So one Steve has joined the other Steve, the one who - and that makes a difference - never shone with competence.
If you're referring to Wozniak, I'm going to take exception to your remark. I've never liked Jobs, not from day one. Anyone who "adores" Steve Jobs wasn't around back in the beginning, isn't aware of the arrogance and bungling the man exhibited early on. Once an asshole, always an asshole, and running Apple has NOT improved his demeanor nor his attitude, not one iota. Wozniak, on the other hand, was a rare spark of true genius. As someone who was very big in the Apple ][ development scene at one point, I must say Wozniak's work impressed me far more than anything Jobs did. Was the Woz a a businessman, a corporate leader? No, of course not: unlike Jobs though, he never pretended to be. But he was a hell of an engineer.
Where were you within all the chaos? I've worked for him twice. Yourself?
I haven't checked out Windows 7, but that Powershell crap they call terminal processes and shell scripting after having spent 20 years with various Ksh, Csh, Bash, Zsh, etc., I wanted to throw up when the most basic crap was like pulling teeth to mimic what I take for granted on UNIX systems.
"At one company, quality kind of matters when you drop something off at the consumer's front door"
Obviously not Apple or MS? What company are you talking about.
State quality to back up your comment and lack of quality to back up your comment from Apple. Microsoft I can see. However, they sure as hell know how to make Mice.
I'm not lying but maybe the teacher was - SHE'S the one who said it cost her $1500.
The cheapest MacBook is still $1000..... still a hell of a lot more than $350 or $450 for the WIN7 machine. Way overpriced. Why buy an Acura when a Honda is just as good (and made by the same company besides)?
Because you insult everyone by comparing the Honda to the POS Toshiba and Windows 7 to the Acura which is being portrayed as the Acura. More importantly, the correct comparison would be, MacBook Pro to MacBook, seeing as Acura is the high-end Honda.
>>>That means they are still at home, still largely unphased by the costs of college
Good point. A former teacher just asked my recommendation for her college-bound kid. I searched the advertisements and said, "Here's a nice HP laptop for $350, or you can get the better Toshiba with double the RAM for $450. Both hav the latest Windows 7 OS." Well my ex-teacher followed my advice but her kid had a fit and insisted she "had" to have a MacBook...... they ended-up spending $1500.
Kids don't care if they drive their parents into bankruptcy. Or whether or not they can get Linux for free. They want what they want, regardless of cost. ----- (Oh and don't give me crap about Macs being better - the $1500 model actually had 1 GB less memory and 500 megahertz slower speed than the $450 Toshiba laptop.)
Smart kid. Not only do they get a rock solid laptop, with UNIX 03 Certification, but they stay current in OS technologies that just works and can learn all the FOSS tools that runs smoothly on that Darwin/FreeBSD mixed foundation.
Morton works at Google, Viro pops up as basically an alias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Niels_Olson/Al_Viro, Miller works at Red Hat, Baechle at MIPS, etc.. You just gave a list of Corporations and actual top developers all working for those corporations. Thanks for reinforcing the prior fact that the bulk of the kernel code is paid directly or indirectly by corporations.
I don't care if you're a casual writer or developer, having the Chicago Manual of Style [15th Edition myself] on hand will teach you to become a much better typesetter in your work.
Agreed. I'm trying to see how they've managed to take a Calculus book I bought in 1987 and by 2000 the same book with some Calculator additions, change in color examples, a pointless DVD/CD to some crappy Windows Only Software program and extra problem sets managed to go from $50 to $150. I'm sorry, but the technology to make books has actually decreased in cost, yet the cost for the actual product has tripled, in just over a decade? Now I see Physics for Scientists and Engineers using worse materials [thinner paper weight/cheaper pulp, weaker spines] and have managed to add a crap load of useless filler [not relevant historical information around the theories and how they came to it [a secondary softcover book companion being the perfect solution for such material]] while spreading it out over 3 books. So I can either buy an all-in-one for around $200 or three books for more than $200 that will fall apart much sooner than the same material covered in Physics books back in the late 80s/early 90s or back in the 60s/70s when two volumes for Physics by Resnick/Halliday came out in high quality print materials, superior examples and at around 1800 pages put you back around $35 for both. I just picked up Volume 1 for $2 and Volume 2 is going to cost me [in mint condition] around $7 from Amazon. I'd expect to pay $40 for each hardbound today, as reasonable, totaling $80 plus tax, not > $200. I'll even concede $100 if they add the companions book of all the historical background information on the theories discussed with current research fields and their application. That would be worth it.
What I want to know is what mechanisms are causing their Gallium-Nitride junction to conduct more reverse current above 227 C.
They are currently projecting operating at 200 C for max efficiency but if it's as I suspect -- increased current flow with higher temperature -- then they can modify the doping mixture to get even higher temps and therefore higher efficiencies.
This would also boost the Carnot Cycle efficiency limit for the secondary heat exchanger that operates after the GaN primary power generation.
I'm reading from the slides.
You'll know after they receive the much deserved Patents, if this is proven correct.
I hate it when people make scales to grade something on, and then never use the damn entirety of the scale.
They're rewarding mediocrity.
In my opinion, it would be far better if they did this:
Drop all D scores to F
Drop all C scores to D
Drop all B scores to C
Drop half (or more) of all A scores to B
Cause, really, "A", which should be given for brilliance, is given out way too liberally. I'm sorry to say, but your daughter simply isn't smart enough to get five As, she's just been overrated.
How about we drop your entire premise and instead stop rating part of your score as attendance [instead of 30% of your grade is your attendance, it's worth 0% and that 30% goes towards team projects] and secondly get rid of the idea of a 4.3 GPA due to extra credit, designed to give a false sense of genius to a kid. We got extra credit in school back in the '80s, but even if we had > 100%, at the end of the semester the grade was still an A, out of 4.0. Instead of gold stars and extra credit and credit for showing up to class, you structure high school like Universities and work in teams in all your courses which includes weekly exams that give one a balance between exams, projects and homework. The point should be learning with experience, not seeing who can memorize the best.
I don't know. I don't think that Afghanistan is capable of invading and conquering the United States. They pose no great threat to us. Given that, I'd really rather have the $300 billion.
How dare you say a nation with a roughly $10-$15 Billion GDP cannot conquer a nation with roughly a $15 Trillion GDP. Such gall!
On a serious note, we've known for over 30 years that Afghanistan is an untapped nation of massive minerals that can be used for military and commercial applications. The conservative $1 Trillion recently discussed is confirmation to what we always suspected was the main reason the USSR wanted to control it. Same goes for us so it seems.
No, they were far more ruthless than we are. The Romans would have conquered Afghanistan a long time ago -- it's much easier to pacify a population when you are willing to kill anyone capable of offering resistance and sell the survivors into slavery.
We aren't even as ruthless as we were just sixty years ago. Read up on how we conducted ourselves in the Pacific War against Japan. They refused to abide by the laws of war and we responded in kind.
Thank God that you guys are so nice and kind.
For a moment there, I though you were the country that killed the most civilians in past decade...
in kind, not kind. Let me guess, English is not your primary language? Quenda already replied to this misinterpretation, but I thought I'd emphasize it again so as to make it clear how such a simple oversight can create a misconception of facts and later come back as some made up fact.
I just find it absurd that we force our military to fight with one hand behind it's back. Our enemies aren't doing the same.
It all depends on what you're trying to achieve. If it's suppressing all resistance, then, yes, "shoot on sight" is the way to do that - though there are more efficient ways still, such as carpet bombing.
But if you want to take over an area and maintain control, not by keeping population at the barrel of your guns (and showing that it's loaded by shooting one or another periodically), but more or less willingly, then you have to do PR. Be better than the other guys.
And PR has its costs, including soldiers' lives.
But then Soviet Union tried to go without back in 80s, and you might recall how well that went.
Let's not ignore the fact we supplied the resistance against the USSR through back channels. Without our aide, Afghanistan most certainly would have fallen.
G5's aren't incredibly slow, but nor are they particularly fast. The clock speed bump over the G4 meant the loss of some performance per cycle, and the amount of heat those things put out is obscene.
A reasonably clocked C2D or any Nehalem should be vastly faster than a G5.
That must have taxed your brain to come up with this comparison. I'd slap Debian Sid on it, used it for distributed compiles, LLVM builds, development and basically learning the PowerPC architecture while running Computation Fluid Dynamics, FEA, etc. When it's sufficiently pointless one can use the Case and strip out the guts and build your own custom PC.
trains the Airlines aren't having much competition to compete for consumers domestically. Fix that and you'll see a ton of business fliers going rail to have their own private slot with access to land based communications. Yes, they will convert if it's built.
During that time, RIM has avoided designs like the one Apple used in the iPhone 4 and instead has used innovative designs which reduce the risk for dropped calls, especially in areas of lower coverage.
RIM's market are business people and others who really use their phone for calling, email, and other communications. They bought it to do a function.
People bought the iPhone because it was Apple and they wanted to have a stylish phone. They wanted to look marvelous.
If it wasn't the case, then why did the iPhone sell like hot cakes in markets where AT&T was known to have shitty service? Consumer Reports have been tracking that for years.
Yes, those business people surfing their stock portfolios, touching base with their frat brothers and texting their fellow day traders have serious work to do. The average person, no matter their job spends an awful large amount of time twiddling their thumbs on all brands of smart phones.
If Jobs would lie to Woz and steal money from him (his best friend) why don't you think he would lie to you?
That's why they're still friends and hold no animosity towards each other. Perhaps you weren't there at those touching reunions to verify and thus can't take Woz's word either.
Because the media has created this perception, Apple is giving everyone free Bumpers.
To be fair, Apple uses the media to create the perception of perfection, shininess, trendiness, and bug-freeness in their products. So I'd take it all as indicating that media whoring cuts both ways.
The whoring is the Media. They grind both ways as long as it sells papers, tv ad time and internet based blog ads. Apple doesn't pay anyone to advertise their products on tv, in film or via the news. I know, I worked there and the joke was that there is a department in Apple because so many calls were coming in asking permission to show Apple branded products in these mediums and that they'd like to do it for free. The rest of the industry does pay for product placement. Now that Apple has become the pinup model everyone wants to date, the Droid heads are moaning about only their hand for love.
No, it is a case of a crappy engineering. The point of the antenna design, as marketed, was to increase reception dramatically, not be the same as current designs.
A simple, low-cost solution would have been to apply a thin, transparent layer of some kind of insulating material over the antenna. Then it would look practically identical to what it is now, actually do what Apple says it does, in all use cases, and we would have evidence of competent engineers working at Apple.
What's crappy is the speculation. What's been proven is that Apple didn't expect all 3 points of transition on their Antenna to be squeezed like it's your last dollar and someone's trying to pry it out of your cold, dead hands. Lesson learned.
Who on their right mind would make a phone designed with an antenna that you're going to directly touch in normal use?
A company driven by it's Marketing Division, not one driven by it's Engineering Division.
I know. I've worked in both types of companies.
You've clearly never worked for Apple. The first act we did when we [NeXT] merged with Apple was to consolidate 26 separate Marketing divisions into a single division. The rest is all Engineering and Industrial Design. Marketing is easy when your designs are stellar. It's an illusionist nightmare when it's not all Engineering and Industrial Design [Microsoft and Dell come to mind, never mind Android and it's joke of a Robotics Campaign with Verizon].
I think everyone can agree they would love to build an orbiting Space Port. Build that out and then build a larger ship for deep space and you see where this is going.
Slashdot Mirror
So one Steve has joined the other Steve, the one who - and that makes a difference - never shone with competence.
If you're referring to Wozniak, I'm going to take exception to your remark. I've never liked Jobs, not from day one. Anyone who "adores" Steve Jobs wasn't around back in the beginning, isn't aware of the arrogance and bungling the man exhibited early on. Once an asshole, always an asshole, and running Apple has NOT improved his demeanor nor his attitude, not one iota. Wozniak, on the other hand, was a rare spark of true genius. As someone who was very big in the Apple ][ development scene at one point, I must say Wozniak's work impressed me far more than anything Jobs did. Was the Woz a a businessman, a corporate leader? No, of course not: unlike Jobs though, he never pretended to be. But he was a hell of an engineer.
Where were you within all the chaos? I've worked for him twice. Yourself?
What is wrong with the quality of Windows 7?
I haven't checked out Windows 7, but that Powershell crap they call terminal processes and shell scripting after having spent 20 years with various Ksh, Csh, Bash, Zsh, etc., I wanted to throw up when the most basic crap was like pulling teeth to mimic what I take for granted on UNIX systems.
"At one company, quality kind of matters when you drop something off at the consumer's front door" Obviously not Apple or MS? What company are you talking about.
State quality to back up your comment and lack of quality to back up your comment from Apple. Microsoft I can see. However, they sure as hell know how to make Mice.
I'm not lying but maybe the teacher was - SHE'S the one who said it cost her $1500.
The cheapest MacBook is still $1000..... still a hell of a lot more than $350 or $450 for the WIN7 machine. Way overpriced. Why buy an Acura when a Honda is just as good (and made by the same company besides)?
Because you insult everyone by comparing the Honda to the POS Toshiba and Windows 7 to the Acura which is being portrayed as the Acura. More importantly, the correct comparison would be, MacBook Pro to MacBook, seeing as Acura is the high-end Honda.
>>>That means they are still at home, still largely unphased by the costs of college
Good point. A former teacher just asked my recommendation for her college-bound kid. I searched the advertisements and said, "Here's a nice HP laptop for $350, or you can get the better Toshiba with double the RAM for $450. Both hav the latest Windows 7 OS." Well my ex-teacher followed my advice but her kid had a fit and insisted she "had" to have a MacBook...... they ended-up spending $1500.
Kids don't care if they drive their parents into bankruptcy. Or whether or not they can get Linux for free. They want what they want, regardless of cost. ----- (Oh and don't give me crap about Macs being better - the $1500 model actually had 1 GB less memory and 500 megahertz slower speed than the $450 Toshiba laptop.)
Smart kid. Not only do they get a rock solid laptop, with UNIX 03 Certification, but they stay current in OS technologies that just works and can learn all the FOSS tools that runs smoothly on that Darwin/FreeBSD mixed foundation.
Morton works at Google, Viro pops up as basically an alias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Niels_Olson/Al_Viro, Miller works at Red Hat, Baechle at MIPS, etc.. You just gave a list of Corporations and actual top developers all working for those corporations. Thanks for reinforcing the prior fact that the bulk of the kernel code is paid directly or indirectly by corporations.
He was a douche at Sun, then at Novell and now at Google.
...you'll see that you gave Apple all the rights to your IP
Being a lying dick gets you Informative?
I don't care if you're a casual writer or developer, having the Chicago Manual of Style [15th Edition myself] on hand will teach you to become a much better typesetter in your work.
Agreed. I'm trying to see how they've managed to take a Calculus book I bought in 1987 and by 2000 the same book with some Calculator additions, change in color examples, a pointless DVD/CD to some crappy Windows Only Software program and extra problem sets managed to go from $50 to $150. I'm sorry, but the technology to make books has actually decreased in cost, yet the cost for the actual product has tripled, in just over a decade? Now I see Physics for Scientists and Engineers using worse materials [thinner paper weight/cheaper pulp, weaker spines] and have managed to add a crap load of useless filler [not relevant historical information around the theories and how they came to it [a secondary softcover book companion being the perfect solution for such material]] while spreading it out over 3 books. So I can either buy an all-in-one for around $200 or three books for more than $200 that will fall apart much sooner than the same material covered in Physics books back in the late 80s/early 90s or back in the 60s/70s when two volumes for Physics by Resnick/Halliday came out in high quality print materials, superior examples and at around 1800 pages put you back around $35 for both. I just picked up Volume 1 for $2 and Volume 2 is going to cost me [in mint condition] around $7 from Amazon. I'd expect to pay $40 for each hardbound today, as reasonable, totaling $80 plus tax, not > $200. I'll even concede $100 if they add the companions book of all the historical background information on the theories discussed with current research fields and their application. That would be worth it.
What I want to know is what mechanisms are causing their Gallium-Nitride junction to conduct more reverse current above 227 C. They are currently projecting operating at 200 C for max efficiency but if it's as I suspect -- increased current flow with higher temperature -- then they can modify the doping mixture to get even higher temps and therefore higher efficiencies. This would also boost the Carnot Cycle efficiency limit for the secondary heat exchanger that operates after the GaN primary power generation. I'm reading from the slides.
You'll know after they receive the much deserved Patents, if this is proven correct.
Aeron vs Airborne
I'm sure they have a few stand-in cheap chairs. To toss an Aeron chair is fightin' words.
They're rewarding mediocrity.
In my opinion, it would be far better if they did this: Drop all D scores to F Drop all C scores to D Drop all B scores to C Drop half (or more) of all A scores to B
Cause, really, "A", which should be given for brilliance, is given out way too liberally. I'm sorry to say, but your daughter simply isn't smart enough to get five As, she's just been overrated.
How about we drop your entire premise and instead stop rating part of your score as attendance [instead of 30% of your grade is your attendance, it's worth 0% and that 30% goes towards team projects] and secondly get rid of the idea of a 4.3 GPA due to extra credit, designed to give a false sense of genius to a kid. We got extra credit in school back in the '80s, but even if we had > 100%, at the end of the semester the grade was still an A, out of 4.0. Instead of gold stars and extra credit and credit for showing up to class, you structure high school like Universities and work in teams in all your courses which includes weekly exams that give one a balance between exams, projects and homework. The point should be learning with experience, not seeing who can memorize the best.
I don't know. I don't think that Afghanistan is capable of invading and conquering the United States. They pose no great threat to us. Given that, I'd really rather have the $300 billion.
How dare you say a nation with a roughly $10-$15 Billion GDP cannot conquer a nation with roughly a $15 Trillion GDP. Such gall!
On a serious note, we've known for over 30 years that Afghanistan is an untapped nation of massive minerals that can be used for military and commercial applications. The conservative $1 Trillion recently discussed is confirmation to what we always suspected was the main reason the USSR wanted to control it. Same goes for us so it seems.
No, they were far more ruthless than we are. The Romans would have conquered Afghanistan a long time ago -- it's much easier to pacify a population when you are willing to kill anyone capable of offering resistance and sell the survivors into slavery.
We aren't even as ruthless as we were just sixty years ago. Read up on how we conducted ourselves in the Pacific War against Japan. They refused to abide by the laws of war and we responded in kind.
Thank God that you guys are so nice and kind.
For a moment there, I though you were the country that killed the most civilians in past decade...
in kind, not kind. Let me guess, English is not your primary language? Quenda already replied to this misinterpretation, but I thought I'd emphasize it again so as to make it clear how such a simple oversight can create a misconception of facts and later come back as some made up fact.
I just find it absurd that we force our military to fight with one hand behind it's back. Our enemies aren't doing the same.
It all depends on what you're trying to achieve. If it's suppressing all resistance, then, yes, "shoot on sight" is the way to do that - though there are more efficient ways still, such as carpet bombing.
But if you want to take over an area and maintain control, not by keeping population at the barrel of your guns (and showing that it's loaded by shooting one or another periodically), but more or less willingly, then you have to do PR. Be better than the other guys.
And PR has its costs, including soldiers' lives.
But then Soviet Union tried to go without back in 80s, and you might recall how well that went.
Let's not ignore the fact we supplied the resistance against the USSR through back channels. Without our aide, Afghanistan most certainly would have fallen.
G5's aren't incredibly slow, but nor are they particularly fast. The clock speed bump over the G4 meant the loss of some performance per cycle, and the amount of heat those things put out is obscene. A reasonably clocked C2D or any Nehalem should be vastly faster than a G5.
That must have taxed your brain to come up with this comparison. I'd slap Debian Sid on it, used it for distributed compiles, LLVM builds, development and basically learning the PowerPC architecture while running Computation Fluid Dynamics, FEA, etc. When it's sufficiently pointless one can use the Case and strip out the guts and build your own custom PC.
Why is anyone interested in Office 2010 when OOo doesn't have a ribbon?
I was glad to read in the OOo 3.3 Dev branch that Calc just bumped it's Spreadsheet Matrix to a 1M rows, up from the 2^16 number currently.
trains the Airlines aren't having much competition to compete for consumers domestically. Fix that and you'll see a ton of business fliers going rail to have their own private slot with access to land based communications. Yes, they will convert if it's built.
During that time, RIM has avoided designs like the one Apple used in the iPhone 4 and instead has used innovative designs which reduce the risk for dropped calls, especially in areas of lower coverage.
RIM's market are business people and others who really use their phone for calling, email, and other communications. They bought it to do a function.
People bought the iPhone because it was Apple and they wanted to have a stylish phone. They wanted to look marvelous.
If it wasn't the case, then why did the iPhone sell like hot cakes in markets where AT&T was known to have shitty service? Consumer Reports have been tracking that for years.
Yes, those business people surfing their stock portfolios, touching base with their frat brothers and texting their fellow day traders have serious work to do. The average person, no matter their job spends an awful large amount of time twiddling their thumbs on all brands of smart phones.
If Jobs would lie to Woz and steal money from him (his best friend) why don't you think he would lie to you?
That's why they're still friends and hold no animosity towards each other. Perhaps you weren't there at those touching reunions to verify and thus can't take Woz's word either.
Because the media has created this perception, Apple is giving everyone free Bumpers.
To be fair, Apple uses the media to create the perception of perfection, shininess, trendiness, and bug-freeness in their products. So I'd take it all as indicating that media whoring cuts both ways.
The whoring is the Media. They grind both ways as long as it sells papers, tv ad time and internet based blog ads. Apple doesn't pay anyone to advertise their products on tv, in film or via the news. I know, I worked there and the joke was that there is a department in Apple because so many calls were coming in asking permission to show Apple branded products in these mediums and that they'd like to do it for free. The rest of the industry does pay for product placement. Now that Apple has become the pinup model everyone wants to date, the Droid heads are moaning about only their hand for love.
No, it is a case of a crappy engineering. The point of the antenna design, as marketed, was to increase reception dramatically, not be the same as current designs. A simple, low-cost solution would have been to apply a thin, transparent layer of some kind of insulating material over the antenna. Then it would look practically identical to what it is now, actually do what Apple says it does, in all use cases, and we would have evidence of competent engineers working at Apple.
What's crappy is the speculation. What's been proven is that Apple didn't expect all 3 points of transition on their Antenna to be squeezed like it's your last dollar and someone's trying to pry it out of your cold, dead hands. Lesson learned.
Who on their right mind would make a phone designed with an antenna that you're going to directly touch in normal use?
A company driven by it's Marketing Division, not one driven by it's Engineering Division.
I know. I've worked in both types of companies.
You've clearly never worked for Apple. The first act we did when we [NeXT] merged with Apple was to consolidate 26 separate Marketing divisions into a single division. The rest is all Engineering and Industrial Design. Marketing is easy when your designs are stellar. It's an illusionist nightmare when it's not all Engineering and Industrial Design [Microsoft and Dell come to mind, never mind Android and it's joke of a Robotics Campaign with Verizon].
I think everyone can agree they would love to build an orbiting Space Port. Build that out and then build a larger ship for deep space and you see where this is going.