cinema". But let me tell you a secret... unless there's inherent educational value to a film... it's all shit cinema. One could suggest you could get a better understanding of behavior in different cultures and eras simply by the shit cinema they watched, but you don't need much more than a small sample set to accomplish this. I for example really learned a great deal about culture from "Guys and Dolls"... for example, how Cuba was perceived by New Yorkers before the missile crisis. But still, it's mostly shit cinema and I like it.
Now... if you seem to think that there's more to watching a rectangular screen than simply putting your brain into "I'm stupid, I'll let someone else bombard my brain with lights and sounds while I sit here and rot for a while" mode, then you really need to consider a real life. Maybe join a gym or a chess club.
I hear there are now apps you can use to find experimental sex encounters with strangers. You can probably make the movies something more interesting by trying that out.
On the other hand... if you take movies seriously and you consider them a great part of your life and something that is part of defining you... excellent.
There are some of us who have seen thousands of movies and spent time trying to find something else to watch and simply decided it's not worth the effort. It's just a movie. We've seen everything that seems particularly interesting to us. We aren't interested in pissing away time we could be on Slashdot by researching yet another movie. New releases are nice because it makes it easier to find something and if our choice is "Paranormal Activity..." I think a nice walk or a visit to the coffee shop sounds better.
On principle... I'm with you.
:) Well as soon as I noticed they've come out. :)
But really, if I can pay $50 to see a new release vs $10-$20 to see an old one which I probably haven't seen because I wasn't really willing to pay to see it earlier... I think that $50 is reasonable. Besides... I think if it's the family watching, $50 is MUCH cheaper than the theater.
The good news is, that if you stop watching commercial TV and you stop reading printed media, you probably are like me and have no idea that there's a new film out until it hits iTunes. So, I get to see things as soon as they come out
I personally think it's more important for kids. My teenagers like to be able to talk about new films as they come out... especially ones like Warcraft and Assassin's Creed. So, as part of the community thing and avoiding being an outcast, etc... it's kinda important to see that film to fit in.
Agreed... my DVD/Bluray collection was well over 2000 discs before I packed them away and stored them in a closet where they'll be forgotten until I no longer have anything left to play them on (pretty sure that's soon).
I used to buy the discs and them immediately rip them to hard drive and store them on a server in my closet so we could watch them on any screen in the house.
These days we have a few alternatives
About 150-200 films and 2000 TV episodes on my iTunes library at this time... I was able to remove DRM until about 3 months ago without re-encoding. Now, I have to find a new place to buy since I don't have Apple Devices everywhere and HDCP restrictions limit my ability to playback on some of my screens that I connect via SDI instead of HDMI. I only buy films if I can strip the DRM to allow playback wherever I need it.
We have Netflix, but it's selection is nice for Netflix originals, but they are missing nearly every film I've searched for recently... for example Full Metal Jacket. So, I don't even bother with Netflix for anything other than a once in a while thing.
Youtube... I'm not 100% sure if it's always legal, I'm counting on Google to manage that, but we often find stuff like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, etc... and such on there.
Finally, there's the torrent sites.
I end up at the torrent sites because I have an iTunes Movie or DVD I can't play on a device or screen which I paid for. I sometimes feel mildly guilty if I own a DVD copy and I end up downloading the HD version as the studio has had to spend the money to release the HD version and I didn't pay for that. But if I want to watch a film I've bought and I can't because of DRM that's been put in place to deal with pirates, then I will resort to doing what the pirates do in order to be able to watch it.
The only time in the past 10 years I've watched a movie by straight out piracy was when I missed the last 20 minutes of one of the Hobbit films because the movie theater parking lot was prepay and I didn't realize that after paying about $125 to see a movie, I would have to watch... wait for it.... 40 minutes of trailers and commercials. So I let the wife and kids finish watching while I moved the car to a different parking space. So I came home and downloaded a cam and watched the ending at home.
I personally would gladly pay the studios $50 for a film... it's a total non-issue. I have absolutely no problem paying "gouging rates" to avoid having to deal with movie theaters. Besides, $50 is just not a lot of money anymore. The middle class (not middle income... middle income IS NOT middle class) should have a joint household income of a minimum of $60,000 a year in 1st world countries. It's far more likely to be between $100,000 and $200,000. I highly doubt the middle class will even notice the $50.
Pretty cool... I can sometimes find a sale on a tickets for about $12 a piece.
Besides, if you buy anything at all while watching that film... popcorn, soft drinks, etc... you're still making it profitable for the theater. I'm not sure how much the theater pays for you to see the film, but let's guess it's probably about $2.