Everyone here has really done a very good job of talking about the pluses of Obj-C, Obj-C++, XCode, and so on. But nobody has yet (sorry if I missed someone on this) talked about the ease of use of Interface Builder, the GUI builder that comes along side XCode. And even more interesting for an application developer would be Cocoa Bindings.
For Application development, Cocoa bindings allows you to implement the model-view-controller paradigm without writing much, in some cases any, controller code because Apple has already done it. Check out Delicious Monster's app Delicious Library that was written largley (maybe totally, as I've also heard) using Cocoa Bindings.
Cocoa Bindings will be found in Interface Builder under the Bindings tab on the Inspector window. When you fire up a Cocoa app in XCode, you will have a NIB (NeXT Interface Builder) file, or two. Selecting and opening those files will take you where you need to go.
In Interface Builder 2.5, which is freely included in Tiger, they have enhanced Cocoa Bindings since bindings were introduced in Oct. 2003. And, if you don't like accessing bindings in the UI app Interface Builder, you can always code it in directly through the use of key-value-coding and key-value-observing.
If you're writing an app, one of the things that Cocoa Bindings does is get you head out of the code and into the Interface. I have found that, in making the interface first, I actually don't need some of the routines I thought I would need. Better yet, by not having to write and debug allot of controller code, my dev cycle time is allot shorter than it otherwise would be.
I don't program in Windows. But my Windows friends tell me that there is nothing like Cocoa Bindings on the Windows side. I think you'll like what you see.
Good luck! I think you'll have as much fun as I've had.
Bit of history: fascists were socialists, i.e. Nazi = Nationalsozialistiche Partei (National Socialists Party). Then there is Franco of Spain, also a Socialist. Same for Mussolini of Italy. Nobody in the right mind would call Republicans socialists.
Another history lesson--go look at who did/didn't vote for the tax cuts and guess what? Democrats also voted for the 2001 tax cust. Interesting, huh?
I have no idea why people call Republicans fascists. Guess the American educational system just isn't up to snuff.
I am an new-to-the-game Apple developer. MS tools have little on XCode and IB. MS doesn't have anything like the Controller Layer which negates the need for glue code to hook a UI and model code. In an app we developed for Win and X, the X version took less than a third, that's right 1/3, of the time the Win version did. So please, enough of the urban legend that MS has great developer tools.
Apple may have had a bad history in the past for supporting developers. That cannot be said today.
First, it's necessary to determine whether you want to work for someone or start you own outfit. For vertical markets such as NASA, starting your own company out of graduate school isn't on the periphery of the real.
Second, anyone thinking of getting a job with NASA should be aware that this agency does it's hiring through its centers such as Johnson Space Center or Marshall. And these centers have what can only be called the most retarded hiring practices in the world. Bottom line, if you haven't interned or co-oped for one of the centers, it's unusual, very unusual, to get hired by them. An exception is sometimes made if you've worked for a contractor and have become critical to a project that the NASA center is working on.
My suggestion is to turn you graduate research into a product and start a consulting company working for contracts in a vertical market like NASA. Those are the jobs that aren't being shipped off to India. There are Small Business Initiative grants that go unclaimed each year that would make great seed capital for any start-up. Eventually your consulting company can become a ISV or something like that.
I think your analysis of Bush's space initiative is a bit extreme, typical of this forum. I've been in aerospace for years and it's never as dire or great as you wish, much like life. And NASA is really getting behind the initiative because it knows that this is it.
Once NASA kills the pork projects that Senators and Representatives push in to help their districts, things like fish mating research or planetariums, which takes up to $400 Million of NASA's budget, and combine that with the $700 Million Bush is pushing through in additional NASA 2005 funding, you've got $1.1 Billion in new funding. And that is enough to begin work on a new spacecraft, the first and most important step in any new Moon and someday-Mars program.
As to the WMD's on the Moon wise-crack, real original.
Bush may not be the greatest President in our history, but at least he's trying to do what Clinton, Carter, Ford and Nixon didn't, have a space policy that does something more than orbiting the eath like Glenn did in 1962. All of the Democratic candidates have done is criticize and not think of real alternatives other than we need to help the poor. Duh! But does that forstall doing great things? And might renewed exploration actually help make a better future by offering hope to those who want a better future and with hard work in engineering and technology can make that hope come true?
The longer this has gone on, the more SCO seems to reach out to Unix vendors, the gladder I am that Bill Joy created the core of the Unix I use, BSD.
I do wonder, muse really, sometimes. Is SCO working for Apple? Linux, though IBM, and SGI's Unix OS are being threatened and it seems that the one real winner, at least a bit in the Unix arena, is Apple whose Unix OS is based on BSD and is according to Bill Joy immune from SCO's actions. Personally, I doubt SCO has a case. But this is exactly the sort of stuff that companies and their proxies do to throw the competition off balance and create market growth opportunity.
Like most OS X users, I can afford to just sit back and watch the fun as those companies wanting "free" Linux distributions now have to content with the risk (and that isn't a joke) of an SCO victory that would cost the free Linux community money. Meanwhile, Apple advances its OS X strategy by readying Panther with not a whisper of a threat from SCO.
Is Jobs behind this?
Yes, I'm joking. But the stakes are very high. At worst, Linux is no longer free which ruins its business model. With companies looking for alternatives to MS, and with Linux no longer free, and with other Unix OS's falling to SCO, wouldn't Apple be the real winner?
Whether the US has a large prison population is not germain to what was written by the DOJ guys. Is your point that since there are allot of people in jail we shouldn't enforce laws until that number goes down? Probably not...
Wait til it's your work that you spent years of your life and a good portion of you earnings developing only to see someone post the specs on the web or distribute it without permission. Such disclosure could deny you the IP protection you're supposed to have under the law for trade secrets, trade mark, trade dress, copyright, or patent protection. Unless you've developed, and invested in, a product yourself, you will not appreciate how important such an investment is to protect.
Sure, under the IP laws you have recourse in the civil courts. But what if there is a virtual company that is impossible to tie down? What if you don't have the resources to go after the infringers of your rights? The DOJ guys are the ones that will investigate criminal remedies. And people who conspire to elude IP lawson a gross level should be sent to jail. As the old saying goes, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
Having been a graduate student in a previous life (earned a MS in aerospace engineer), it is possible for someone to replicate Gorman's work. However, unlike Gorman, that person will be operating in an environment where information will not flow so easially as it perhaps did to Gorman. Technically, everything about everything is on public record. Fishing it out is another matter. And by the time you're finished, the network has likely changed enough that a good part of your work is then invalidated. Gorman was doing this as his graduate research, meaning he probably spent most of his day working on this under his graduate research funding.
So, now anyone wanting to replicate Gorman's work will need to take the next 4-6 years off, have an advisor who will keep you from going down dead ends as Gorman's advisor probably did, get paid by someone (Mr. Bin Laden?) during that time, work in a newly, informational hostile environment, and keep updating your map even as you map new areas. Not a piece of cake.
is a new one, at least as far as hinging product development.
The Internet was not built based on standards. In "Where Wizards Never Sleep", the story of the founding of the Internet, not one standard was used to design and build ARPA-net. Standards eventually emerged, but they were after-the-fact.
Read "Fire in the Valley", the story of the birth of the personal computer industry. This was one of the most innovative periods in our history. And not ONE industry standard was used. Rather, Apple, Osborne, etc. created their products, from which eventually standards emerged. Again, after-the-fact.
Go back further in time. IBM was not the industry leader from the 1930's til the 1980's because of industry standards, but rather IBM's own, internal, proprietary standards.
Standards are a nice way to not have to innovate and think. Just use a standard! But is what is developed by a committee always the best thing from a time or technology standpoint? Isn't it a sort of socialist or communist type approach? A Borgian way of doing things?
As AC said, the $150 million "investment" made by MS was to settle a lawsuit that Apple had opened up on some QuickTime code issues.
Both MS and Apple used the same company for some QT work. Problem was that this company was accused by Apple of giving, selling, whatever the code to MS with/without MS' knowledge. That code found its way into MediaPlayer.
Apparently, months before Jobs returned, Apple's attorneys found some pretty damning evidence during the discovery phase that would have sunk MS' defenses. MS was looking at loosing its MediaPlayer while Apple was looking at dying due to lack of Office.
Instead of a protracted fight, Jobs and Gates agreed that MS would invest $150 million in non-voting Apple stock that was to be held for a certain time, though I don't know how long, but was on the order of 2-3 years. Also, MS would ship Office and Apple would pre-install IE til 2002. Apple and MS signed an agreement to open their kimonos for 2-3 years. There were other provisions I don't recall. I would imagine the kimono opening is where MS learned to do some of the things they are doing in Longhorn.
I hope the Apple execs don't laugh too much. They laughed at IBM PC, Win 3.1, Win 95, and Palm. Getting cocky when you're 3.whatever % of marketshare is stupid.
As a U Texas grad, it sucks that MS is using our symbol (Hook 'em Horns, Longhorn Country, etc.) to promote their "new" OS.
Ok, first problem. Yes, iPod supports USB 2.0. It also supports FireWire 1394. When 1394b comes out, Apple will support that. Apple's goal is to sell you an iPod whether you want to use USB, FireWire, swizzle stick, or anything else.
Nobody but the engineers and management of Sony, Cannon, Panasonic, and JVC know if the digital video market will migrate from dv. I doubt it, but my opinion and i'm a nobody.
Most devices don't need the power of FireWire? Personally, every device I've worked with will gobble as much power they can get if they can get it externally.
OK, I could be wrong on this but didn't FireWire get accepted as the standard to connect digital TV? Haven't followed this for a bit. But the FCC was leaning towards FireWire despite Microsoft's and Intel's begging them to accept USB 2. Why? FireWire 2.
When you talk about FireWire vs. USB 2.0, remember that FireWire 2 (1394b or Gigabit 1394) is rolling out. Makes USB 2.0 look slow just as 1394 made USB 1.0 look slow as frozen syrup.
Doing a static analysis of a dynamic world always a bit troubling unless the time difference (seconds, minutes, days) is immaterial. When not (months, years, etc.), the linearization gets shot to hell and your analysis falls apart.
The FireWire vs. USB battle isn't over. In fact, it's just begun because USB couldn't compete with FireWire a year or so ago. Once FireWire 2 rolls out, then we'll see if Intel's gambit to compete with FireWire will work out for them.
You're right. But first, a slight correction. The shuttle's technology is actually a mix of 70's and 80's technology. The propulsion system is actually only about 10 years behind and the cockpit about 5 years.
Still, your point is well taken. NASA-Johnson Space Center always argues that any changes represent an unwise risk to the astronauts' lives. They argue that because NASA-JSC doesn't have to worry about costs.
And when NASA-JSC has upgraded the shuttle, the cost over-runs would take your breath away.
Many here have opined about what school will do for your earning capacity, and other other items, but none that I read answered your central question. Can you manage both school and work without negatively impacting either? The short answer is it depends on how you do it.
A bit of background. I ran a software company in the mid-90's and have run an oil & gas company (some working interest, but primarily royalty interest) since 1990. From 1996 through 2000, I also finished up my BS and then an MS in aerospace engineering. I am now persuing my Ph.D. in aerospace engineering. So what I am writing comes from experience, some of it gained in a less than enjoyable way at times.
The key is to answer to following questions. How much of your job responsibilities, and the time and control that go with those responsibilities can you delegate to others? How much control of your company do you want or need to maintain? Do you have competant people that you can rely upon to do a good job if you are around less? If you can't answer these types of questions affirmatively, going back to school until you can is a mistake.
One day you'll realize that your company is suffering if you try to go to school before you, your associates, and your company are ready. When push comes to shove, you'll let school have the short end of the stick because, after all, your company is what pays the bills. It's yours, a part of you. And letting it whither on the vine is impossible.
I will let others talk about balancing time, priorities, etc. The real question that you should answer is whether your company can be run as well as it is now with others taking enough of your responsibilities, and the time those require, so that you can begin to deal with the issues that are secondary: making time for studying and working.
Also mentioned in the BBC article is that 2002 NT17 is the first body ever given a positive Palermo technical scale. That is bad enough new in-of-itself.
Though I'm sure future observations will show that NT17 will miss us, what if they don't?
Errors in observations can sometimes have a way of cancelling each other out so that at the end of the day the result that was error-prone is the same as that which is error-free.
I'm old enough to remember this non-sense "we'll over-consume ourselves into oblivion" theory that was so in vogue back in that depressingly nightmarish decade called the 1970's. Doomsdayers were wrong then just as their progeny of today are incorrect.
Back then these people predicted that we would not be able to feed ourselves due to over-population (wrong), that materials such as metals (Ti, Cu, Fe, etc.) would become prohibitively expensive (wrong again), and so on, and so on.
People in particular are, and the human race in general is, adaptable. Whenever these doomdayers say the sky is falling, by-and-large they are basing their predictions on models that are not dynamic in their ability to react to the compensative ability of society. As long as these predictions are based on 0th order analysis, we shouldn't take them too seriously.
Email him with your insightful analysis which postulates that all apple zealots and mac users (zealots) are idiots. As a HUGE apple fan, I'm sure he'd be amused.
More seriously, you've just made a rather silly assumption in your post. Perhaps your data sample was insufficiently random. Could be that you've just been hanging out with idiots, some of whom use Macs. Worse, it could be the case that how you took your data and analyzed it was corrupted. Something to think about.
BTW, if you're going to call someone an idiot, would it not be polite to at least be up-front as to who you are?
Apple did not use a neutral 3rd party benchmark to test their G4 to a Pentium III 600 processor. They used Intel's benchmarking software for the Pentium III processors. And the G4 sailed past the PIII's by over twice. That's gotta hurt.
Anyone who thinks that Steve Jobs is not running Apple to the point of picking individual system characteristics(features, colors, shapes, etc.) has not had much contact with Apple. I have. Steve is running the place. Period. His mark is all over Apple today to an extent not seen since the mid-80's. It was Jobs who thought of the "Think Different" ad campaign, the idea of an iBook and the iMac. Jobs has fired people on the spot for not following his directions. Try that in any corporation today and the HR and legal eagles will tell a boss to forget it. But not with Steve.
Unlimited users Web Objects (Not the full version, but not a demo either) A full Unix OS (This is new and welcome) Apache (OK, so this is free anyway...)
How much does it cost to have unlimited users for NT 4.0? While OS X Server is not free like Linux, it does have some features and ease of use experience (something that might not be as important to most readers here as to the outside world) that Linux and cannot provide.
OS X Server will not cost Educational places $999, you can bet on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone here has really done a very good job of talking about the pluses of Obj-C, Obj-C++, XCode, and so on. But nobody has yet (sorry if I missed someone on this) talked about the ease of use of Interface Builder, the GUI builder that comes along side XCode. And even more interesting for an application developer would be Cocoa Bindings.
For Application development, Cocoa bindings allows you to implement the model-view-controller paradigm without writing much, in some cases any, controller code because Apple has already done it. Check out Delicious Monster's app Delicious Library that was written largley (maybe totally, as I've also heard) using Cocoa Bindings.
Cocoa Bindings will be found in Interface Builder under the Bindings tab on the Inspector window. When you fire up a Cocoa app in XCode, you will have a NIB (NeXT Interface Builder) file, or two. Selecting and opening those files will take you where you need to go.
In Interface Builder 2.5, which is freely included in Tiger, they have enhanced Cocoa Bindings since bindings were introduced in Oct. 2003. And, if you don't like accessing bindings in the UI app Interface Builder, you can always code it in directly through the use of key-value-coding and key-value-observing.
If you're writing an app, one of the things that Cocoa Bindings does is get you head out of the code and into the Interface. I have found that, in making the interface first, I actually don't need some of the routines I thought I would need. Better yet, by not having to write and debug allot of controller code, my dev cycle time is allot shorter than it otherwise would be.
I don't program in Windows. But my Windows friends tell me that there is nothing like Cocoa Bindings on the Windows side. I think you'll like what you see.
Good luck! I think you'll have as much fun as I've had.
Bit of history: fascists were socialists, i.e. Nazi = Nationalsozialistiche Partei (National Socialists Party). Then there is Franco of Spain, also a Socialist. Same for Mussolini of Italy. Nobody in the right mind would call Republicans socialists.
Another history lesson--go look at who did/didn't vote for the tax cuts and guess what? Democrats also voted for the 2001 tax cust. Interesting, huh?
I have no idea why people call Republicans fascists. Guess the American educational system just isn't up to snuff.
I am an new-to-the-game Apple developer. MS tools have little on XCode and IB. MS doesn't have anything like the Controller Layer which negates the need for glue code to hook a UI and model code. In an app we developed for Win and X, the X version took less than a third, that's right 1/3, of the time the Win version did. So please, enough of the urban legend that MS has great developer tools.
Apple may have had a bad history in the past for supporting developers. That cannot be said today.
First, it's necessary to determine whether you want to work for someone or start you own outfit. For vertical markets such as NASA, starting your own company out of graduate school isn't on the periphery of the real.
Second, anyone thinking of getting a job with NASA should be aware that this agency does it's hiring through its centers such as Johnson Space Center or Marshall. And these centers have what can only be called the most retarded hiring practices in the world. Bottom line, if you haven't interned or co-oped for one of the centers, it's unusual, very unusual, to get hired by them. An exception is sometimes made if you've worked for a contractor and have become critical to a project that the NASA center is working on.
My suggestion is to turn you graduate research into a product and start a consulting company working for contracts in a vertical market like NASA. Those are the jobs that aren't being shipped off to India. There are Small Business Initiative grants that go unclaimed each year that would make great seed capital for any start-up. Eventually your consulting company can become a ISV or something like that.
I think your analysis of Bush's space initiative is a bit extreme, typical of this forum. I've been in aerospace for years and it's never as dire or great as you wish, much like life. And NASA is really getting behind the initiative because it knows that this is it.
Once NASA kills the pork projects that Senators and Representatives push in to help their districts, things like fish mating research or planetariums, which takes up to $400 Million of NASA's budget, and combine that with the $700 Million Bush is pushing through in additional NASA 2005 funding, you've got $1.1 Billion in new funding. And that is enough to begin work on a new spacecraft, the first and most important step in any new Moon and someday-Mars program.
As to the WMD's on the Moon wise-crack, real original.
Bush may not be the greatest President in our history, but at least he's trying to do what Clinton, Carter, Ford and Nixon didn't, have a space policy that does something more than orbiting the eath like Glenn did in 1962. All of the Democratic candidates have done is criticize and not think of real alternatives other than we need to help the poor. Duh! But does that forstall doing great things? And might renewed exploration actually help make a better future by offering hope to those who want a better future and with hard work in engineering and technology can make that hope come true?
The longer this has gone on, the more SCO seems to reach out to Unix vendors, the gladder I am that Bill Joy created the core of the Unix I use, BSD.
I do wonder, muse really, sometimes. Is SCO working for Apple? Linux, though IBM, and SGI's Unix OS are being threatened and it seems that the one real winner, at least a bit in the Unix arena, is Apple whose Unix OS is based on BSD and is according to Bill Joy immune from SCO's actions. Personally, I doubt SCO has a case. But this is exactly the sort of stuff that companies and their proxies do to throw the competition off balance and create market growth opportunity.
Like most OS X users, I can afford to just sit back and watch the fun as those companies wanting "free" Linux distributions now have to content with the risk (and that isn't a joke) of an SCO victory that would cost the free Linux community money. Meanwhile, Apple advances its OS X strategy by readying Panther with not a whisper of a threat from SCO.
Is Jobs behind this?
Yes, I'm joking. But the stakes are very high. At worst, Linux is no longer free which ruins its business model. With companies looking for alternatives to MS, and with Linux no longer free, and with other Unix OS's falling to SCO, wouldn't Apple be the real winner?
Whether the US has a large prison population is not germain to what was written by the DOJ guys. Is your point that since there are allot of people in jail we shouldn't enforce laws until that number goes down? Probably not...
Wait til it's your work that you spent years of your life and a good portion of you earnings developing only to see someone post the specs on the web or distribute it without permission. Such disclosure could deny you the IP protection you're supposed to have under the law for trade secrets, trade mark, trade dress, copyright, or patent protection. Unless you've developed, and invested in, a product yourself , you will not appreciate how important such an investment is to protect.
Sure, under the IP laws you have recourse in the civil courts. But what if there is a virtual company that is impossible to tie down? What if you don't have the resources to go after the infringers of your rights? The DOJ guys are the ones that will investigate criminal remedies. And people who conspire to elude IP lawson a gross level should be sent to jail. As the old saying goes, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
So, now anyone wanting to replicate Gorman's work will need to take the next 4-6 years off, have an advisor who will keep you from going down dead ends as Gorman's advisor probably did, get paid by someone (Mr. Bin Laden?) during that time, work in a newly, informational hostile environment, and keep updating your map even as you map new areas. Not a piece of cake.
is a new one, at least as far as hinging product development.
The Internet was not built based on standards. In "Where Wizards Never Sleep", the story of the founding of the Internet, not one standard was used to design and build ARPA-net. Standards eventually emerged, but they were after-the-fact.
Read "Fire in the Valley", the story of the birth of the personal computer industry. This was one of the most innovative periods in our history. And not ONE industry standard was used. Rather, Apple, Osborne, etc. created their products, from which eventually standards emerged. Again, after-the-fact.
Go back further in time. IBM was not the industry leader from the 1930's til the 1980's because of industry standards, but rather IBM's own, internal, proprietary standards.
Standards are a nice way to not have to innovate and think. Just use a standard! But is what is developed by a committee always the best thing from a time or technology standpoint? Isn't it a sort of socialist or communist type approach? A Borgian way of doing things?
As AC said, the $150 million "investment" made by MS was to settle a lawsuit that Apple had opened up on some QuickTime code issues.
Both MS and Apple used the same company for some QT work. Problem was that this company was accused by Apple of giving, selling, whatever the code to MS with/without MS' knowledge. That code found its way into MediaPlayer.
Apparently, months before Jobs returned, Apple's attorneys found some pretty damning evidence during the discovery phase that would have sunk MS' defenses. MS was looking at loosing its MediaPlayer while Apple was looking at dying due to lack of Office.
Instead of a protracted fight, Jobs and Gates agreed that MS would invest $150 million in non-voting Apple stock that was to be held for a certain time, though I don't know how long, but was on the order of 2-3 years. Also, MS would ship Office and Apple would pre-install IE til 2002. Apple and MS signed an agreement to open their kimonos for 2-3 years. There were other provisions I don't recall. I would imagine the kimono opening is where MS learned to do some of the things they are doing in Longhorn.
I hope the Apple execs don't laugh too much. They laughed at IBM PC, Win 3.1, Win 95, and Palm. Getting cocky when you're 3.whatever % of marketshare is stupid.
As a U Texas grad, it sucks that MS is using our symbol (Hook 'em Horns, Longhorn Country, etc.) to promote their "new" OS.
Ok, first problem. Yes, iPod supports USB 2.0. It also supports FireWire 1394. When 1394b comes out, Apple will support that. Apple's goal is to sell you an iPod whether you want to use USB, FireWire, swizzle stick, or anything else.
Nobody but the engineers and management of Sony, Cannon, Panasonic, and JVC know if the digital video market will migrate from dv. I doubt it, but my opinion and i'm a nobody.
Most devices don't need the power of FireWire? Personally, every device I've worked with will gobble as much power they can get if they can get it externally.
OK, I could be wrong on this but didn't FireWire get accepted as the standard to connect digital TV? Haven't followed this for a bit. But the FCC was leaning towards FireWire despite Microsoft's and Intel's begging them to accept USB 2. Why? FireWire 2.
When you talk about FireWire vs. USB 2.0, remember that FireWire 2 (1394b or Gigabit 1394) is rolling out. Makes USB 2.0 look slow just as 1394 made USB 1.0 look slow as frozen syrup.
Doing a static analysis of a dynamic world always a bit troubling unless the time difference (seconds, minutes, days) is immaterial. When not (months, years, etc.), the linearization gets shot to hell and your analysis falls apart.
The FireWire vs. USB battle isn't over. In fact, it's just begun because USB couldn't compete with FireWire a year or so ago. Once FireWire 2 rolls out, then we'll see if Intel's gambit to compete with FireWire will work out for them.
Agreed. This is like trying to rewrite C++ just because the syntax isn't organized well enough. Most ivory tower type idea I've heard in awhile.
You're right. But first, a slight correction. The shuttle's technology is actually a mix of 70's and 80's technology. The propulsion system is actually only about 10 years behind and the cockpit about 5 years.
Still, your point is well taken. NASA-Johnson Space Center always argues that any changes represent an unwise risk to the astronauts' lives. They argue that because NASA-JSC doesn't have to worry about costs.
And when NASA-JSC has upgraded the shuttle, the cost over-runs would take your breath away.
Jim Hillhouse (recovering aerospace engineer)
Many here have opined about what school will do for your earning capacity, and other other items, but none that I read answered your central question. Can you manage both school and work without negatively impacting either? The short answer is it depends on how you do it.
A bit of background. I ran a software company in the mid-90's and have run an oil & gas company (some working interest, but primarily royalty interest) since 1990. From 1996 through 2000, I also finished up my BS and then an MS in aerospace engineering. I am now persuing my Ph.D. in aerospace engineering. So what I am writing comes from experience, some of it gained in a less than enjoyable way at times.
The key is to answer to following questions. How much of your job responsibilities, and the time and control that go with those responsibilities can you delegate to others? How much control of your company do you want or need to maintain? Do you have competant people that you can rely upon to do a good job if you are around less? If you can't answer these types of questions affirmatively, going back to school until you can is a mistake.
One day you'll realize that your company is suffering if you try to go to school before you, your associates, and your company are ready. When push comes to shove, you'll let school have the short end of the stick because, after all, your company is what pays the bills. It's yours, a part of you. And letting it whither on the vine is impossible.
I will let others talk about balancing time, priorities, etc. The real question that you should answer is whether your company can be run as well as it is now with others taking enough of your responsibilities, and the time those require, so that you can begin to deal with the issues that are secondary: making time for studying and working.
Good luck!
Jim Hillhouse
jdhouse4@jdhouse4.com
Shelton Oil & Gas
Also mentioned in the BBC article is that 2002 NT17 is the first body ever given a positive Palermo technical scale. That is bad enough new in-of-itself.
Though I'm sure future observations will show that NT17 will miss us, what if they don't?
Errors in observations can sometimes have a way of cancelling each other out so that at the end of the day the result that was error-prone is the same as that which is error-free.
I'm old enough to remember this non-sense "we'll over-consume ourselves into oblivion" theory that was so in vogue back in that depressingly nightmarish decade called the 1970's. Doomsdayers were wrong then just as their progeny of today are incorrect.
Back then these people predicted that we would not be able to feed ourselves due to over-population (wrong), that materials such as metals (Ti, Cu, Fe, etc.) would become prohibitively expensive (wrong again), and so on, and so on.
People in particular are, and the human race in general is, adaptable. Whenever these doomdayers say the sky is falling, by-and-large they are basing their predictions on models that are not dynamic in their ability to react to the compensative ability of society. As long as these predictions are based on 0th order analysis, we shouldn't take them too seriously.
Here's Steve Jobs email address:
jobs@pixar.com
Email him with your insightful analysis which postulates that all apple zealots and mac users (zealots) are idiots. As a HUGE apple fan, I'm sure he'd be amused.
More seriously, you've just made a rather silly assumption in your post. Perhaps your data sample was insufficiently random. Could be that you've just been hanging out with idiots, some of whom use Macs. Worse, it could be the case that how you took your data and analyzed it was corrupted. Something to think about.
BTW, if you're going to call someone an idiot, would it not be polite to at least be up-front as to who you are?
Apple did not use a neutral 3rd party benchmark to test their G4 to a Pentium III 600 processor. They used Intel's benchmarking software for the Pentium III processors. And the G4 sailed past the PIII's by over twice. That's gotta hurt.
Jim
Anyone who thinks that Steve Jobs is not running Apple to the point of picking individual system characteristics(features, colors, shapes, etc.) has not had much contact with Apple. I have. Steve is running the place. Period. His mark is all over Apple today to an extent not seen since the mid-80's. It was Jobs who thought of the "Think Different" ad campaign, the idea of an iBook and the iMac. Jobs has fired people on the spot for not following his directions. Try that in any corporation today and the HR and legal eagles will tell a boss to forget it. But not with Steve.
Jim
Yup! OS X Server is $999.
For that amount you get:
Unlimited users
Web Objects (Not the full version, but not a demo either)
A full Unix OS (This is new and welcome)
Apache (OK, so this is free anyway...)
How much does it cost to have unlimited users for NT 4.0? While OS X Server is not free like Linux, it does have some features and ease of use experience (something that might not be as important to most readers here as to the outside world) that Linux and cannot provide.
OS X Server will not cost Educational places $999, you can bet on that.