WiFi runs on ISM bands. Google, Microsoft, etc. wouldn't own those bands any more than they or anyone else own the current WiFi (ISM) bands. By contrast the cellular providers own the spectrum they buy.
I don't know why you bothered adding a link - the link I provided clearly showed that 1968 was the highest real minimum wage, and that's exactly why I picked it. You obviously missed the rest of my point though, that real per capita GDP has doubled since then. So GDP/capita doubles, and minimum wage falls. What's wrong with that picture?
Obama has done more for the conservative movement than Reagan ever could have dreamed of.
Especially since Obama is/was supposed to be on the left wing. If you didn't like Reagan's right wing policies you could vote for the opposition. If you don't like Obama's right wing policies, who are you going to vote for? Personally I vote for the Greens, but I think we're a touch short of a plurality. You can also be sure that one thing the duopoly will protect is the duopoly.
When [our parents] time came to work they fought vehemently against taxes so they could keep even more of their wealth, and when they got to management they lowered wages and broke the unions their parents built, all to further increase their personal wealth at the expense of their peers.
Generalize much?
Also, not everybody's parents are from the same generation.
Actual Democrats are an endangered species. Come to think of it, reasonable Republicans are pretty rare too. I like Ike, but these days he'd be considered a raving pinko.
It can be done in C++, but why go to the extra effort?
What extra effort is that? Calling your files *.cpp instead of *.c? Ok, that is an extra two letters per file name.
The why is so that you can take advantage of C++ features. Templates for example are a great way to write very fast code, and if you know what you're doing you don't get the dreaded bloat. Object based programming is a nice way to encapsulate things and adds zero overhead. True OO can be used judiciously in the non-speed critical parts (often a clean way to have a single image handle several minor hardware variants). A combination of object based and operator overloading can be a clean way to handle the semantics of fixed point DSP, which don't map nicely to most languages.
C++ is not designed for efficiency.
Read Stroustrup. As I already said, one of the key design principles was not to add overhead unless you explicitly ask for it. It was designed to be as efficient as you need it to be.
If you don't care quite so much about efficiency, use LISP
1. GC and HRT? Don't go.
2. Even where you can write Lisp to be as efficient as C/C++ for low level operations, all you're doing is writing C/C++ in Lisp. What's the point?
3. How many Lisps, Schemes, whatevers, have you seen for cross-development to DSP's and other architectures that are usually only embedded, have good optimizers (ala SBCL for example), and can run without an OS?
It works fine if you're judicious about what C++ features to use, and when and where to use them. As much of a pig as C++ is, one thing Stroustrup got right was making it a true multi-paradigm language, and he stuck to the principle of not dragging in any baggage or overhead that you don't explicitly ask for.
It's absurd to talk about which is better except with respect to a certain type of application. For example, deeply embedded processors running on an RTOS (not embedded Linux or something), or even bare metal, with memory limitations and hard real-time constraints measured in tens of microseconds is not the best environment for Lisp (or any GC language for that matter).
it gives me somewhat of a sign of relief to see C, C++ and Java/C# be stable in the face of this recurring tide of fad languages
Sheesh, kids today. I remember when C++, Java and C# were the fad languages. I even remember when C outside of the Unix world was a "fad" replacing Fortran, Basic and Pascal. The "classic" languages you grew up with are not the end of programming language evolution.
OTOH I admit that the so-called Cambrian explosion of languages really needs to be followed by a mass extinction. Perl, Python, Ruby, Lua, etc., etc., etc. You could spend the rest of eternity debating their pros and cons, but do we really need all of them? It's great if you want to spend the rest of your life learning yet another genius's "best of" mix of existing language ideas, but it sucks if you just want to get work done. Then there's Clojure, because what the Lisp world really needs is yet another dialect, and F# because, uh, well OCaml has been around a while and we really want yet another variant, and...
What confuses people is the functional orientation
Whether or not a language is functional is a matter of degree (just as whether or not a language is dynamic is a matter of degree).
Out-of-the-box Lisp is not nearly as much a functional language as *ML or Haskell. There is no pattern matching for example. Of course you can turn Lisp into a functional language, which is what Qi is. In true Lisp fashion it's incredibly clever - 10k lines of CL and you've got a functional language that is arguably even more of a functional language than Haskell (not sure about functional specific optimizations though). And also in true Lisp fashion, there's already a (not fully compatible) fork/successor called Shen (by the same guy who created Qi!).
In other words it's an ongoing experiment, rather than something you can rely on. It grew out of the L21 project, which was supposed to be about Lisp for the 21st century. The lesson is that Lisp for the 21st century is just like Lisp for the 20th century - incredibly clever and powerful but not stable or standardized enough to rely on. Of course the great exception to that is Common Lisp - a byzantine composite of many pre-1985 dialects, warts and all, that hasn't really been updated in 27 years.
A little flamebait-y? Amongst an annoyingly vocal minority of Lispers, anything other than prostrating yourself and worshiping the Mother of All Languages is considered flaming. Whenever I consider learning/playing/working with (one of the umpteen variants of) Lisp, that attitude as much as anything else is what stops me. Even Graham's smugness is just a slightly less obnoxious variant of it.
Good points, but I think you meant to say Canadian med schools are about 1/3 the cost of American ones (39% actually), not 1/3 less. That makes your point even more strongly. Specifically $15k/yr vs. $38k/yr. Wow.
ObamaCare fueled a huge wave of consolidation in the health care industry.
ObamaCare aka the Great Bogeyman. It's barely started to take effect and yet you're saying it "fueled a huge wave of consolidation in the health care industry" (note past tense). Next it'll be blamed for natural disasters.
I know a number of people who have encountered cash prices less than half what the insurer would be billed
Irrelevant, since what the insurer gets billed and what they pay have little to do with each other. People who think they're getting a great deal may still be paying more than the insurer would.
Depends on the doctor. Primaries aren't getting rich, but some specialists are. That explains why we have too many specialists and not enough primaries. I don't buy that most specialties are all that much more difficult than being a primary. As per the article median gastroenterologist income is $481k. IIRC that's 2.5x what a primary makes. Moreover, income often has little to do with the difficulty of a specialty. Radiologists are amongst the highest paid, not because it's so difficult, but because you can flip through scans pretty quickly and charge for each one. The actual scans are done by techs.
The ratio of specialist to primary pay is largely controlled by the AMA's "advisory" committee, so they are very much a part of this. The AMA has long had a pro-specialist bias.
How about addressing the seriously disgusting salaries on wall street?
Does getting ripped off by one group mean we shouldn't also worry about getting ripped off by another group?
Should a computer nerd working in Morgan's computer risk group really be making $500k which is FAR more than the majority of doctors?
Slashdot Mirror
While US copyright duration has been extended many times, I'm not aware of a similar trend for patents.
It was extended from 17 to 20 years for "international conformance", but that's the only one I know of.
Samzenpus is actually a cat. Don't hold it against him.
My cats have better grammar than that. It's me-ow, not ow-me (a compound word in feline speak).
Cybercriminals have...
i mean, wtf
I think that's actually a grammar check. In my experience people with a knowledge of English can do that. Slashdot editors ...
Seriously, come on folks.
WiFi runs on ISM bands. Google, Microsoft, etc. wouldn't own those bands any more than they or anyone else own the current WiFi (ISM) bands. By contrast the cellular providers own the spectrum they buy.
I don't know why you bothered adding a link - the link I provided clearly showed that 1968 was the highest real minimum wage, and that's exactly why I picked it. You obviously missed the rest of my point though, that real per capita GDP has doubled since then. So GDP/capita doubles, and minimum wage falls. What's wrong with that picture?
Obama has done more for the conservative movement than Reagan ever could have dreamed of.
Especially since Obama is/was supposed to be on the left wing. If you didn't like Reagan's right wing policies you could vote for the opposition. If you don't like Obama's right wing policies, who are you going to vote for? Personally I vote for the Greens, but I think we're a touch short of a plurality. You can also be sure that one thing the duopoly will protect is the duopoly.
When [our parents] time came to work they fought vehemently against taxes so they could keep even more of their wealth, and when they got to management they lowered wages and broke the unions their parents built, all to further increase their personal wealth at the expense of their peers.
Generalize much?
Also, not everybody's parents are from the same generation.
Plain and simple: Obama is turning America into a third world nation.
Don't give him too much credit - he has plenty of help.
Actual Democrats are an endangered species. Come to think of it, reasonable Republicans are pretty rare too. I like Ike, but these days he'd be considered a raving pinko.
It's certainly better than minimum wage
Color me unimpressed. Adjusted for inflation the 1968 minimum wage would be $10.50, and that doesn't even take into account that the US inflation adjusted GDP per capita has doubled since 1968. Doesn't seem to me like that money is trickling down.
or a true "factory" job (in terms of safety)
The 19th century is over. Most factory jobs aren't all that dangerous.
It can be done in C++, but why go to the extra effort?
What extra effort is that? Calling your files *.cpp instead of *.c? Ok, that is an extra two letters per file name.
The why is so that you can take advantage of C++ features. Templates for example are a great way to write very fast code, and if you know what you're doing you don't get the dreaded bloat. Object based programming is a nice way to encapsulate things and adds zero overhead. True OO can be used judiciously in the non-speed critical parts (often a clean way to have a single image handle several minor hardware variants). A combination of object based and operator overloading can be a clean way to handle the semantics of fixed point DSP, which don't map nicely to most languages.
C++ is not designed for efficiency.
Read Stroustrup. As I already said, one of the key design principles was not to add overhead unless you explicitly ask for it. It was designed to be as efficient as you need it to be.
If you don't care quite so much about efficiency, use LISP
1. GC and HRT? Don't go.
2. Even where you can write Lisp to be as efficient as C/C++ for low level operations, all you're doing is writing C/C++ in Lisp. What's the point?
3. How many Lisps, Schemes, whatevers, have you seen for cross-development to DSP's and other architectures that are usually only embedded, have good optimizers (ala SBCL for example), and can run without an OS?
Let me know if you have an intelligent critique of my points about using C++ for low level programming, instead of a silly and meaningless remark.
It works fine if you're judicious about what C++ features to use, and when and where to use them. As much of a pig as C++ is, one thing Stroustrup got right was making it a true multi-paradigm language, and he stuck to the principle of not dragging in any baggage or overhead that you don't explicitly ask for.
Things really started going downhill when BASIC came out.
BASIC came out in 1964.
you think C++ is better than LISP? Seriously?
It's absurd to talk about which is better except with respect to a certain type of application. For example, deeply embedded processors running on an RTOS (not embedded Linux or something), or even bare metal, with memory limitations and hard real-time constraints measured in tens of microseconds is not the best environment for Lisp (or any GC language for that matter).
it gives me somewhat of a sign of relief to see C, C++ and Java/C# be stable in the face of this recurring tide of fad languages
Sheesh, kids today. I remember when C++, Java and C# were the fad languages. I even remember when C outside of the Unix world was a "fad" replacing Fortran, Basic and Pascal. The "classic" languages you grew up with are not the end of programming language evolution.
OTOH I admit that the so-called Cambrian explosion of languages really needs to be followed by a mass extinction. Perl, Python, Ruby, Lua, etc., etc., etc. You could spend the rest of eternity debating their pros and cons, but do we really need all of them? It's great if you want to spend the rest of your life learning yet another genius's "best of" mix of existing language ideas, but it sucks if you just want to get work done. Then there's Clojure, because what the Lisp world really needs is yet another dialect, and F# because, uh, well OCaml has been around a while and we really want yet another variant, and ...
What confuses people is the functional orientation
Whether or not a language is functional is a matter of degree (just as whether or not a language is dynamic is a matter of degree).
Out-of-the-box Lisp is not nearly as much a functional language as *ML or Haskell. There is no pattern matching for example. Of course you can turn Lisp into a functional language, which is what Qi is. In true Lisp fashion it's incredibly clever - 10k lines of CL and you've got a functional language that is arguably even more of a functional language than Haskell (not sure about functional specific optimizations though). And also in true Lisp fashion, there's already a (not fully compatible) fork/successor called Shen (by the same guy who created Qi!).
In other words it's an ongoing experiment, rather than something you can rely on. It grew out of the L21 project, which was supposed to be about Lisp for the 21st century. The lesson is that Lisp for the 21st century is just like Lisp for the 20th century - incredibly clever and powerful but not stable or standardized enough to rely on. Of course the great exception to that is Common Lisp - a byzantine composite of many pre-1985 dialects, warts and all, that hasn't really been updated in 27 years.
A little flamebait-y? Amongst an annoyingly vocal minority of Lispers, anything other than prostrating yourself and worshiping the Mother of All Languages is considered flaming. Whenever I consider learning/playing/working with (one of the umpteen variants of) Lisp, that attitude as much as anything else is what stops me. Even Graham's smugness is just a slightly less obnoxious variant of it.
Yes, it's a dupe, but at least this one has a link to an article that explains something about it.
Obfuscated C is unreadable, obfuscated Perl is completely impenetrable, but what I want to see is obfuscated Lisp.
Good points, but I think you meant to say Canadian med schools are about 1/3 the cost of American ones (39% actually), not 1/3 less. That makes your point even more strongly. Specifically $15k/yr vs. $38k/yr. Wow.
Specialist vs generalist is supply and demand.
If it was supply and demand the AMA wouldn't need a committee to set prices. This is about a guild, not a competitive market.
ObamaCare fueled a huge wave of consolidation in the health care industry.
ObamaCare aka the Great Bogeyman. It's barely started to take effect and yet you're saying it "fueled a huge wave of consolidation in the health care industry" (note past tense). Next it'll be blamed for natural disasters.
I know a number of people who have encountered cash prices less than half what the insurer would be billed
Irrelevant, since what the insurer gets billed and what they pay have little to do with each other. People who think they're getting a great deal may still be paying more than the insurer would.
Doctors should be paid MORE. Yes I said it, more!
Depends on the doctor. Primaries aren't getting rich, but some specialists are. That explains why we have too many specialists and not enough primaries. I don't buy that most specialties are all that much more difficult than being a primary. As per the article median gastroenterologist income is $481k. IIRC that's 2.5x what a primary makes. Moreover, income often has little to do with the difficulty of a specialty. Radiologists are amongst the highest paid, not because it's so difficult, but because you can flip through scans pretty quickly and charge for each one. The actual scans are done by techs.
The ratio of specialist to primary pay is largely controlled by the AMA's "advisory" committee, so they are very much a part of this. The AMA has long had a pro-specialist bias.
How about addressing the seriously disgusting salaries on wall street?
Does getting ripped off by one group mean we shouldn't also worry about getting ripped off by another group?
Should a computer nerd working in Morgan's computer risk group really be making $500k which is FAR more than the majority of doctors?
It's not the computer nerds making $500k/yr.