Here's how it worked. The experienced German staff were put in a team with a few Russians that knew nothing but the basics. After a while the Russians in the team would be competent, and then they would suddenly be posted elsewhere and there would be new people in the team that knew nothing but the basics. After a while there was a very large pool of Russian staff that knew everything the German staff knew and it was no longer considered worthwhile to continue to feed the German staff.
Your argument would have made sense if it were consistent. knew everything is not equivalent to competent. They weren't the German experts, even after they were trained. The goal for the USSR was to make themselves competent enough so they thought, and thus would make the German experts now obsolete. History proved they overestimated their competency. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have a back up plan. Starving the talent to death is not a reversible state.
Unfortunately, we are not talking of Indian and US education. We are talking of US educated PhDs in India. They cant get Green cards or H1Bs easily in such a climate - so they go back.
Lets see - the average number of caucasians in any science or technology PhD program is low - most are asians. So I guess they have the critical skills to ace the US education system without their 'critical skills'.
So lets see some of the key things you point out:
1. Software development fails due to lack of critical thinking amongst Indians - so lets see MSFT projects routinely used to fail when indians were almost rare on msft campus. Cant blame that on Indians. Software projects in general fail quite a bit not because of programming but due to lack of project management skills.
You cant compare the average programmer who comes here to do crappy ERP consulting or Java programming with 'innovative researchers' here in the US.
2. Anyways lets see - what does the average Slashdot reader do ? programming for businesses to process orders ? sell stuff on the web ? How many are actually doing anything innovative ?
Will your CIO miss you if the HTML/JS/java stuff you are doing is done by some other dork in another part of the world ? I dont think so - esp. if it is done at 1/3rd the price and with limited benefits and 6 day work weeks.
For those of you who are truly 'innovative' - there is nothing to fear.
3. 40% of NASA/MSFT/GOOG etc. are asians (chinese + indians + koreans etc.) - now remember these are from the small population of the students who happen to be chinese and indians. So I guess these chinese and indians are not 'critical thinking' challenged.
4. Superiority complex is unfortunately akin to shooting yourself in the foot. You may think you are the critical thinkers and the innovators - but remember, indians/chinese and most 3rd world people are much hungrier for success. This is the windows vs Apple model. Apple may have been cooler - but Windows takes over by sheer numbers.
2 billion to 350 million. You would need to be 3-4 times as innovative as the rest of the world to survive:) - that is assuming like 800 million of the Chindia population is a complete waste. The reason India and China did not have much to show in patents was cos they cost $3-$4k even in small countries. Now the patents from Indian research labs are piling up!
Bye bye average American programmer!
Take a small dose of reality between the differing cultures. It's called Peer Pressure. In the United States it is highly frowned upon one becoming the ``professional student'' and best to get your degree then go to work and have the corporation pay for your advanced education. Unfortunately, most corporations have stopped that practice and want you to have that advanced education beforehand. If US Families would encourage their kids to get advanced degrees and cultivate this like we once did, we wouldn't have this perceived brain drain.
More importantly, what is with the Computer Science analogies. It's my second field, but it's not the field this article is centered around. The field(s) are Material Science Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemistry and Physics.
Trying to put a little objectivity to this comment i will add this:
Consider the science contests from high school called science olympiads, where big scientists like Grigori Perelman and Terence Tao have competed, contests where things like the ones you mentioned (innovation, creativity, etc.) play a huge part for the results, let's say the two most relevant subjects for computer science (informatics and mathematics):
Historic results for all countries on the IMO (mathematics):
As you can see, at least in these competitions, China DOES seem to be better than USA (than all countries in fact), while India seems a more mediocre country like you comment.
Apply this to my first discipline, Mechanical Engineering. Wanna see how useful a test like that is when it comes to designing a new Axial Flow Fan? A complex HVAC system? How about a several thousand node control system for a Power Plant?
I think it comes down to the sad fact that most people aren't good at their jobs. They tend to rise to one level above where they are actually competent, and stay there. And from my experience, they aren't usually very happy in whatever that position is, which (and IMHO) might be the reason that people in modern societies are often less happy (overall) than people in less advanced societies. Not many people enjoy that.
This comment is not Off-topic. It's systematic of today's pool of talents. You've got plenty of tools and very few technicians. The poster is spot on.
You have to understand the slashdot memes. These are constructed around the state of technology over a decade ago.
So, PHP is always bad, Javascript and Ajax are always bad, and when someone mentions MySQL, the karma whores come out to bash it and mention PostgreSQL.
They don't need an argument, the authors and upvoters are operating in old-man auto-bot mode. Like I said, it typically involves notions which were fixed years ago if they did exist to begin with.
These are elitist-wannabees, using simple rules of engagement, to show you how smart they are. Similar to grammar nazi. It is actually a quite lower-class thing to do. As Hannibal Lecter would say, you have to wonder if they still hear the lambs screaming.
You managed to not answer his technical question and take a pot shot at a much more robust database solution to boot.
its already multi-dimensional. you have a record, it has keys in it, the values can be objects. that's three or more dimensions there depending on how complicated the objects are.
I guess the original poster doesn't have a classic background in Calculus, Linear Algebra, Linear/Non-linear Programming, basic Physics, Finite Automata and Discrete Mathematics, but holds their knowledge to learning SQL.
Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products. Why sloppy? Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary, people!
They go this route and not PostrgreSQL 8.5? Seriously?
The Bill of Rights are most certainly part of the original US Constitution. The First Amendment is what he is looking for that declares, explicitly, that thou shalt not bare any Religion within Government, commandment crap. It speaks volumes to the person for never grasping language and bothering to read Jefferson, Madison, and more on their intent with the amendments.
TO AVOID THE USUAL FATE OF NATIONS
Reply to Wilson's Speech:
``Centenial'' [Samule Bryan]
wrote in the Freeman's Journal (Philadelphia), October 24, 1787
....The new plan, it is true, does propose to secure the people of the benefit of personal liberty by the habeas corpus; and trial by jury for all crimes, except in case of impeachment: but there is no declaration, that all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding; and that no man out, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against his own free will and consent; and that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul [original spelling], the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship: that the trial by jury in civil causes as well as criminal, and the modes prescribed by the common law for safety of life in criminal prosecutions shall be held sacred; that the requiring of excessive bail, imposing of excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments be forbidden; that monopolies in trade or arts, other than to authors of books [Copyright law] or inventors of useful arts, for a reasonable time [USPTO], ought not to be suffered; that the right of the people to assemble peaceably for the purpose of consulting about public matters, and petitioning or remonstrating to the federal legislature out not to be prevented; that the liberty of the press be held sacred; that the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers and possessions free from search or seizure; and that therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or his property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right and ought not to be granted; and that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be permitted but when absolutely necessary; all which is omitted to be done in the proposed government.
There is so much information that became the US Constitution in this one page from the Debates On The Constitution, Part I compiled by the Library of America that anyone who claims there is no Separation of Church and State has a comprehension problem.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Proclaiming to listen to college lectures on tape doesn't tell one much. Which history? Which philosophies? Try reading before listening. You'd be amazed how much more encompassing it is than the Cliff Notes. Reading from various political persuasions indeed makes one a well-rounded human being. At it's logical conclusion it should make one an independent.
That and Apple is a holder of H.264 and MP4 patents.
MP4 used QuickTime as the foundation for it's existence. Yes, they would obviously hold a patent on MP4. The same for H.264. It's why Apple's name is first on both lists. Anyone who begrudges them for that or implies no less is a fool into thinking they would drop billions of IP value for the Linux zealots. I'm not worried my Debian Sid box is going to feel the pain of not using Theora. Hell, all videos I watch on it are in MP4 via H.264/AAC.
You sound like an old fart whining for the buggy-whip days. The only real problem is you are ignorant and blind to major technological developments.
For starters, because this is slashdot, have to point out major advances in computing made in America since the 1970s to now. Get your timeline out of computing 1980s through 2010. No innovation?
Automobiles of today have huge technological improvements from those of the 1950s, those were guaranteed to rust out within a few years and be blowing oil out worn valve guides and piston rings. Trying to start one in below zero degrees F was a major undertaking, electronic fuel injection is vastly superior for gasoline engines. Watch a Youtube video of a 1957 chevy crashing into a modern chevy and see who would die. At least twice the fuel efficiency for given vehicle weight. Air bags, GPS navigation, OBD-II, catalytic converters, solid state radio, radial tires, digital sensors and readouts (even if it looks analog there is for example no speedometer cable to wear out). Cars are not the same.
My parents house was built in mid 60s, well built and doing fine. The house I live in was built in 1980 and is doing fine. Both places will be good for another 30 years at least, where you get your silly notions might be from some garbage low-cost tract housing, guess what that was done in 1930s and 1940s also in some places (effects of Depression) and you don't know about it because it didn't stand the test of time, your sample set is flawed..
The number one crucial development for the Automobile Industry that has stalled for decades is engine efficiency. That is intentional, not because they can't sell 100mpg vehicles. They fear they would sell less of them. Those fears are unfounded. People upgrade for the look, not the efficiency no matter how efficient the vehicle. Porsche could sell a 100mpg vehicle and within 5 years add a bunch of "luxury" items now considered stock only to see a large used market for those 5 year vehicles because everyone has to have the new stock model. Henry Ford sold the world a drug and intentionally provided incremental upgrades to keep the habit going.
Make the Highspeed [250mph+] rail systems that loops the entire US and provides a connection Hub to Denver and St Louis that branches like a web to the midwest for [150mph] rails and just see how fast the Auto Industry innovates itself or dies. Add lightrail for all US Metro cities at 200K+ and watch the lobbying protest against it from the Auto industry. Your list of luxury accessories for Autos weren't invented for the sake of evolving the industry. They were invented to keep the addiction going and to comply with ways to handle factors of safety the heads of these Auto corporations would prefer not to care about.
much more difficult language to learn and master than Java
What is so difficult about it? Objective-C is very similar to Ruby. Ruby was promoted as the easier alternative to Java in the early Rails days. So how can someone pick of Ruby without much effort, but strugle to learn Objective-C, when they are pretty much identical languages? Even the major frameworks, Cocoa and Rails, share a lot of similar design patterns.
Try the other way around. Ruby is very similar to Objective-C.
It's actually even worse than that. PARC's GUI was a lot more advanced than the crap Apple actually shipped as MacOS; Apple merely imitated its looks but cut corners on the implementation. That's why MacOS was on a death spiral within ten years: it didn't have a solid architecture or foundation.
OS X actually copied a bit more of PARC's technology, but even Objective-C and Cocoa are lousy compared to PARC's original technologies.
Well, most of them probably are smart enough to understand Global Warming/Climate Change and related arguments if they had the time to study it properly. Unfortunately doing so would take years and they don't have that time available. So instead they listen to the reactionary PR from business interests who tune their sales pitch to superficially sound good and who reinforce most peoples' natural desire to avoid change.
I'd prefer they had called it Global Heat Re-distribution and described the pockets of non-patterned deltas that are wreaking havoc on traditional climates and how the deltas [variances in temperatures] are damaging crop cycles and more, before they went around and called it an easy bake oven [global warming] or a time of the month [climate change] 1950s prim and proper term.
(Yes, computer science proper is pure mathematics, and most people employ a bit of both in their jobs. But it's well-known that the only people crazier than engineers are mathematicians.)
Computer scientists [more like programmers self-taught mainly around here] aren't Engineers.
Actually, Apple stole the tech from Xerox, then licensed the tech to HP and Microsoft.
Xerox sued, but this was way back when. I don't think there was even a concept of a software patent when the Star system was developed. They originally tried to sue for copyright infringement, but the timing of the suit caused problems. They then tried to sue for unfair business practices. IIRC, they eventually settled out of court.
You're wrong. Xerox was given the opportunity to invest $1 Million into Apple at pre-IPO status. Upon vesting it was worth approximately $125 Million to Xerox. They pocketed it immediately.
Xerox corporate had no interest until after they saw the runaway success of Apple to try and then enforce patents already shown amicably to Apple. Apple hired 15 engineers away from Xerox who were the key creators of much of that work. The brain drain at Xerox PARC was their own fault was half their fault and half the fault of the engineers. The fact they let a bunch of Ph.Ds experiment and get paid while producing no loyalty to Xerox speaks volumes about PARC and the pricks who exploited this once in a life time opportunity. None of these engineers have an ounce of ethics in their bones. They all saw green, took the money and ran with it. We got 3Com, Adobe, more tech from Apple and much more. The engineers turned out to be the real thieves.
There is a reason you sign NDAs today--there is always a precedence.
No, object oriented programming was invented in 1967 in Norway. The language was Simula 67. What Xerox came up with was the application of OO to graphical programming.
No, object oriented programming was invented in 1967 in Norway. That language was Simula 67. What Xerox came up with was the application of OO to graphical programming, through the language of Smalltalk which they invented.
That quote is from Aleister Crowley's "autohagiography", a very thick, very facinating book. Crowley was the self-proclaimed "beast of the revelation" and the "Mister Crowley" that Ozzie Ozbourne sang about.
Aleister chose that moniker to piss off his mother and the devout Plymouth Brethren. He was her protagonist at every turn. She called him the Beast from Revelations and he fondly took that label on as he delighted in pissing off the social mores of his time.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's how it worked. The experienced German staff were put in a team with a few Russians that knew nothing but the basics. After a while the Russians in the team would be competent, and then they would suddenly be posted elsewhere and there would be new people in the team that knew nothing but the basics. After a while there was a very large pool of Russian staff that knew everything the German staff knew and it was no longer considered worthwhile to continue to feed the German staff.
Your argument would have made sense if it were consistent. knew everything is not equivalent to competent. They weren't the German experts, even after they were trained. The goal for the USSR was to make themselves competent enough so they thought, and thus would make the German experts now obsolete. History proved they overestimated their competency. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have a back up plan. Starving the talent to death is not a reversible state.
Unfortunately, we are not talking of Indian and US education. We are talking of US educated PhDs in India. They cant get Green cards or H1Bs easily in such a climate - so they go back.
Lets see - the average number of caucasians in any science or technology PhD program is low - most are asians. So I guess they have the critical skills to ace the US education system without their 'critical skills'.
So lets see some of the key things you point out: 1. Software development fails due to lack of critical thinking amongst Indians - so lets see MSFT projects routinely used to fail when indians were almost rare on msft campus. Cant blame that on Indians. Software projects in general fail quite a bit not because of programming but due to lack of project management skills.
You cant compare the average programmer who comes here to do crappy ERP consulting or Java programming with 'innovative researchers' here in the US.
2. Anyways lets see - what does the average Slashdot reader do ? programming for businesses to process orders ? sell stuff on the web ? How many are actually doing anything innovative ?
Will your CIO miss you if the HTML/JS/java stuff you are doing is done by some other dork in another part of the world ? I dont think so - esp. if it is done at 1/3rd the price and with limited benefits and 6 day work weeks.
For those of you who are truly 'innovative' - there is nothing to fear.
3. 40% of NASA/MSFT/GOOG etc. are asians (chinese + indians + koreans etc.) - now remember these are from the small population of the students who happen to be chinese and indians. So I guess these chinese and indians are not 'critical thinking' challenged.
4. Superiority complex is unfortunately akin to shooting yourself in the foot. You may think you are the critical thinkers and the innovators - but remember, indians/chinese and most 3rd world people are much hungrier for success. This is the windows vs Apple model. Apple may have been cooler - but Windows takes over by sheer numbers.
2 billion to 350 million. You would need to be 3-4 times as innovative as the rest of the world to survive :) - that is assuming like 800 million of the Chindia population is a complete waste. The reason India and China did not have much to show in patents was cos they cost $3-$4k even in small countries. Now the patents from Indian research labs are piling up!
Bye bye average American programmer!
Take a small dose of reality between the differing cultures. It's called Peer Pressure. In the United States it is highly frowned upon one becoming the ``professional student'' and best to get your degree then go to work and have the corporation pay for your advanced education. Unfortunately, most corporations have stopped that practice and want you to have that advanced education beforehand. If US Families would encourage their kids to get advanced degrees and cultivate this like we once did, we wouldn't have this perceived brain drain.
More importantly, what is with the Computer Science analogies. It's my second field, but it's not the field this article is centered around. The field(s) are Material Science Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemistry and Physics.
Trying to put a little objectivity to this comment i will add this:
Consider the science contests from high school called science olympiads, where big scientists like Grigori Perelman and Terence Tao have competed, contests where things like the ones you mentioned (innovation, creativity, etc.) play a huge part for the results, let's say the two most relevant subjects for computer science (informatics and mathematics):
Historic results for all countries on the IMO (mathematics):
http://imo-official.org/results.aspx
Last results for gold medal on the 2009 IOI (informatics):
http://www.ioi2009.org/index.jsp?id=414&ln=2
As you can see, at least in these competitions, China DOES seem to be better than USA (than all countries in fact), while India seems a more mediocre country like you comment.
Apply this to my first discipline, Mechanical Engineering. Wanna see how useful a test like that is when it comes to designing a new Axial Flow Fan? A complex HVAC system? How about a several thousand node control system for a Power Plant?
I think it comes down to the sad fact that most people aren't good at their jobs. They tend to rise to one level above where they are actually competent, and stay there. And from my experience, they aren't usually very happy in whatever that position is, which (and IMHO) might be the reason that people in modern societies are often less happy (overall) than people in less advanced societies. Not many people enjoy that.
This comment is not Off-topic. It's systematic of today's pool of talents. You've got plenty of tools and very few technicians. The poster is spot on.
You have to understand the slashdot memes. These are constructed around the state of technology over a decade ago. So, PHP is always bad, Javascript and Ajax are always bad, and when someone mentions MySQL, the karma whores come out to bash it and mention PostgreSQL. They don't need an argument, the authors and upvoters are operating in old-man auto-bot mode. Like I said, it typically involves notions which were fixed years ago if they did exist to begin with. These are elitist-wannabees, using simple rules of engagement, to show you how smart they are. Similar to grammar nazi. It is actually a quite lower-class thing to do. As Hannibal Lecter would say, you have to wonder if they still hear the lambs screaming.
You managed to not answer his technical question and take a pot shot at a much more robust database solution to boot.
its already multi-dimensional. you have a record, it has keys in it, the values can be objects. that's three or more dimensions there depending on how complicated the objects are.
I guess the original poster doesn't have a classic background in Calculus, Linear Algebra, Linear/Non-linear Programming, basic Physics, Finite Automata and Discrete Mathematics, but holds their knowledge to learning SQL.
My apologies for not getting the memo that PostgreSQL 8.5 is now 9.0.
PostrgreSQL ==> PostgreSQL.
Cassandra is basically a sloppy implementation of UniVerse and elated products. Why sloppy? Because the idea of a separate file access for each column sucks - use a union or struct as necessary, people!
They go this route and not PostrgreSQL 8.5? Seriously?
The Bill of Rights are most certainly part of the original US Constitution. The First Amendment is what he is looking for that declares, explicitly, that thou shalt not bare any Religion within Government, commandment crap. It speaks volumes to the person for never grasping language and bothering to read Jefferson, Madison, and more on their intent with the amendments.
TO AVOID THE USUAL FATE OF NATIONS
There is so much information that became the US Constitution in this one page from the Debates On The Constitution, Part I compiled by the Library of America that anyone who claims there is no Separation of Church and State has a comprehension problem.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A natural progression is to move towards Agnosticism.
Modern American Christians most likely have never read a single word about any Caesar.
Proclaiming to listen to college lectures on tape doesn't tell one much. Which history? Which philosophies? Try reading before listening. You'd be amazed how much more encompassing it is than the Cliff Notes. Reading from various political persuasions indeed makes one a well-rounded human being. At it's logical conclusion it should make one an independent.
Get rid of Iodized salt. End of story.
That and Apple is a holder of H.264 and MP4 patents.
MP4 used QuickTime as the foundation for it's existence. Yes, they would obviously hold a patent on MP4. The same for H.264. It's why Apple's name is first on both lists. Anyone who begrudges them for that or implies no less is a fool into thinking they would drop billions of IP value for the Linux zealots. I'm not worried my Debian Sid box is going to feel the pain of not using Theora. Hell, all videos I watch on it are in MP4 via H.264/AAC.
You sound like an old fart whining for the buggy-whip days. The only real problem is you are ignorant and blind to major technological developments.
For starters, because this is slashdot, have to point out major advances in computing made in America since the 1970s to now. Get your timeline out of computing 1980s through 2010. No innovation?
Automobiles of today have huge technological improvements from those of the 1950s, those were guaranteed to rust out within a few years and be blowing oil out worn valve guides and piston rings. Trying to start one in below zero degrees F was a major undertaking, electronic fuel injection is vastly superior for gasoline engines. Watch a Youtube video of a 1957 chevy crashing into a modern chevy and see who would die. At least twice the fuel efficiency for given vehicle weight. Air bags, GPS navigation, OBD-II, catalytic converters, solid state radio, radial tires, digital sensors and readouts (even if it looks analog there is for example no speedometer cable to wear out). Cars are not the same.
My parents house was built in mid 60s, well built and doing fine. The house I live in was built in 1980 and is doing fine. Both places will be good for another 30 years at least, where you get your silly notions might be from some garbage low-cost tract housing, guess what that was done in 1930s and 1940s also in some places (effects of Depression) and you don't know about it because it didn't stand the test of time, your sample set is flawed..
The number one crucial development for the Automobile Industry that has stalled for decades is engine efficiency. That is intentional, not because they can't sell 100mpg vehicles. They fear they would sell less of them. Those fears are unfounded. People upgrade for the look, not the efficiency no matter how efficient the vehicle. Porsche could sell a 100mpg vehicle and within 5 years add a bunch of "luxury" items now considered stock only to see a large used market for those 5 year vehicles because everyone has to have the new stock model. Henry Ford sold the world a drug and intentionally provided incremental upgrades to keep the habit going.
Make the Highspeed [250mph+] rail systems that loops the entire US and provides a connection Hub to Denver and St Louis that branches like a web to the midwest for [150mph] rails and just see how fast the Auto Industry innovates itself or dies. Add lightrail for all US Metro cities at 200K+ and watch the lobbying protest against it from the Auto industry. Your list of luxury accessories for Autos weren't invented for the sake of evolving the industry. They were invented to keep the addiction going and to comply with ways to handle factors of safety the heads of these Auto corporations would prefer not to care about.
What is so difficult about it? Objective-C is very similar to Ruby. Ruby was promoted as the easier alternative to Java in the early Rails days. So how can someone pick of Ruby without much effort, but strugle to learn Objective-C, when they are pretty much identical languages? Even the major frameworks, Cocoa and Rails, share a lot of similar design patterns.
Try the other way around. Ruby is very similar to Objective-C.
It's actually even worse than that. PARC's GUI was a lot more advanced than the crap Apple actually shipped as MacOS; Apple merely imitated its looks but cut corners on the implementation. That's why MacOS was on a death spiral within ten years: it didn't have a solid architecture or foundation.
OS X actually copied a bit more of PARC's technology, but even Objective-C and Cocoa are lousy compared to PARC's original technologies.
You're full of s***t! See how that claim works?
Well, most of them probably are smart enough to understand Global Warming/Climate Change and related arguments if they had the time to study it properly. Unfortunately doing so would take years and they don't have that time available. So instead they listen to the reactionary PR from business interests who tune their sales pitch to superficially sound good and who reinforce most peoples' natural desire to avoid change.
I'd prefer they had called it Global Heat Re-distribution and described the pockets of non-patterned deltas that are wreaking havoc on traditional climates and how the deltas [variances in temperatures] are damaging crop cycles and more, before they went around and called it an easy bake oven [global warming] or a time of the month [climate change] 1950s prim and proper term.
The bigger question is why denialists cluster around Slashdot in the first place.
Oh, wait. I know the answer:
ENGINEERS ARE BATSHIT INSANE
(Yes, computer science proper is pure mathematics, and most people employ a bit of both in their jobs. But it's well-known that the only people crazier than engineers are mathematicians.)
Computer scientists [more like programmers self-taught mainly around here] aren't Engineers.
-1 flamebait? Really Slashdot, really?
Common sense, Slashdot? Really?
Uranium was seen at a local club with Copernicium, probably to make her feel better about herself.
Bystanders overheard Uranium note what a large prick Copernicium sported.
Actually, Apple stole the tech from Xerox, then licensed the tech to HP and Microsoft.
Xerox sued, but this was way back when. I don't think there was even a concept of a software patent when the Star system was developed. They originally tried to sue for copyright infringement, but the timing of the suit caused problems. They then tried to sue for unfair business practices. IIRC, they eventually settled out of court.
You're wrong. Xerox was given the opportunity to invest $1 Million into Apple at pre-IPO status. Upon vesting it was worth approximately $125 Million to Xerox. They pocketed it immediately.
Xerox corporate had no interest until after they saw the runaway success of Apple to try and then enforce patents already shown amicably to Apple. Apple hired 15 engineers away from Xerox who were the key creators of much of that work. The brain drain at Xerox PARC was their own fault was half their fault and half the fault of the engineers. The fact they let a bunch of Ph.Ds experiment and get paid while producing no loyalty to Xerox speaks volumes about PARC and the pricks who exploited this once in a life time opportunity. None of these engineers have an ounce of ethics in their bones. They all saw green, took the money and ran with it. We got 3Com, Adobe, more tech from Apple and much more. The engineers turned out to be the real thieves.
There is a reason you sign NDAs today--there is always a precedence.
No, object oriented programming was invented in 1967 in Norway. The language was Simula 67. What Xerox came up with was the application of OO to graphical programming.
No, object oriented programming was invented in 1967 in Norway. That language was Simula 67. What Xerox came up with was the application of OO to graphical programming, through the language of Smalltalk which they invented.
That quote is from Aleister Crowley's "autohagiography", a very thick, very facinating book. Crowley was the self-proclaimed "beast of the revelation" and the "Mister Crowley" that Ozzie Ozbourne sang about.
Aleister chose that moniker to piss off his mother and the devout Plymouth Brethren. He was her protagonist at every turn. She called him the Beast from Revelations and he fondly took that label on as he delighted in pissing off the social mores of his time.