Of all of your idiotic claims about the US, only one holds water, that the global meltdown started in the US. But bad crises and wars start somewhere, you can't blame based on where they start. For example, the Second World War started in Poland and the First World War started in Serbia. So are Poland and Serbia responsible for their respective world wars?
Points of fact that doesn't serve your argument very well:
WWI was precipitated by the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The war was started when an empire in decline decided to exert its will upon a state it had annexed and occupied for some years.
So, in truth, the lesson to be drawn here is that empires in decline should be wary of unbottling very powerful genies when they try to act in their declining years as they did in their prime. Kind of supports the GP's argument more than yours, I'm afraid to say.
WWII was started, not by Poland, but by Germany in its attempt to build an empire for itself. Here, the parallels are stronger between the US' recent bellicosity and Germany's. In both cases, we see unprovoked attacks against a strategically useful but virtually defenseless nation, resulting in tragic consequences, both the the aggressor and the defender. Yet again, an object lesson again that speaks more to the GP's point than yours.
WWII was precipitated by financial collapses around the globe where Robber Barons exerted their strong hold on the throats of nations. Germany didn't decide to go to War because they were prosperous and contented in life. They listened to a lunatic because that lunatic saw an opportunity to grab power and once he had that power wanted it even more. He acted like an unbridled corporation that had not checks and balances.
Who do you think killed more people in the last century?
Hitler, Mao, Stalin
or
GE, IBM, Walmart, Exxon, whoever else.
You must have either a fucked up sense of 'evil' or a distorted view of reality.
Are we bounding the equation to direct 1-to-1 cause/effect or the more realistic eroding of society via long-term effect? By the way, the Rubber Industry destroyed a major portion of the Rain Forest which is screwing up the ecosystem and killing countless species, but since you don't consider that important, just as one example, you could give a shit. The millions of natives who were murdered during the rubber expansion alone in South America dwarfs your assertion about Government, just in the 20th century. Now lets move on to the oceanic species brutally destroyed by the Oil Industry. It's a long list. Let's not even bother to care about the ties large corporations had during the World Wars in funding both sides and watching the inevitable slaughter.On and on. How about Bush selling to the Nazis? Wherever there is money to horde, Corporations have left a blood trail that could wrap around the globe.
The topic might have been interesting, but as soon as I followed the link to the site, I noticed that it looked like something designed by someone from 1993.. he actual content stuffed in a column only 460 pixels wide. There's more (480 poxels) devoted to useless crap on the righthand sidebars. And almost half is devoted to... nothing... because, like most people, I have a widescreen monitor, not one of those "Best Viewed Using Internet Explorer at 800x600" screens.
No wonder newspapers and magazines are dying - they still don't "get" it.
No. Most people still don't have widescreen displays.
The rich got wealthy off the backs of the middle class, you ass clown. Without a 290 million person pool of consumers to sell shit to, just within the Continental US, the Rich are Poor. Keep thinking that a wealthy person doesn't owe their entire wealth to the fact the consumers redistributed part of their wealth to them for a good or service. Then bitch when the well dries up and your good or service is no longer worth squat and the principle value of the currency is worthless. All that wealth becomes pennies on the dollar.
Well, you know, as long as it's not terrible code.
Once upon a time, the RFC for IP and the BSD code base (that *everyone*) used differed in some subtle way. W. Richards Stevens was the first guy to notice, years after both were written.
Also, stating that the IETF cooperates closely with the ISO does not imply that creating an IETF standard somehow grants ISO standard status.
Indeed. But the notion that a standard must be from ISO to "count", is of course incorrect -- the canonical example being TCP/IP, which utterly trounced the competing ISO-standardized protocols.
It trounced on technical superiority. There goes your example. WebM is technically inferior to H.264.
I briefly confused Larry Page with Larry Ellison. Whew. That would be terrible.
Oh I know! One has run the world's leading database vendor for decades and is a titan of the industry. The other developed a search engine. Wow! You can see how one could confuse the two.
The FCC has authority over the public EM spectrum (as given to them by Congress) such as radio. They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners. Nor do they have authority to censor content on the private cables.
They are empowered by the Executive Branch whose jurisdiction covers all of the US and it's territories. Get over yourself.
Calls to have their DSL installed in the middle of a snowy winter?
ASSHOLES CUSTOMERS, that's who./blame game.
Sorry, but Construction is done year round. The fact they didn't run any PVC between the boxes and then brought out an entire set of enclosures to keep the weather from creating further damage, fire risk, etc., not to mention running a separate power conduit to expand the capacity is completely unprofessional. Furthermore, if the Building Management works with Qwest I'm sure they can provide a point of access to their wiring plan and there should be no wiring exposed. It's clear the Gas company had a tight and concise plan by those pictures.
Did you even RTFA? Here is a quote:
"I felt like I was letting down one of our most promising engineers. He was someone who had the most knowledge about the business we supported and was an expert in the core client-server application. "
It wasn't someone sitting in a corner shooing kids off his lawn while he became an old curmudgeon, it was the team lead in the core application. I don't know about you, but I don't always have time to become an expert in every new IT technology that comes along. I have limited time and so I pick and choose. This guy had spent his time working hard and becoming their team lead, which naturally meant focusing on their core business and application. He then finds out they're hiring graduates at a 30% higher salary and expecting him to mentor them in the business requirements because he hasn't also had time to become an expert in mobile applications. Tell me you wouldn't be pissed off in such a situation?
Yes, the salary for the graduates was driven by the market, and purely from a fiscal perspective the company did the best thing for it. Let's not pretend though that there aren't people involved and that they weren't screwed.
The business decision for short-term gain will bite them in the ass for long-term development. The highest demographic of job hoppers are the recent university graduates. Leaving them to do the grunt work is actually a long-term shrewd investment. The loyal, seasoned architect is indispensable. Never mind the fact that if you are hiring these recent grads to address your need to be in the latest platform, then you're playing catch up and will miss most of the opportunities to make money in that market. Stop chasing the latest hotness and focus on your business goals.
Had the old engineers said, "OK, Fortran is dead, let's just keep a legacy compiler to run old code" everything would have been fine. But no, they insist on "improving" Fortran by putting C language features, e.g. pointers, into it. Why can't they just learn to program in C and let the old compilers do what they are good for, which is running legacy code?
C does not have true multidimensional arrays. Fortran has also historically produced faster numerical binaries than C.
You'd think he'd have known that from a university Numerical Analysis course where one tests C and FORTRAN, long before he became a seasoned FORTRAN Legacy developer.
I think you're delusional if you think something better than jet airplanes will be around in 20 years for transporting people long distances and between continents quickly.
We're going to be flying jets, just like we do now. They might have nicer avionics, and have better entertainment systems for the passengers, but that's it. Some more advanced countries might have high-speed trains for shorter and medium distances, but trains won't take you across oceans, and even the fastest maglevs aren't fast enough to compete with jets for cross-continent travel (like NY-LA), aside from their insane installation costs.
Don't tell me you saw a program on Discovery about an evacuated undersea tube and you think they'll have those everywhere in 20 years.
As a Mechanical Engineer I can tell you Jet Airplane Engines are very old technologies. We've been refining it for the past 50 years. That's it. If you think in 50-100 years we aren't using localized gravitational electromagnetic drives then you must think Positron Drives won't be seen in 50-100 years. Basic Drag and Lift with a compressed air force to give us a boost to stay in the air is not cutting edge.
Those Chinese companies may be able to make and improve these commercial airliners, making them cheaper than anyone else, but they won't have the drop on the next new thing, which most global companies are looking for and are investing in.
Next new thing? What's that going to be? Hypersonic aircraft or teleporters or something? Be realistic: there IS no next new thing, not for 50-100 years at least. Commercial jet airliners have been with us since the 50s now, and haven't changed significantly in that time. The only things that have changed are 1) engines are a little more efficient and quieter, but not by orders of magnitude, 2) planes are flown slower now to save fuel and keep prices low, 3) seats are packed together so that only toddlers are comfortable in them, and 4) "air rage" is now common whereas it never happened back then.
There's been some other minor improvements of course: much better avionics (which isn't something that GE does to my knowledge), electronic engine controls (which GE does do), etc.
But the idea that Americans or other Westerners are going to come up with huge new advances to always stay ahead of the Chinese is simply ridiculous. For instance, look at the article subject: this is about GE, which doesn't make planes, but jet engines and associated controls. Jet engines haven't changed much in 50 years, just small steady improvements. Most of the advances in jet turbines were in their early days, not any time recently; they're a mature technology, and current advances are only eking out fractions of a percent in improvement, much like automobile engines.
GE is basically giving away their secrets here, and pretty soon there won't be a reason to buy a GE jet engine, because you'll be able to get one just like it made in China for less.
What's worse, China's society heavily values science and engineers. America's does not. Very few people go into engineering any more, except for software engineering. When was the last time you met an aerospace engineer? Way back in the early 90s when I was in college, we joked that AEs would never find a job, because it was a pretty dead industry. Very few engineering majors went into the AE school. ME (which a lot of jet engine engineers probably have) is a little better, but still not great. Go into any major engineering school, and look at the students: most of them are Chinese and Indian, and these days, they go back to their home country when they finish their degree.
America's days as a technology power (except maybe for web development) are almost over.
50-100 years? You're delusional. We have only had commercial Jet Engines for 50 years. What we see in the next 20 years will technologically dwarf what we are seeing today. You think they are selling the Farm to China? Hell no. They are giving crap that has been declassified by the US Government as old technology. You think they get to see that crap w/o the White House and the Department of Defense signing off on it first? Hell No.
The metallic glass research was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. Along with Sheng and Ma, the authors of the Nature article included Weikun Luo, a Johns Hopkins doctoral student in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering; F. M Alamgir of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and J. M. Bai of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
This news today is the next step in bringing these realities to market. Bravo to them all.
X11 is the problem. People will really start looking at it when OS X releases full OpenGL 3.x across the entire user space for OS X [Linux isn't even at 2.x and Windows doesn't use it for its DE drawing environment--just app specific]. When will people start calling X11 long in the tooth and needs to be completely replaced?
Oh please, when you bitch about something use real facts. Mesa is at OpenGL 2.1, and the, I think, hardest part for reaching 3.x, a full featured optimizing GLSL compiler, is well on its way. As for Windows, the DE hits the 2D and 3D parts of the DirectX driver, obviously.
OG.
MESA being at 2.1 is not the problem. The Desktop Environments are in the 1.x range. Sorry, but people will once again be pissed off that OS X will be 3.x and moving towards 4.x for the entire Desktop Window Environment 5 years before GDM/KWin/etc..
X11 is the problem. People will really start looking at it when OS X releases full OpenGL 3.x across the entire user space for OS X [Linux isn't even at 2.x and Windows doesn't use it for its DE drawing environment--just app specific]. When will people start calling X11 long in the tooth and needs to be completely replaced?
Slashdot Mirror
Nickle costs about four times as much per pound as copper.
Sorry I didn't take the time to look it up. That does further back up my statement that this processes is anything but free.
Nothing in life is free. Get over it.
Top 50 Corporations (2010)
Gross Revenues:
1. WalMart: $408,214.0 (million): $408.214 Billion in Revenue
2. Exxon Mobil: $284.65 Billion in Revenue
3. Chevron: $163.527 Billion in Revenue
4. G.E.: $156.779 Billion in Revenue
5. Bank of America: $150.450 Billion in Revenue
6. ConocoPhillips: $139.515 Billion in Revenue
7. AT&T: $123.018 Billion in Revenue
8. Ford Motor: $118.308 Billion in Revenue
9. JP Morgan Chase: $115.632
10. Hewlett Packard: $114.552
Just the top 10 for 2010 in Revenues equates to: $1.774645 Trillion in Revenue.
Yes, if I go through the top 50 you'll be able to equate just how much power corporations have in the globe.
And on top of that, they don't have nations to run.
Points of fact that doesn't serve your argument very well:
WWI was precipitated by the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The war was started when an empire in decline decided to exert its will upon a state it had annexed and occupied for some years.
So, in truth, the lesson to be drawn here is that empires in decline should be wary of unbottling very powerful genies when they try to act in their declining years as they did in their prime. Kind of supports the GP's argument more than yours, I'm afraid to say.
WWII was started, not by Poland, but by Germany in its attempt to build an empire for itself. Here, the parallels are stronger between the US' recent bellicosity and Germany's. In both cases, we see unprovoked attacks against a strategically useful but virtually defenseless nation, resulting in tragic consequences, both the the aggressor and the defender. Yet again, an object lesson again that speaks more to the GP's point than yours.
WWII was precipitated by financial collapses around the globe where Robber Barons exerted their strong hold on the throats of nations. Germany didn't decide to go to War because they were prosperous and contented in life. They listened to a lunatic because that lunatic saw an opportunity to grab power and once he had that power wanted it even more. He acted like an unbridled corporation that had not checks and balances.
Who do you think killed more people in the last century?
Hitler, Mao, Stalin or GE, IBM, Walmart, Exxon, whoever else.
You must have either a fucked up sense of 'evil' or a distorted view of reality.
Are we bounding the equation to direct 1-to-1 cause/effect or the more realistic eroding of society via long-term effect? By the way, the Rubber Industry destroyed a major portion of the Rain Forest which is screwing up the ecosystem and killing countless species, but since you don't consider that important, just as one example, you could give a shit. The millions of natives who were murdered during the rubber expansion alone in South America dwarfs your assertion about Government, just in the 20th century. Now lets move on to the oceanic species brutally destroyed by the Oil Industry. It's a long list. Let's not even bother to care about the ties large corporations had during the World Wars in funding both sides and watching the inevitable slaughter.On and on. How about Bush selling to the Nazis? Wherever there is money to horde, Corporations have left a blood trail that could wrap around the globe.
You heard it here first.
No one at Apple can stand Schmidt. Keep dreaming.
The topic might have been interesting, but as soon as I followed the link to the site, I noticed that it looked like something designed by someone from 1993.. he actual content stuffed in a column only 460 pixels wide. There's more (480 poxels) devoted to useless crap on the righthand sidebars. And almost half is devoted to ... nothing ... because, like most people, I have a widescreen monitor, not one of those "Best Viewed Using Internet Explorer at 800x600" screens.
No wonder newspapers and magazines are dying - they still don't "get" it.
No. Most people still don't have widescreen displays.
That flat tax POS who inherited his wealth from Daddy can move to Bejing that useless piece of pond scum. He couldn't innovate out of a paper bag.
The rich got wealthy off the backs of the middle class, you ass clown. Without a 290 million person pool of consumers to sell shit to, just within the Continental US, the Rich are Poor. Keep thinking that a wealthy person doesn't owe their entire wealth to the fact the consumers redistributed part of their wealth to them for a good or service. Then bitch when the well dries up and your good or service is no longer worth squat and the principle value of the currency is worthless. All that wealth becomes pennies on the dollar.
The rules for an S-Corp and much more have changed in the past year. He should have done his homework.
Well, you know, as long as it's not terrible code.
Once upon a time, the RFC for IP and the BSD code base (that *everyone*) used differed in some subtle way. W. Richards Stevens was the first guy to notice, years after both were written.
Guess what happened? They changed the standard.
The world is far worse off without Mr. Stevens.
You are putting words in my mouth, good day.
You can't debate yourself out of a paper bag.
Also, stating that the IETF cooperates closely with the ISO does not imply that creating an IETF standard somehow grants ISO standard status.
Indeed. But the notion that a standard must be from ISO to "count", is of course incorrect -- the canonical example being TCP/IP, which utterly trounced the competing ISO-standardized protocols.
It trounced on technical superiority. There goes your example. WebM is technically inferior to H.264.
You're one generation behind. The Mighty Mouse is a POS. The Magic Mouse is rock solid.
I briefly confused Larry Page with Larry Ellison. Whew. That would be terrible.
Oh I know! One has run the world's leading database vendor for decades and is a titan of the industry. The other developed a search engine. Wow! You can see how one could confuse the two.
The FCC has authority over the public EM spectrum (as given to them by Congress) such as radio. They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners. Nor do they have authority to censor content on the private cables.
They are empowered by the Executive Branch whose jurisdiction covers all of the US and it's territories. Get over yourself.
Excellent points.
Calls to have their DSL installed in the middle of a snowy winter?
ASSHOLES CUSTOMERS, that's who. /blame game.
Sorry, but Construction is done year round. The fact they didn't run any PVC between the boxes and then brought out an entire set of enclosures to keep the weather from creating further damage, fire risk, etc., not to mention running a separate power conduit to expand the capacity is completely unprofessional. Furthermore, if the Building Management works with Qwest I'm sure they can provide a point of access to their wiring plan and there should be no wiring exposed. It's clear the Gas company had a tight and concise plan by those pictures.
Did you even RTFA? Here is a quote: "I felt like I was letting down one of our most promising engineers. He was someone who had the most knowledge about the business we supported and was an expert in the core client-server application. " It wasn't someone sitting in a corner shooing kids off his lawn while he became an old curmudgeon, it was the team lead in the core application. I don't know about you, but I don't always have time to become an expert in every new IT technology that comes along. I have limited time and so I pick and choose. This guy had spent his time working hard and becoming their team lead, which naturally meant focusing on their core business and application. He then finds out they're hiring graduates at a 30% higher salary and expecting him to mentor them in the business requirements because he hasn't also had time to become an expert in mobile applications. Tell me you wouldn't be pissed off in such a situation? Yes, the salary for the graduates was driven by the market, and purely from a fiscal perspective the company did the best thing for it. Let's not pretend though that there aren't people involved and that they weren't screwed.
The business decision for short-term gain will bite them in the ass for long-term development. The highest demographic of job hoppers are the recent university graduates. Leaving them to do the grunt work is actually a long-term shrewd investment. The loyal, seasoned architect is indispensable. Never mind the fact that if you are hiring these recent grads to address your need to be in the latest platform, then you're playing catch up and will miss most of the opportunities to make money in that market. Stop chasing the latest hotness and focus on your business goals.
Had the old engineers said, "OK, Fortran is dead, let's just keep a legacy compiler to run old code" everything would have been fine. But no, they insist on "improving" Fortran by putting C language features, e.g. pointers, into it. Why can't they just learn to program in C and let the old compilers do what they are good for, which is running legacy code?
C does not have true multidimensional arrays. Fortran has also historically produced faster numerical binaries than C.
You'd think he'd have known that from a university Numerical Analysis course where one tests C and FORTRAN, long before he became a seasoned FORTRAN Legacy developer.
They are printing excessive amounts of their own to keep their currency price down. They've done this for over a decade.
I think you're delusional if you think something better than jet airplanes will be around in 20 years for transporting people long distances and between continents quickly.
We're going to be flying jets, just like we do now. They might have nicer avionics, and have better entertainment systems for the passengers, but that's it. Some more advanced countries might have high-speed trains for shorter and medium distances, but trains won't take you across oceans, and even the fastest maglevs aren't fast enough to compete with jets for cross-continent travel (like NY-LA), aside from their insane installation costs.
Don't tell me you saw a program on Discovery about an evacuated undersea tube and you think they'll have those everywhere in 20 years.
As a Mechanical Engineer I can tell you Jet Airplane Engines are very old technologies. We've been refining it for the past 50 years. That's it. If you think in 50-100 years we aren't using localized gravitational electromagnetic drives then you must think Positron Drives won't be seen in 50-100 years. Basic Drag and Lift with a compressed air force to give us a boost to stay in the air is not cutting edge.
Even this basic overview presented 13 years ago should give you a clue: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/
Those Chinese companies may be able to make and improve these commercial airliners, making them cheaper than anyone else, but they won't have the drop on the next new thing, which most global companies are looking for and are investing in.
Next new thing? What's that going to be? Hypersonic aircraft or teleporters or something? Be realistic: there IS no next new thing, not for 50-100 years at least. Commercial jet airliners have been with us since the 50s now, and haven't changed significantly in that time. The only things that have changed are 1) engines are a little more efficient and quieter, but not by orders of magnitude, 2) planes are flown slower now to save fuel and keep prices low, 3) seats are packed together so that only toddlers are comfortable in them, and 4) "air rage" is now common whereas it never happened back then.
There's been some other minor improvements of course: much better avionics (which isn't something that GE does to my knowledge), electronic engine controls (which GE does do), etc.
But the idea that Americans or other Westerners are going to come up with huge new advances to always stay ahead of the Chinese is simply ridiculous. For instance, look at the article subject: this is about GE, which doesn't make planes, but jet engines and associated controls. Jet engines haven't changed much in 50 years, just small steady improvements. Most of the advances in jet turbines were in their early days, not any time recently; they're a mature technology, and current advances are only eking out fractions of a percent in improvement, much like automobile engines.
GE is basically giving away their secrets here, and pretty soon there won't be a reason to buy a GE jet engine, because you'll be able to get one just like it made in China for less.
What's worse, China's society heavily values science and engineers. America's does not. Very few people go into engineering any more, except for software engineering. When was the last time you met an aerospace engineer? Way back in the early 90s when I was in college, we joked that AEs would never find a job, because it was a pretty dead industry. Very few engineering majors went into the AE school. ME (which a lot of jet engine engineers probably have) is a little better, but still not great. Go into any major engineering school, and look at the students: most of them are Chinese and Indian, and these days, they go back to their home country when they finish their degree.
America's days as a technology power (except maybe for web development) are almost over.
50-100 years? You're delusional. We have only had commercial Jet Engines for 50 years. What we see in the next 20 years will technologically dwarf what we are seeing today. You think they are selling the Farm to China? Hell no. They are giving crap that has been declassified by the US Government as old technology. You think they get to see that crap w/o the White House and the Department of Defense signing off on it first? Hell No.
Remember? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060126190325.htm
This news today is the next step in bringing these realities to market. Bravo to them all.
X11 is the problem. People will really start looking at it when OS X releases full OpenGL 3.x across the entire user space for OS X [Linux isn't even at 2.x and Windows doesn't use it for its DE drawing environment--just app specific]. When will people start calling X11 long in the tooth and needs to be completely replaced?
Oh please, when you bitch about something use real facts. Mesa is at OpenGL 2.1, and the, I think, hardest part for reaching 3.x, a full featured optimizing GLSL compiler, is well on its way. As for Windows, the DE hits the 2D and 3D parts of the DirectX driver, obviously.
OG.
MESA being at 2.1 is not the problem. The Desktop Environments are in the 1.x range. Sorry, but people will once again be pissed off that OS X will be 3.x and moving towards 4.x for the entire Desktop Window Environment 5 years before GDM/KWin/etc..
X11 is the problem. People will really start looking at it when OS X releases full OpenGL 3.x across the entire user space for OS X [Linux isn't even at 2.x and Windows doesn't use it for its DE drawing environment--just app specific]. When will people start calling X11 long in the tooth and needs to be completely replaced?