. For Poke, you had to first enter "poke xxxxx,yy" or poke would result in an error
Well yeah, you had to enter Poke in the correct syntax.
The poke command itself would execute, and then check this address for yy and return an error for any other value. A sort of lock
No, you would expect reasonably that it would be an error. You write something, and you check to see if it wrote successfully. No conspiracy here. Now later I think MS would learn that you didn't want to check the value set by Poke because you might be poking a one-way register... but hey.
IIRC there was a separate lock on the 2K rom address range.
Well, you can't poke into ROM, because, its well, ROM... In your case if you tried to poke into ROM, then, your value by definition could never be set, and the poke would fail. See above.
I wouldn't say that somehow it would compromise the planet, its pure mathematics Watson. If a couple has more than two kids, then it is a mathematical fact that their more numerous offspring will be a greater drain on the planet than the original two
Well no, because, the kids could actually be more productive. It really goes to whether or not you view humans as an asset or a liability.
Of course eventually, these guy realize that not only are they not millionaires, they're not making much progress toward that noble goal. That's when they get ugly. You see, they see themselves as capable, intelligent, hard working people - and they are for the most part - who "have what it takes" to "make
Is that most people who are not millionaires but are working to become one would freely admit that they if they don't get there, its because they weren't good enough. You can work hard, study hard, etc, but, if you aren't good enough, you don't get to make the team millionaire. But along the way you do grow from what you do. You've tried to build a business, have made products, have made some sales, have learned about your gut and how the world really works. Those things you can only get from stepping into the ring, as Teddy Roosevelt so famously observed, and that, there's a certain thing you get just from getting in there and putting up your dukes.
What is important to us is having the opportunity to try and chase one's goals, and, if you listen to what we say, you would hear that over and over again - the Constitution doesn't guarantee success, but the right to pursue it. Nothing in life is guaranteed. The American dream is not getting rich per se, its about having the opportunity to try. When you guys on the left ramble on about guarantees, you've missed the point of life altogether. You want to have all of these guarantees for yourselves and in doing so really undermine your own ability to say, at the end, that you lived your life yourself. You want to trade away the opportunity for order, just because, you don't think you can succeed. That's just utterly pathetic.
So yeah, Bill Gates got rich. I didn't. Maybe I never will. I don't care and Bill Gate's wealth doesn't bother me. He got the opportunity to live his dream and I got the opportunity to live mine, and however I use my opportunity, my life, is my business, and has nothing to do with him, and has nothing to do with you.
Gates' fortune is chump change compared with the many, many billions that have been lost to the products bugs, sluggishness and security problems.
If that were true, then Windows products would not be considered a positive investment, so therefor, they would not be getting purchases. The fact of the matter is that the sluggishness, bugs, and security problems are often more FUD spread by competitors than they are actual reality. Indeed, Linux has more than its share of bugs, sluggishness and security problems, as you find out every time you do the product updates...
If anything the reasons a woman has a baby has nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her sense of well being, security along with cultural beliefs. Women are plenty attractive enough to get some sort of a sex partner and I'm trying to identify a time when that has not been the case.
In today's day and age, culture matters for birth more than looks. There are some women out there having nearly 10 children simply because they feel it is a christian thing to do. How does evolution account for that, unless it accounts for obvious social influences. On the opposite end of the scale, you have some green women who are deeply concerned that bringing too many children into the world might somehow compromise the planet.
It's almost like environment plus culture need to be considered as a holistic system in order to really understand human evolution.
WAIT before you leap to conclusion. This article cites only blogs which are known to misrepresent science and actions pertaining to them
My question is, why not a public download of the data. UAH and RSS both have their satellite temperature data publicly available and to everyone. Why can't Hadley cough it up? What's so secret about the temperature? What's so secret about their methods?
Just because you don't like the people trying to get it, doesn't make a wrong a right. If the "denier" is as wrong as you think, then publicly available data would only show that more, not less.
Have you ever yanked an electric meter? I have. It takes all of 30 seconds. S
You have to get there. It used to cost a couple of hundred bucks to get a guy out to put a load recorder out there... granted this was in the late 1990s but we even had this program called MV90 whose job it was to go and read all the meters by literally driving a bank of modems and calling them one after an another..
The plan in the UK is have the meters transmit their data over the power grid to a receiver in the local substation. So the networking isn't a problem either.
For some reason the UK has been fairly ahead of the USA in electricity. Not sure why but I remember being at conferences where other American utilities were impressed with what we were doing while the British were bored.
For the last few centuries the trend has been to replace the human muscle job with some sort of a machine, laughing at Joe Jock that mind was more than muscle. Now, Joe Jock is going to have one bitter laugh. Scientists are going make themselves obsolete and there will be machines to do science just as there are machines to do everything from mining to forestry. Someday, science will be just another thing your computer can do for you. If you want a new product, your computer will just plug into a cloud, design it, and then seek a manufacturing shop somewhere to make it and ship it to you.
I actually worked with nascent smart grid technologies in the late 1990s. We wrote energy monitoring software for mid-size and larger enterprises. They have time of use rates and so understanding how to do peak shaving was very beneficial to them and they would wind up investing considerably to bring their demand down. These systems are usually pairs with SCADA systems that intimately wire up their processes and with all of that comes a certain amount of redundancy. The thing is though, if the control systems were to go offline, they could certainly still continue.
The question is put, do you need to have telemetry on residences? I would say the answer is no. Well in the late 1990s a load recorder by itself would set you back about a $1000 and then you needed either a network jack and a phone line to talk. I would be shocked if the same hardware could not be put together for a fraction of that, and I'd bet that a utility could get a smart meter at the residence for not that expensive in hardware cost. The real cost is the labor of the electrician to install it. This is a skilled job and its going to take some money to pay some guy to be out there for an afternoon wiring up a load recorder at your house. Then from there, the load recorder would have to attach to your communications infrastructure, and what might that be? Well, it could piggy back your internet by being its own wireless, it could plug into your POTS, it could have its own cell line (and boy that would drive costs up). The central software to manage all of that is there.
And so, after the utility spends millions of bucks installing all these meters on residences, what will they find? They already -KNOW- that the number 1 predictor of consumer electrical demand is the degree day. Seriously, go have a look at the temperature curve for the last 90 days, and compare that to the spot energy price for the last 90 days. They are going to be almost identically the same shape...
One has to wonder, if there is not a simpler way to get consumers to peak shave. Perhaps the easiest thing might be to have a collective energy bonus. Basically, if the utility does not have to fire up its oil units on it a hot day, and can avoid running spinning reserves, there's a certain amount of give back they can profitably put on the table to get people to not use so much power. So what they could do during summer months is basically calculate a collective credit, where, if a region meets a certain usage reduction goal, everyone gets some amount of credit back on their bill. From there consumers could, instead of spending energy dollars on metering, could spend things on actually valuable peak shaving products, which no doubt the utility and its local energy services partners would be more than happy to sell, to make this an economical deal for everyone. With a collective energy bonus, you get most of the benefits of a peak shaved grid, but without having to actually build one.
An MBA is just a degree. Some people with MBAs are good at what they do, and some are terrible at it-- just like any other degre....I've met people who have computer science degrees who can't code a FOR loop
Doesn't that tell you something about our educational system? Why is that? I've met guys that have written programming -books- that actually could not put together a project. My boy had a tech book and a tech web site that was all about snippets of code and we thought he was really good and grabbed the guy, but it turned out that all he was really good for was in fact, snippets.
I also think you need to go visit more tech companies, preferably ones on the west coast. Very few tech companies on the west coast have useless layers of management, that's why they pretty much kick-ass at it. (East-coast companies, on the other hand...)
I could see that. The East Coast is almost byzantine in management and you would find that the financial services company tend to be the worst at it. That's really where my beef is at. On the other hand a good utility out east, like Delmarva Power, Exelon Corp, etc, are probably some of the best IT environments to work for in a classic corporate settings.
MBA "drones" build things all the time. You just don't understand what, because they use human beings as their construction material.
But you see, they don't... that's the thing. The whole purpose of the MBA is to be a leadership certificate, that says, they should be able to build things out of people and if they could really do that, that would be great. Building successful human organizations is a good skill, for sure.
My point is, if you look at the country, you can see that for the most part the MBA class has largely failed. Most of the new success America has had is because of geeky types partnering with people that know how to sell. Apple - Woz + Jobs, Microsoft - Gates + Allen, and in fact, historically, most great American institutions have been made by that once in a billion thing, of a geek that can sell. Henry Ford, George Westinghouse, Thomas Edison, geeks, but they could sell. Bill Gates even, geek, but he can sell.
The MBA types, really don't have much success to show for it. There's Scott McNealy as an MBA, but he's so good of a salesguy (I've seen him in person), that honestly, he could have a degree in termite counting and he'd still be successful. But everywhere else, MBAs dominate the culture of established companies and from them you hear the gradual wheezing of organizations slowly dying and with them a country slowly sinking.
If MBAs were so good, then the organizations they build would be winning, but they are not. At some point you have to ask, is the educational system that produces these people preparing them properly and I think the is so staggeringly no that I don't see how could rationally argue otherwise.
Where's the profits?
Also: Where do you work? Do you get promoted, with this attitude of yours? Or have you been stuck in a basement for a dozen years, writing barely-maintainable hard-to-use code at the same payscale you were at when you were hired?
I'm actually a successful consultant. I partner with people that know how to sell and gladly work for them. I get paid, they get product, and, all the way around, its a good deal. I will work 24x7 doing anything I can do that the sales guy puts on the table and happily so and I have no problem with them taking a share of my rate... they can sell, and that's a deal worth making any day of the week.
In the meantime I have my own web site and product suite that I building and if I can make a living off of that, then, great. If I come up with a product that sells, that's great. If not, well, I just want good enough, and that's just the way it is. There's nothing to be bitter about, and everything to be grateful for, because I had the opportunity to try, and most people around the planet do not ever get even that.
My point of anger towards MBAs is that, they hold themselves up to be a leadership class, and, I'm not seeing the success that drives the arrogance. The way I see things, if you are in a race, and you are in the lead, economically, you should be putting distance between yourselves and your competition. As it is, America finds itself getting closed in on by people and usually when yo u see MBAs moving in, they are sorta closing up shop, sending things overseas, selling things off that they can't understand, and not ever really being entreprenuerial or creating new products or solutions.
So I'll say it again, I'm not against people skills or salesmen, but just that, MBA doesn't prove either. Quite frankly, if someone was that good of a salesman, they would be successful whether they had the MBA or not. Good car dealers make more money than even VPs at a lot of companies.
You can either make, or you can't. Or you can sell, or you can't, and an MBA doesn't really give you either and I think the country is delusional in believing in a class that can't really do anything.
That (and some of the stuff in your link) is about all we agree on. I read you comment and I know EXACTLY your type.
Stop.
You really think you know my type? You, just like every of your type, have it in your head that everyone has a a great desire to be just like them, or to do what they do.
Honestly, I really don't. I have no desire to be like you at all. Like, I don't need to have people beneath me to affirm myself. I don't need to have power to be satisfied with what I have done. I have myself, my two hands, and my mind, and I do not want what you have and I don't need you.
Its your shit attitude and likely awkward personality.
Stop.
Careerwise, I have no desire to move up any "ladder" at all. With the internet, who really needs a ladder. If I can write a program that sells or a web site that gets hits,
while men in 3 pc suits, according to your skewed perception, seem to do nothing and make loads and take nice long vacation
First off, I have no problem with the guy in the three piece suit that can actually sell a product or a project. Those people are worth their weight in gold, and they deserve every cent. I mean, take a look at Alan Mullaly. This guy was the CEO of Boeing and his job was to walk into a room, press the flesh, wine and dine do whatever it took to convince some other guys to write him a check for billions of dollars for his jet aircraft, over someone elses. Now he is going around to dealers all over the country trying to convince people to buy his cars over everyone else's. Who care if the guy gets paid 50M a year or even a 100M a year when he is one of the handful of people on the planet that can turnaround and sell hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stuff. That's chump change to pay the guy, and there's not that many like him that he is replacable.
But most MBAs can't sell. So.. the whole supposed gift of customer communication that they have is really so much of a distortion. Either you can bring home the contracts, or, you aren't any better at communicating than the developers who work for you, no matter what you wear.
My advice to you would be to always tell the truth, because I don't think people like you do. By telling the truth, I mean that, in your communications, you convey an accurate impression of a situation to the stakeholders. Spin is lying. Leaving out something, is lying. Communicating one motivation that makes logical sense while pursuing another is lying.
Like, I just had one guy go and explain to the client in an awfully written email just how much work they did in this little area, very self promotional, but left out the very material fact that all of that work was rather a small and unimportant part of a much larger problem that they had not solved... which I did.
consider the dumbest person using the software, put yourself in their shoes, and design the thing
Stop.
The fact of the matter is, most managers do not care about user interfaces or the users at all. Most people like you see projects and consumers as stepping stones, a mountain of people to be walked up as you go up the ladder. Are there programmers that do not care about user interface? Sure, probably are. But, there's as many managers that drive shortcuts, sweep problems under the table, misrepresent the success of a particular user interface design, hide obvious usability problems, and so on, and then turn around and blame the customer.
But again my long term success is based on myself. If I can write something on the internet that people are interested in purchasing, or reading sufficiently, then that's great and I can achieve an independent life. But if not then, I can still contentedly work on as a senior developer knowing that, I gave life my best shot trying to achieve what I wanted to achieve, and maybe I just wasn't good enough. It's the opportunity that I've been given by God and Country that I'm grateful for, and I don't need or expect anything more.
People that are willing to spend more than a $1000 on a PC are probably your key software buyers... I would think at this point that developers who point to Windows masses might be redirected towards those Mac users, that actually have money.
People that knock the hacker ethic are a bunch of MBA drones that could never really build a damned thing themselves.
You learn to program by diving in and doing it. The more you practice and study, the better you get at it. GM was very good at shackling some very brilliant engineers and turning them into process drones. Look at where it got them. Great things are built by individuals and the more steps you have in the way of people being individuals, the worse you will get. Products have to be owned by the engineers that make them and they are personal works of art.
At the end of the day, the managers, bean counters, and all of these other people with their measurements, metrics and fancy charts are so much fluff, a tax on the capable in society... by really a bunch of leaches that could barely feed themselves as they lack the mental self sufficiency to do anything other than to try and ride the labor of others. We condemn socialism in society there's no real difference between the PM in a three piece suit and the lowest of the homeless people. Neither add any real value to society, its just that, the PM knows how to use PowerPoint and the homeless guy does not.
Would be to pick a trial region and see if the filtering with a statistical drop in the associated crime.
Are there any markers for success?
Well, let's look at hate crime. Most ISP sites already have TOS barring what they consider "hateful" content, and so theoretically, by blocking NAZI sites, you should see or should have seen a decrease in the amount of hate crimes out there. If you blocked web sites that hated white people, or hated black people, would crimes against either be reduced? I think that we would find that for some social problems, censorship simply won't work and what is needed more of a positive message than a filtering of negative ones.
On the other hand, one might imagine where censorship could work, and that might be in the level of violence, and the level excess sexuality. I think most people would agree that the world would be better off if we did not have entertainment careening ever so Roman like violence. If you cut out the violence content, would violent crime drop? Similarly, if you got rid of a lot of the sexual messages, would divorce drop?
The point is that, the argument that people make against filtering, that, it can't work, or, it will make things too slow, are technocratic arguments and usually when you say something can't be done, someone else will say that they can do it. Saying filtering is foolish because it can't work perfectly is kinda silly because ultimately, nothing works perfectly, but many things work well enough and can be managed or continually improved. The real social debate is, whether or not the censorship itself has a measurable effect on the behavior you think the content causes, and that's a scientific debate, and then there is the social debate of how much social damage, knowing the scientific metrics, you are willing to tolerate to have universal free speech. If filtering violent content cut the number of murders in half, or cutting down the sex in the media reduced divorces by 1/2, then, those would certainly be numbers that you could not ignore.
I mean, if we have come to accept that even the atmosphere has limits to what we can dump into it, then, why would it not be so unreasonable to think that our culture has limits too? It's time to get some real numbers on censorship, and argue it on its merits, and not any heated and random dogma.
Translation: your wingnut BS got shot down. Again. So now it was just a "joke
No it didn't, and with every moment of this communist occupation, I mean, administration, people will see so-called social justice as the larceny that it really is.
Let's rephrase this classically liberal rationalization of social larceny: Since everybody has to pay a price for something, I have the right to steal your stuff.
While I can not imagine it passing, the idea of commercial software entities having to release their source after 5 years if they want copyright protection sounds wonderf
I would shoot everyone that publicly supported it if passed, just because it is an advocacy of compulsory, and therefor, non-free speech. The buck of FOSS stops at the 1st amendment.
I'd say Stallman's idea of requiring proprietary people to publish copyright software or having special copyrights for special authors is pretty much bogus. He is locked into this world where he thinks that the existence of proprietary software undermines free software and he tries to lock people into it. Let's just say that I decided to go and grab the Linux Kernel, forget that, the whole everything of Linux and have it on a specially locked down PC called "Todd" and I sold those at Walmart. How do you think that would halt the movement of open source Linux in any way? It wouldn't.
Unfortunately for Stallman, the FOSS world seems to have left him behind. The GPL has evolved in use to become a way for developers to promote themselves and is hardly the user centered world that Stallman speaks of. The whole point of having the GPL to stop proprietarinism isn't some act of goodness, but it does support. It's so that GPL authors have a vehicle for cashing in by doling out non-GPL licenses. The public gets the GPL work, but if I wrote some widget that MS wanted to slip into Windows... well, I'd certainly take the check!
However, by your own admission, Latin America and Iran were treated worse than Germany
I never admitted that at all...
To be fair, Germany, Japan, and Europe in total turned around so quickly because of substantial external aid. Aid that was not afforded on the same levels to Vietnam or anywhere in Latin America or the Caribbean.
To be accurate, the Marshall Plan was not actually -that- expensive. It was maybe about a 100 billions dollars in today's dollars over the life of the plan and, it was more of a system of credits by which American products could be purchased for nations that had no reserve currency.
The thing that got Europe and Japan off of the ground was trade. They made good stuff and sold it.
I mean, it's not like the US overthrew the Iranian government
Whine whine whine whine....since then how many billions of dollars has Iran had? Why are they still a s--thole? It's not the USA's fault. It's their own dumb culture.
Compare the F-22 to say, the Mig-25... Mig-25 could hit Mach 3. It was bad for the plane, for sure, but it could do it. I would think the F-22 could hit Mach 3, depending on what its afterburning thrust is. probably burn the paint off, but, hey, the skin is almost all titanium.. its not gonna melt.
would there be a tactical advantage of doing so? maybe if you were running....
Slashdot Mirror
more than 3 children should be illegal
Why? Because you have to oppress someone else because you do not want to have children of your own to compete?
. For Poke, you had to first enter "poke xxxxx,yy" or poke would result in an error
Well yeah, you had to enter Poke in the correct syntax.
The poke command itself would execute, and then check this address for yy and return an error for any other value. A sort of lock
No, you would expect reasonably that it would be an error. You write something, and you check to see if it wrote successfully. No conspiracy here. Now later I think MS would learn that you didn't want to check the value set by Poke because you might be poking a one-way register... but hey.
IIRC there was a separate lock on the 2K rom address range.
Well, you can't poke into ROM, because, its well, ROM... In your case if you tried to poke into ROM, then, your value by definition could never be set, and the poke would fail. See above.
I wouldn't say that somehow it would compromise the planet, its pure mathematics Watson. If a couple has more than two kids, then it is a mathematical fact that their more numerous offspring will be a greater drain on the planet than the original two
Well no, because, the kids could actually be more productive. It really goes to whether or not you view humans as an asset or a liability.
Of course eventually, these guy realize that not only are they not millionaires, they're not making much progress toward that noble goal. That's when they get ugly. You see, they see themselves as capable, intelligent, hard working people - and they are for the most part - who "have what it takes" to "make
Is that most people who are not millionaires but are working to become one would freely admit that they if they don't get there, its because they weren't good enough. You can work hard, study hard, etc, but, if you aren't good enough, you don't get to make the team millionaire. But along the way you do grow from what you do. You've tried to build a business, have made products, have made some sales, have learned about your gut and how the world really works. Those things you can only get from stepping into the ring, as Teddy Roosevelt so famously observed, and that, there's a certain thing you get just from getting in there and putting up your dukes.
What is important to us is having the opportunity to try and chase one's goals, and, if you listen to what we say, you would hear that over and over again - the Constitution doesn't guarantee success, but the right to pursue it. Nothing in life is guaranteed. The American dream is not getting rich per se, its about having the opportunity to try. When you guys on the left ramble on about guarantees, you've missed the point of life altogether. You want to have all of these guarantees for yourselves and in doing so really undermine your own ability to say, at the end, that you lived your life yourself. You want to trade away the opportunity for order, just because, you don't think you can succeed. That's just utterly pathetic.
So yeah, Bill Gates got rich. I didn't. Maybe I never will. I don't care and Bill Gate's wealth doesn't bother me. He got the opportunity to live his dream and I got the opportunity to live mine, and however I use my opportunity, my life, is my business, and has nothing to do with him, and has nothing to do with you.
Gates' fortune is chump change compared with the many, many billions that have been lost to the products bugs, sluggishness and security problems.
If that were true, then Windows products would not be considered a positive investment, so therefor, they would not be getting purchases. The fact of the matter is that the sluggishness, bugs, and security problems are often more FUD spread by competitors than they are actual reality. Indeed, Linux has more than its share of bugs, sluggishness and security problems, as you find out every time you do the product updates...
If anything the reasons a woman has a baby has nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her sense of well being, security along with cultural beliefs. Women are plenty attractive enough to get some sort of a sex partner and I'm trying to identify a time when that has not been the case.
In today's day and age, culture matters for birth more than looks. There are some women out there having nearly 10 children simply because they feel it is a christian thing to do. How does evolution account for that, unless it accounts for obvious social influences. On the opposite end of the scale, you have some green women who are deeply concerned that bringing too many children into the world might somehow compromise the planet.
It's almost like environment plus culture need to be considered as a holistic system in order to really understand human evolution.
WAIT before you leap to conclusion. This article cites only blogs which are known to misrepresent science and actions pertaining to them
My question is, why not a public download of the data. UAH and RSS both have their satellite temperature data publicly available and to everyone. Why can't Hadley cough it up? What's so secret about the temperature? What's so secret about their methods?
Just because you don't like the people trying to get it, doesn't make a wrong a right. If the "denier" is as wrong as you think, then publicly available data would only show that more, not less.
Have you ever yanked an electric meter? I have. It takes all of 30 seconds. S
You have to get there. It used to cost a couple of hundred bucks to get a guy out to put a load recorder out there... granted this was in the late 1990s but we even had this program called MV90 whose job it was to go and read all the meters by literally driving a bank of modems and calling them one after an another..
The plan in the UK is have the meters transmit their data over the power grid to a receiver in the local substation. So the networking isn't a problem either.
For some reason the UK has been fairly ahead of the USA in electricity. Not sure why but I remember being at conferences where other American utilities were impressed with what we were doing while the British were bored.
For the last few centuries the trend has been to replace the human muscle job with some sort of a machine, laughing at Joe Jock that mind was more than muscle. Now, Joe Jock is going to have one bitter laugh. Scientists are going make themselves obsolete and there will be machines to do science just as there are machines to do everything from mining to forestry. Someday, science will be just another thing your computer can do for you. If you want a new product, your computer will just plug into a cloud, design it, and then seek a manufacturing shop somewhere to make it and ship it to you.
I actually worked with nascent smart grid technologies in the late 1990s. We wrote energy monitoring software for mid-size and larger enterprises. They have time of use rates and so understanding how to do peak shaving was very beneficial to them and they would wind up investing considerably to bring their demand down. These systems are usually pairs with SCADA systems that intimately wire up their processes and with all of that comes a certain amount of redundancy. The thing is though, if the control systems were to go offline, they could certainly still continue.
The question is put, do you need to have telemetry on residences? I would say the answer is no. Well in the late 1990s a load recorder by itself would set you back about a $1000 and then you needed either a network jack and a phone line to talk. I would be shocked if the same hardware could not be put together for a fraction of that, and I'd bet that a utility could get a smart meter at the residence for not that expensive in hardware cost. The real cost is the labor of the electrician to install it. This is a skilled job and its going to take some money to pay some guy to be out there for an afternoon wiring up a load recorder at your house. Then from there, the load recorder would have to attach to your communications infrastructure, and what might that be? Well, it could piggy back your internet by being its own wireless, it could plug into your POTS, it could have its own cell line (and boy that would drive costs up). The central software to manage all of that is there.
And so, after the utility spends millions of bucks installing all these meters on residences, what will they find? They already -KNOW- that the number 1 predictor of consumer electrical demand is the degree day. Seriously, go have a look at the temperature curve for the last 90 days, and compare that to the spot energy price for the last 90 days. They are going to be almost identically the same shape...
One has to wonder, if there is not a simpler way to get consumers to peak shave. Perhaps the easiest thing might be to have a collective energy bonus. Basically, if the utility does not have to fire up its oil units on it a hot day, and can avoid running spinning reserves, there's a certain amount of give back they can profitably put on the table to get people to not use so much power. So what they could do during summer months is basically calculate a collective credit, where, if a region meets a certain usage reduction goal, everyone gets some amount of credit back on their bill. From there consumers could, instead of spending energy dollars on metering, could spend things on actually valuable peak shaving products, which no doubt the utility and its local energy services partners would be more than happy to sell, to make this an economical deal for everyone. With a collective energy bonus, you get most of the benefits of a peak shaved grid, but without having to actually build one.
An MBA is just a degree. Some people with MBAs are good at what they do, and some are terrible at it-- just like any other degre....I've met people who have computer science degrees who can't code a FOR loop
Doesn't that tell you something about our educational system? Why is that? I've met guys that have written programming -books- that actually could not put together a project. My boy had a tech book and a tech web site that was all about snippets of code and we thought he was really good and grabbed the guy, but it turned out that all he was really good for was in fact, snippets.
I also think you need to go visit more tech companies, preferably ones on the west coast. Very few tech companies on the west coast have useless layers of management, that's why they pretty much kick-ass at it. (East-coast companies, on the other hand...)
I could see that. The East Coast is almost byzantine in management and you would find that the financial services company tend to be the worst at it. That's really where my beef is at. On the other hand a good utility out east, like Delmarva Power, Exelon Corp, etc, are probably some of the best IT environments to work for in a classic corporate settings.
MBA "drones" build things all the time. You just don't understand what, because they use human beings as their construction material.
But you see, they don't... that's the thing. The whole purpose of the MBA is to be a leadership certificate, that says, they should be able to build things out of people and if they could really do that, that would be great. Building successful human organizations is a good skill, for sure.
My point is, if you look at the country, you can see that for the most part the MBA class has largely failed. Most of the new success America has had is because of geeky types partnering with people that know how to sell. Apple - Woz + Jobs, Microsoft - Gates + Allen, and in fact, historically, most great American institutions have been made by that once in a billion thing, of a geek that can sell. Henry Ford, George Westinghouse, Thomas Edison, geeks, but they could sell. Bill Gates even, geek, but he can sell.
The MBA types, really don't have much success to show for it. There's Scott McNealy as an MBA, but he's so good of a salesguy (I've seen him in person), that honestly, he could have a degree in termite counting and he'd still be successful. But everywhere else, MBAs dominate the culture of established companies and from them you hear the gradual wheezing of organizations slowly dying and with them a country slowly sinking.
If MBAs were so good, then the organizations they build would be winning, but they are not. At some point you have to ask, is the educational system that produces these people preparing them properly and I think the is so staggeringly no that I don't see how could rationally argue otherwise.
Where's the profits?
Also: Where do you work? Do you get promoted, with this attitude of yours? Or have you been stuck in a basement for a dozen years, writing barely-maintainable hard-to-use code at the same payscale you were at when you were hired?
I'm actually a successful consultant. I partner with people that know how to sell and gladly work for them. I get paid, they get product, and, all the way around, its a good deal. I will work 24x7 doing anything I can do that the sales guy puts on the table and happily so and I have no problem with them taking a share of my rate... they can sell, and that's a deal worth making any day of the week.
In the meantime I have my own web site and product suite that I building and if I can make a living off of that, then, great. If I come up with a product that sells, that's great. If not, well, I just want good enough, and that's just the way it is. There's nothing to be bitter about, and everything to be grateful for, because I had the opportunity to try, and most people around the planet do not ever get even that.
My point of anger towards MBAs is that, they hold themselves up to be a leadership class, and, I'm not seeing the success that drives the arrogance. The way I see things, if you are in a race, and you are in the lead, economically, you should be putting distance between yourselves and your competition. As it is, America finds itself getting closed in on by people and usually when yo u see MBAs moving in, they are sorta closing up shop, sending things overseas, selling things off that they can't understand, and not ever really being entreprenuerial or creating new products or solutions.
So I'll say it again, I'm not against people skills or salesmen, but just that, MBA doesn't prove either. Quite frankly, if someone was that good of a salesman, they would be successful whether they had the MBA or not. Good car dealers make more money than even VPs at a lot of companies.
You can either make, or you can't. Or you can sell, or you can't, and an MBA doesn't really give you either and I think the country is delusional in believing in a class that can't really do anything.
That (and some of the stuff in your link) is about all we agree on. I read you comment and I know EXACTLY your type.
Stop.
You really think you know my type? You, just like every of your type, have it in your head that everyone has a a great desire to be just like them, or to do what they do.
Honestly, I really don't. I have no desire to be like you at all. Like, I don't need to have people beneath me to affirm myself. I don't need to have power to be satisfied with what I have done. I have myself, my two hands, and my mind, and I do not want what you have and I don't need you.
Its your shit attitude and likely awkward personality.
Stop.
Careerwise, I have no desire to move up any "ladder" at all. With the internet, who really needs a ladder. If I can write a program that sells or a web site that gets hits,
while men in 3 pc suits, according to your skewed perception, seem to do nothing and make loads and take nice long vacation
First off, I have no problem with the guy in the three piece suit that can actually sell a product or a project. Those people are worth their weight in gold, and they deserve every cent. I mean, take a look at Alan Mullaly. This guy was the CEO of Boeing and his job was to walk into a room, press the flesh, wine and dine do whatever it took to convince some other guys to write him a check for billions of dollars for his jet aircraft, over someone elses. Now he is going around to dealers all over the country trying to convince people to buy his cars over everyone else's. Who care if the guy gets paid 50M a year or even a 100M a year when he is one of the handful of people on the planet that can turnaround and sell hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stuff. That's chump change to pay the guy, and there's not that many like him that he is replacable.
But most MBAs can't sell. So.. the whole supposed gift of customer communication that they have is really so much of a distortion. Either you can bring home the contracts, or, you aren't any better at communicating than the developers who work for you, no matter what you wear.
My advice to you would be to always tell the truth, because I don't think people like you do.
By telling the truth, I mean that, in your communications, you convey an accurate impression of a situation to the stakeholders. Spin is lying. Leaving out something, is lying. Communicating one motivation that makes logical sense while pursuing another is lying.
Like, I just had one guy go and explain to the client in an awfully written email just how much work they did in this little area, very self promotional, but left out the very material fact that all of that work was rather a small and unimportant part of a much larger problem that they had not solved... which I did.
consider the dumbest person using the software, put yourself in their shoes, and design the thing
Stop.
The fact of the matter is, most managers do not care about user interfaces or the users at all. Most people like you see projects and consumers as stepping stones, a mountain of people to be walked up as you go up the ladder. Are there programmers that do not care about user interface? Sure, probably are. But, there's as many managers that drive shortcuts, sweep problems under the table, misrepresent the success of a particular user interface design, hide obvious usability problems, and so on, and then turn around and blame the customer.
But again my long term success is based on myself. If I can write something on the internet that people are interested in purchasing, or reading sufficiently, then that's great and I can achieve an independent life. But if not then, I can still contentedly work on as a senior developer knowing that, I gave life my best shot trying to achieve what I wanted to achieve, and maybe I just wasn't good enough. It's the opportunity that I've been given by God and Country that I'm grateful for, and I don't need or expect anything more.
People that are willing to spend more than a $1000 on a PC are probably your key software buyers... I would think at this point that developers who point to Windows masses might be redirected towards those Mac users, that actually have money.
People that knock the hacker ethic are a bunch of MBA drones that could never really build a damned thing themselves.
You learn to program by diving in and doing it. The more you practice and study, the better you get at it. GM was very good at shackling some very brilliant engineers and turning them into process drones. Look at where it got them. Great things are built by individuals and the more steps you have in the way of people being individuals, the worse you will get. Products have to be owned by the engineers that make them and they are personal works of art.
At the end of the day, the managers, bean counters, and all of these other people with their measurements, metrics and fancy charts are so much fluff, a tax on the capable in society... by really a bunch of leaches that could barely feed themselves as they lack the mental self sufficiency to do anything other than to try and ride the labor of others. We condemn socialism in society there's no real difference between the PM in a three piece suit and the lowest of the homeless people. Neither add any real value to society, its just that, the PM knows how to use PowerPoint and the homeless guy does not.
Would be to pick a trial region and see if the filtering with a statistical drop in the associated crime.
Are there any markers for success?
Well, let's look at hate crime. Most ISP sites already have TOS barring what they consider "hateful" content, and so theoretically, by blocking NAZI sites, you should see or should have seen a decrease in the amount of hate crimes out there. If you blocked web sites that hated white people, or hated black people, would crimes against either be reduced? I think that we would find that for some social problems, censorship simply won't work and what is needed more of a positive message than a filtering of negative ones.
On the other hand, one might imagine where censorship could work, and that might be in the level of violence, and the level excess sexuality. I think most people would agree that the world would be better off if we did not have entertainment careening ever so Roman like violence. If you cut out the violence content, would violent crime drop? Similarly, if you got rid of a lot of the sexual messages, would divorce drop?
The point is that, the argument that people make against filtering, that, it can't work, or, it will make things too slow, are technocratic arguments and usually when you say something can't be done, someone else will say that they can do it. Saying filtering is foolish because it can't work perfectly is kinda silly because ultimately, nothing works perfectly, but many things work well enough and can be managed or continually improved. The real social debate is, whether or not the censorship itself has a measurable effect on the behavior you think the content causes, and that's a scientific debate, and then there is the social debate of how much social damage, knowing the scientific metrics, you are willing to tolerate to have universal free speech. If filtering violent content cut the number of murders in half, or cutting down the sex in the media reduced divorces by 1/2, then, those would certainly be numbers that you could not ignore.
I mean, if we have come to accept that even the atmosphere has limits to what we can dump into it, then, why would it not be so unreasonable to think that our culture has limits too? It's time to get some real numbers on censorship, and argue it on its merits, and not any heated and random dogma.
Translation: your wingnut BS got shot down. Again. So now it was just a "joke
No it didn't, and with every moment of this communist occupation, I mean, administration, people will see so-called social justice as the larceny that it really is.
Let's rephrase this classically liberal rationalization of social larceny: Since everybody has to pay a price for something, I have the right to steal your stuff.
While I can not imagine it passing, the idea of commercial software entities having to release their source after 5 years if they want copyright protection sounds wonderf
I would shoot everyone that publicly supported it if passed, just because it is an advocacy of compulsory, and therefor, non-free speech. The buck of FOSS stops at the 1st amendment.
I'd say Stallman's idea of requiring proprietary people to publish copyright software or having special copyrights for special authors is pretty much bogus. He is locked into this world where he thinks that the existence of proprietary software undermines free software and he tries to lock people into it. Let's just say that I decided to go and grab the Linux Kernel, forget that, the whole everything of Linux and have it on a specially locked down PC called "Todd" and I sold those at Walmart. How do you think that would halt the movement of open source Linux in any way? It wouldn't.
Unfortunately for Stallman, the FOSS world seems to have left him behind. The GPL has evolved in use to become a way for developers to promote themselves and is hardly the user centered world that Stallman speaks of. The whole point of having the GPL to stop proprietarinism isn't some act of goodness, but it does support. It's so that GPL authors have a vehicle for cashing in by doling out non-GPL licenses. The public gets the GPL work, but if I wrote some widget that MS wanted to slip into Windows... well, I'd certainly take the check!
Right there, you said, effectively "We did X to Germany. We did Y to other countries, and X lt Y.
That was a joke, silly.
However, by your own admission, Latin America and Iran were treated worse than Germany
I never admitted that at all...
To be fair, Germany, Japan, and Europe in total turned around so quickly because of substantial external aid. Aid that was not afforded on the same levels to Vietnam or anywhere in Latin America or the Caribbean.
To be accurate, the Marshall Plan was not actually -that- expensive. It was maybe about a 100 billions dollars in today's dollars over the life of the plan and, it was more of a system of credits by which American products could be purchased for nations that had no reserve currency.
The thing that got Europe and Japan off of the ground was trade. They made good stuff and sold it.
I mean, it's not like the US overthrew the Iranian government
Whine whine whine whine....since then how many billions of dollars has Iran had? Why are they still a s--thole? It's not the USA's fault. It's their own dumb culture.
ok, you've sold me!
its a bit of speculation for sure, but...
F-22, Mach 2.4
http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89685/f-22-raptor.html
Compare the F-22 to say, the Mig-25... Mig-25 could hit Mach 3. It was bad for the plane, for sure, but it could do it. I would think the F-22 could hit Mach 3, depending on what its afterburning thrust is. probably burn the paint off, but, hey, the skin is almost all titanium.. its not gonna melt.
would there be a tactical advantage of doing so? maybe if you were running....