Actually if you bother to read the article where the German pilots were surprised to find themselves on an equal footing in a dog fight
The thing is, this is going to be true for any fighter jet since the F-16. That was the first plane, I believe, that was fly-by-wire and had sensors to limit the G forces on the pilot. The aerodynamic egineers can EASILY draw up an airframe that will kill any and all occupants. The limiting factor of maneuverability of modern military aircraft is human factors, and that is going to put the aircraft all all nations on a similar footing.
The more recent designs have significant advantages. Vectored thrust for example permits maneuvers impossible in the F-16. Supercruise is another advantage.
I can't help but wonder what Apple could make a modernized replica Apple II for. Not something literally compatible. A little Apple TV style box with a USB connector, a network connector and a HDMI connector. Simulating the original graphics modes on the HDMI output, etc.
If they could do something like that for $100, the Apple TV price, they probably could sell a decent amount due to nostalgia and curiosity.
Iraq was armed with European and Russian aircraft.
Libya... Russian.
North Vietnam... Russian
North Korea... Russian
You forgot to mention that those are 2-3 generations behind. NK still mostly flies MiG-15/17/19 (and Chinese clones) in large numbers, for Christ sake. Vietnam mostly uses MiG-21. Libyans had the bulk of their force consist of MiG-23 and Yugoslavian Galebs. Even an F-16 or an F-18 would tear those apart easily.
Apologies for not being clear. I was not referring to those countries in their current state. I was referring to them in the state they were during their respective wars/conflicts with the US. 1950s for NK, 60s for NV, 80s for Libya, 90s for Iraq. They all had comparable aircraft back in their days. Mig-17 v F-86 in NK, Mig-21 v F-4 in NV, etc. Arguably the enemy sometimes had a better aircraft. What made the difference was really pilot training.
The point being that the US has often faced state-of-the art aircraft in the last 60 years, even when going against small nations.
Not really. The Germans were flying the $110M (Euro 90M) Eurofigher against the $150M F-22. The Eurofighter is a contemporary of the F-22, only a couple of years older, not something from a previous design generation. The other guy is not going to have some huge numerical advantage.
Who do you think we're supposed to be fighting? Europe?
Iraq was armed with European and Russian aircraft.
Libya... Russian.
North Vietnam... Russian
North Korea... Russian
Current generation aircraft have a long history of winding up outside of the US, Europe and Russia.
The F-35 and F-22 would be up against the previous generation of jets which are much much cheaper.
Quantity has a quality all its own, especially when the fancy stealth jets run out of missiles.
That's OK. The fancy stealth jet can out dogfight them too. Remember, it was only the state of the art Eurofighter that achieved parity.
It seems that in air-to-air combat, as in a knife fight, 'the bad guys' don't always play by the rules.
Actually if you bother to read the article where the German pilots were surprised to find themselves on an equal footing in a dog fight you will find that they also said that at long range they did everything they could and basically had little chance against the F22.
Don't quote me but I think an F-22 can carry a maximum of six medium range missiles and two short range missiles. Assuming a 100% hit rate in a fight against multiple non-stealthy bogies the pilot will have his work cut out for him.
Not really. The Germans were flying the $110M (Euro 90M) Eurofigher against the $150M F-22. The Eurofighter is a contemporary of the F-22, only a couple of years older, not something from a previous design generation. The other guy is not going to have some huge numerical advantage.
That said, we should have a more balanced force. We have had long range over the horizon capable jets going back to Vietnam but they are rarely every allowed to engage at such distances. They are almost always required to get visual IDs on the other aircraft. I'm sure there will be specialized missions where the F-22s are the way to go and we should have some. But we should also have modern incarnations of a dedicated fighter and a dedicated close air support aircraft, as we did in the past with the F-16s and A-10s. For those unfamiliar with the origin of these legendary aircraft, the Air Force did not want either one. They were both designed by rouge design teams that did not believe in the concept of multi-mission aircraft, and after demonstrating amazing performance in their respective roles, they were forced upon the Air Force by a cost conscious Congress.
Doing it with a machine shop requires time, skill, and more importantly a machine shop.
It depends on the firearm that is being made. There were some submachine gun designs from WW2 that were quite trivial to make. That was their point. The famous Thompson submachine gun that many US, British and Commonwealth troops carried was complicated and expensive to manufacture. The British Sten and the US M3 "Grease Gun" were designed as low cost and easy to manufacture alternatives. They had incredibly few simple to manufacture parts.
So that "machine shop" would only need machinery, tools and techniques that were considered simple in 1942.
Just to confirm: you're saying that for your wife's business, Facebook ads are 8 times more effective than Google ads.
Gack! Sorry, I got the ratio reversed. They are eight times less effective. Thanks for catching this.
I've seen something similar regarding ads for an iPhone/iPad app, a sci/biz/hex rpn calculator. Google ads are about 10x more effective than FB ads. The google ads are also about 1/3 to 1/4 the cost.
I imagine patrol cops go where they expect some action may occur (or to stops that offer cheap food/drink for the uniformed). This sounds like a higher tech version of that, basically taking the instincts out of the equation and substituting it with statistics. Perhaps adds more coordination at the central office level too although I'm sure that also already occurs.
Technically a good cop with good instincts is applying statistics. The human brain is built to recognize patterns and to use those patterns to make predictions. Some of this is done at a subconscious level. So its not that we are necessarily introducing statistics, its seems more that we are using a much larger data set to mine patterns from. Still, as you say, a high tech version of what we already do.
Not to burst your bubble but this guy teaches future politicians...
No, he is a political science professor. The law professors teach the future politicians. The political science professors teach the entry level management trainees for various corporations.
I am not kidding. I once sat in on a presentation named "Careers for History and Political Science Majors". The presenter had a BA in History and was the branch manager at a local bank. The first thing he told the audience was that they were not going to work in history or politics. Many corporations want to see a 4 year degree attached to their management trainees, they don't particularly care what the degree is in.
My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Advanced math is used in business. I was shocked and pleasantly surprised by the scientific and mathematic techniques used in a New Product Development class, a marketing class, in business school. If business people were more proficient and more frequent users of such approaches the business world would probably be less screwed up.
In 20+ years of software development I have rarely used math beyond the most basic forms of algebra. Using your logic you could probably argue that computer science majors don't need to take much math. However having had the math doors were opened. When someone needed to write the 3D rendering library for a molecular visualization project I was able to step up and do so. When Dow Chemical asked my employer if we could move some legacy code from mainframe to PC I was able to step up and communicate with world class chemists about how their software analyzes a polymer structure. Did these chemists expect me to understand polymer chemistry, no, they just expected me to be scientifically and mathematically literate. We got the contract.
A buddy was a history major in college. In high school we both took the same college prep and AP math and science classes. Seems a waste for the history major huh? Except in the last month, and against all expectations we had back in the day, he has just advanced to candidacy for a PhD in economics and public policy. He specialty, the civilian space industry. He currently advices politicians on how not to screw up this nascent industry. So yes, in a **university** environment history and poly sci majors should be scientifically and mathematically literate too.
The preceding demonstrates why, in a **university** environment, people should be expected to take math and science classes that are not strictly necessary. The point of a **university** is to prepare you for these more advanced situations you never expected.
That said, I have worked with many highly skilled and talented programmers who were not university trained. I would be happy to work with many of them again. A university education is nice but not required.
The Mac mini is $600. It is perfectly fine for iOS development.
So what should you do when Apple is no longer making new versions of Xcode for your version of Mac OS X nor new versions of Mac OS X for a not even four-year-old Mac mini? That's between $150 and $200 a year (amortized over three to four years) to keep your Mac mini current in addition to the $100 a year for a license to run programs that you wrote on a device that you own.
You were misinformed. Various 4+ year old machines with old Intel video chipsets are ineligible for Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion), it is not Mac mini specific. Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion) has not been end-of-lifed. It is still supported and patched. The newly released Xcode 4.4 does not require 10.8, it runs just fine on 10.7. My 2008 MacBook is running Mac OS X 10.7 and Xcode 4.4 works just fine. A Mac mini at work is also running 10.7, has been upgraded to Xcode 4.4, and is working just fine. There is currently no need to upgrade an old Mac running 10.7.
Sorry but it is wrong regarding MBAs, which is all I commented upon. MBAs are not taught "that a manager only manages people. It doesn't matter what those people do. Nor does it matter what the manager knows about the business he/she manages." They are taught quite the opposite. Whether they follow what they are taught is a different matter. Much like computer science majors are taught to write well designed, reliable and maintainable code but often do something else on the job.
Stores got the 50-60% discount when you were doing things yourself.
The 25% discount was to an individual at an event when you were going things yourself, incentivizing the person to buy direct from you now rather than go to a store later.
In the 4-7.5% royalty scenario, when you were not doing things yourself, the distributor is reaching a national audience that includes mom-and-pop shops and larger retailers that you would not have access to in the doing things yourself scenario.
I never said this was preferable to a pure digital distribution channel where you give 30% to the channel provider. I am perfectly happy to do so. I was just describing what individuals and groups of friends did in the Apple II era.
it comes with 2 gb by default? That's insane. I suppose it's cheaper to get the 2 gb version, and buy your 8 gb from someone who charges 66% less than apple.
Actually 2GB works. At one client we have a 2GB Mac mini as a build system for ad hoc releases and app store submissions. It exists to make sure we have moved all necessary assets (code, art, etc) from our systems to theirs. I've used it on occasion for a couple of hours at a time, iOS and Android development, and it seems fine.
Still I'd recommend popping the extra $50 to go from 2GB to 4GB to be safe.
Interesting, how did you distribute your apps back then? Was there an store that distributed your applications and took less than a 30% cut?
Up front costs:
1. You bought a second floppy drive so that you could more easily duplicate a floppy.
2. You had a local print shop print stick-on labels and 8.5x11 heavy paper stock for cover and manual.
3. You bought a case of blank floppies and and a case of zip lock bags.
Manufacturing:
1. You duplicate the floppy and apply the stick-on label.
2. You put a floppy and a page or three of cover art and instructions into a ziplock baggie.
3. Repeat 1-2 as necessary.
Distribution:
1. You load up the car with 50 to 100 baggies.
2. You drive to a mom-and-pop computer store.
3. You do a demo for mom or pop.
4. You offer the product at 50% off retail, mom or pop probably insists on 60% off.
5. Repeat 2-4 as necessary, until you run out of baggies or all the stores are closed.
6a. In the evening you use phone books, newspaper ads, magazine ads, word-of-mouth, etc to locate mom-and-pop stores beyond driving range.
7a. Mail a demo copy to long distance mom-and-pops.
8a. Repeat 6a-7a as necessary.
9a. Check for orders in the mail.
10a. Arrange for UPS pickup on days you are doing development. Drive by UPS drop-off on days you are on the road selling.
OR
6b. In the evening attend local user group get togethers, well those whose copying parties don't include pirated software.
7b. Do a demo/presentation for the group.
8b. Offer to sell directly to attendees at 25% off retail.
9b. Repeat 6b-8b as necessary.
OR
6c. Get a publisher/distributor.
7c. Collect 10-15% royalty on what the store pays. Remember the 50-60% off retail, so maybe you get something more like 5-7.5/4-6% of retail.
I haven't seen any new computers in the Apple store that go for less than $1200...I suppose I could be wrong about that.
The Mac mini is $600. It is perfectly fine for iOS development. But lets go wild and spend $650 to get the RAM to 4G. I used a 2008 era MacBook of similar configuration for a few years. Technically the mini would be better since the CPU and RAM are of more recent designs.
Wrong. An MBA program is not about accounting and finance. An MBA program actually is an overview of all the pieces of a company/organization. Accounting and finance is just one piece. To avoid redundancy see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010671&cid=40801865
Agree - but this can be simplified. There's a rule.
Managers are of two types.
There are managers who believe that management itself is a profession that stands outside of any other profession or industry; that is, that a manager only manages people. It doesn't matter what those people do. Nor does it matter what the manager knows about the business he/she manages. A good manager will deliver goodness, regardless.
Then there are managers who believe that they'd best excel at the specifics of the industry they find themselves in. Because one should understand the 'why' of making decisions, outside of the people involved.
The first type are MBAs. The second type are filthy rich.
Funny, but wrong. I'm a somewhat recent MBA grad and we were definitely taught that understanding your product, your market, your industry, the economic forces that effect your industry, etc was critical. About 1/3 of my class were engineers and scientist.
To avoid redundancy see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010671&cid=40801865
I'll buy that familiarity with the technology is a factor, but it's also about the thrill of technology as a motivator. Business types don't have it. Everybody knows what their SOLE motivation in life is... How can we rake in the bucks and rip off the people?
Few engineers know the reality of business and MBAs - been there, done that, I am guilty - just as few business types understand the reality of engineering and other technical disciplines. When I eventually attended business school I thoroughly enjoyed it for two reasons. (1) Learning new and different things. (2) Laughing at myself, laughing at how ignorant and misinformed I had been about business, marketing, etc. Here's a clue: the professors in business school love Dilbert as much as any geek.
To avoid redundancy here is the reality of MBA degrees: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010671&cid=40801865
The short story: Its just an add-on to your current degree and experience, it gives you an overview of all the pieces of a business/organization. They actually do teach you to do the "right thing", whether you do as you were taught is something else.
An MBA degree program is not what you think. An MBA is not like other Master's Degrees where you become more of an expert in a particular field. An MBA makes you generally knowledgeable of all the parts of an organization, not just the one you are currently experienced in. An MBA is an add-on to whatever degree you already have. An MBA does not make you an accountant, it does not make you a manager, it does not make you an executive. It helps one become a better manager or executive because you now have an understanding of other fields beyond your own, you can understand other people's perspectives a little more.
30% of my MBA class were engineers, they left with the same technical perspective they came in with. However they could now more effectively communicate their perspective with people from other fields and they could more effectively persuade these people because they had some understanding of the perspectives of their respective fields. These are good skills.
That said. In an MBA program you really are taught to do the "right" thing. Manage for the long term, have some flexibility with people (there is no one way of doing things, different people may be more efficient/productive taking different approaches), marketing and new product development is based on careful study of consumer wants and needs and projections are based on careful modeling of the market (I was shocked by the amount of advanced math we used, pleasantly surprised by the scientific and mathematical approach), etc. However an individual person may be taught these things but not put them into practice in the real world. MBAs may manage for the quarterly results, have one size fits all approaches, pull numbers out of the air... but that is not what they were trained to do. It is much like computer science where a person is trained to write well designed, reliable and maintainable code in school and then when they get a job they just slap together crap as fast as they can to generate the illusion of performance rather than create good products.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wait for a while. System admins will find it very difficult to install ...
I don't think so. I believe MS is requiring the ability to disable the secure boot in BIOS on x86.
... and see that nothing has really changed on x86 PC hardware?
So just wait for a while
Actually if you bother to read the article where the German pilots were surprised to find themselves on an equal footing in a dog fight
The thing is, this is going to be true for any fighter jet since the F-16. That was the first plane, I believe, that was fly-by-wire and had sensors to limit the G forces on the pilot. The aerodynamic egineers can EASILY draw up an airframe that will kill any and all occupants. The limiting factor of maneuverability of modern military aircraft is human factors, and that is going to put the aircraft all all nations on a similar footing.
The more recent designs have significant advantages. Vectored thrust for example permits maneuvers impossible in the F-16. Supercruise is another advantage.
... 0.03 sec is not very much ...
0.03 sec is enormous in the context of the Olympics. The difference between Gold and Silver medals is sometimes 0.01 sec.
I can't help but wonder what Apple could make a modernized replica Apple II for. Not something literally compatible. A little Apple TV style box with a USB connector, a network connector and a HDMI connector. Simulating the original graphics modes on the HDMI output, etc.
If they could do something like that for $100, the Apple TV price, they probably could sell a decent amount due to nostalgia and curiosity.
Apple I = 6502 @ 1MHz
Apple iPhone = A9 @ 800 MHz
Its not quite that simple. With each machine running its contemporaneous software the perceived performance gap is much narrower.
Altering the hardware for convenience, but consider an Apple II running the VisiCalc spreadsheet and an iPad running the Numbers spreadsheet.
Iraq was armed with European and Russian aircraft. Libya ... Russian.
North Vietnam ... Russian
North Korea ... Russian
You forgot to mention that those are 2-3 generations behind. NK still mostly flies MiG-15/17/19 (and Chinese clones) in large numbers, for Christ sake. Vietnam mostly uses MiG-21. Libyans had the bulk of their force consist of MiG-23 and Yugoslavian Galebs. Even an F-16 or an F-18 would tear those apart easily.
Apologies for not being clear. I was not referring to those countries in their current state. I was referring to them in the state they were during their respective wars/conflicts with the US. 1950s for NK, 60s for NV, 80s for Libya, 90s for Iraq. They all had comparable aircraft back in their days. Mig-17 v F-86 in NK, Mig-21 v F-4 in NV, etc. Arguably the enemy sometimes had a better aircraft. What made the difference was really pilot training.
The point being that the US has often faced state-of-the art aircraft in the last 60 years, even when going against small nations.
Not really. The Germans were flying the $110M (Euro 90M) Eurofigher against the $150M F-22. The Eurofighter is a contemporary of the F-22, only a couple of years older, not something from a previous design generation. The other guy is not going to have some huge numerical advantage.
Who do you think we're supposed to be fighting? Europe?
Iraq was armed with European and Russian aircraft. ... Russian. ... Russian ... Russian
Libya
North Vietnam
North Korea
Current generation aircraft have a long history of winding up outside of the US, Europe and Russia.
The F-35 and F-22 would be up against the previous generation of jets which are much much cheaper. Quantity has a quality all its own, especially when the fancy stealth jets run out of missiles.
That's OK. The fancy stealth jet can out dogfight them too. Remember, it was only the state of the art Eurofighter that achieved parity.
It seems that in air-to-air combat, as in a knife fight, 'the bad guys' don't always play by the rules.
Actually if you bother to read the article where the German pilots were surprised to find themselves on an equal footing in a dog fight you will find that they also said that at long range they did everything they could and basically had little chance against the F22.
Don't quote me but I think an F-22 can carry a maximum of six medium range missiles and two short range missiles. Assuming a 100% hit rate in a fight against multiple non-stealthy bogies the pilot will have his work cut out for him.
Not really. The Germans were flying the $110M (Euro 90M) Eurofigher against the $150M F-22. The Eurofighter is a contemporary of the F-22, only a couple of years older, not something from a previous design generation. The other guy is not going to have some huge numerical advantage.
That said, we should have a more balanced force. We have had long range over the horizon capable jets going back to Vietnam but they are rarely every allowed to engage at such distances. They are almost always required to get visual IDs on the other aircraft. I'm sure there will be specialized missions where the F-22s are the way to go and we should have some. But we should also have modern incarnations of a dedicated fighter and a dedicated close air support aircraft, as we did in the past with the F-16s and A-10s. For those unfamiliar with the origin of these legendary aircraft, the Air Force did not want either one. They were both designed by rouge design teams that did not believe in the concept of multi-mission aircraft, and after demonstrating amazing performance in their respective roles, they were forced upon the Air Force by a cost conscious Congress.
Doing it with a machine shop requires time, skill, and more importantly a machine shop.
It depends on the firearm that is being made. There were some submachine gun designs from WW2 that were quite trivial to make. That was their point. The famous Thompson submachine gun that many US, British and Commonwealth troops carried was complicated and expensive to manufacture. The British Sten and the US M3 "Grease Gun" were designed as low cost and easy to manufacture alternatives. They had incredibly few simple to manufacture parts.
So that "machine shop" would only need machinery, tools and techniques that were considered simple in 1942.
Just to confirm: you're saying that for your wife's business, Facebook ads are 8 times more effective than Google ads.
Gack! Sorry, I got the ratio reversed. They are eight times less effective. Thanks for catching this.
I've seen something similar regarding ads for an iPhone/iPad app, a sci/biz/hex rpn calculator. Google ads are about 10x more effective than FB ads. The google ads are also about 1/3 to 1/4 the cost.
I imagine patrol cops go where they expect some action may occur (or to stops that offer cheap food/drink for the uniformed). This sounds like a higher tech version of that, basically taking the instincts out of the equation and substituting it with statistics. Perhaps adds more coordination at the central office level too although I'm sure that also already occurs.
Technically a good cop with good instincts is applying statistics. The human brain is built to recognize patterns and to use those patterns to make predictions. Some of this is done at a subconscious level. So its not that we are necessarily introducing statistics, its seems more that we are using a much larger data set to mine patterns from. Still, as you say, a high tech version of what we already do.
Not to burst your bubble but this guy teaches future politicians ...
No, he is a political science professor. The law professors teach the future politicians. The political science professors teach the entry level management trainees for various corporations.
I am not kidding. I once sat in on a presentation named "Careers for History and Political Science Majors". The presenter had a BA in History and was the branch manager at a local bank. The first thing he told the audience was that they were not going to work in history or politics. Many corporations want to see a 4 year degree attached to their management trainees, they don't particularly care what the degree is in.
My Uncle, and cousins run a very successful business with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Advanced math is used in business. I was shocked and pleasantly surprised by the scientific and mathematic techniques used in a New Product Development class, a marketing class, in business school. If business people were more proficient and more frequent users of such approaches the business world would probably be less screwed up.
In 20+ years of software development I have rarely used math beyond the most basic forms of algebra. Using your logic you could probably argue that computer science majors don't need to take much math. However having had the math doors were opened. When someone needed to write the 3D rendering library for a molecular visualization project I was able to step up and do so. When Dow Chemical asked my employer if we could move some legacy code from mainframe to PC I was able to step up and communicate with world class chemists about how their software analyzes a polymer structure. Did these chemists expect me to understand polymer chemistry, no, they just expected me to be scientifically and mathematically literate. We got the contract.
A buddy was a history major in college. In high school we both took the same college prep and AP math and science classes. Seems a waste for the history major huh? Except in the last month, and against all expectations we had back in the day, he has just advanced to candidacy for a PhD in economics and public policy. He specialty, the civilian space industry. He currently advices politicians on how not to screw up this nascent industry. So yes, in a **university** environment history and poly sci majors should be scientifically and mathematically literate too.
The preceding demonstrates why, in a **university** environment, people should be expected to take math and science classes that are not strictly necessary. The point of a **university** is to prepare you for these more advanced situations you never expected.
That said, I have worked with many highly skilled and talented programmers who were not university trained. I would be happy to work with many of them again. A university education is nice but not required.
The Mac mini is $600. It is perfectly fine for iOS development.
So what should you do when Apple is no longer making new versions of Xcode for your version of Mac OS X nor new versions of Mac OS X for a not even four-year-old Mac mini? That's between $150 and $200 a year (amortized over three to four years) to keep your Mac mini current in addition to the $100 a year for a license to run programs that you wrote on a device that you own.
You were misinformed. Various 4+ year old machines with old Intel video chipsets are ineligible for Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion), it is not Mac mini specific. Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion) has not been end-of-lifed. It is still supported and patched. The newly released Xcode 4.4 does not require 10.8, it runs just fine on 10.7. My 2008 MacBook is running Mac OS X 10.7 and Xcode 4.4 works just fine. A Mac mini at work is also running 10.7, has been upgraded to Xcode 4.4, and is working just fine. There is currently no need to upgrade an old Mac running 10.7.
Sorry but it is wrong regarding MBAs, which is all I commented upon. MBAs are not taught "that a manager only manages people. It doesn't matter what those people do. Nor does it matter what the manager knows about the business he/she manages." They are taught quite the opposite. Whether they follow what they are taught is a different matter. Much like computer science majors are taught to write well designed, reliable and maintainable code but often do something else on the job.
By the way, I am not the AC you responded to. I am a different former Apple II developer.
Stores got the 50-60% discount when you were doing things yourself.
The 25% discount was to an individual at an event when you were going things yourself, incentivizing the person to buy direct from you now rather than go to a store later.
In the 4-7.5% royalty scenario, when you were not doing things yourself, the distributor is reaching a national audience that includes mom-and-pop shops and larger retailers that you would not have access to in the doing things yourself scenario.
I never said this was preferable to a pure digital distribution channel where you give 30% to the channel provider. I am perfectly happy to do so. I was just describing what individuals and groups of friends did in the Apple II era.
it comes with 2 gb by default? That's insane. I suppose it's cheaper to get the 2 gb version, and buy your 8 gb from someone who charges 66% less than apple.
Actually 2GB works. At one client we have a 2GB Mac mini as a build system for ad hoc releases and app store submissions. It exists to make sure we have moved all necessary assets (code, art, etc) from our systems to theirs. I've used it on occasion for a couple of hours at a time, iOS and Android development, and it seems fine.
Still I'd recommend popping the extra $50 to go from 2GB to 4GB to be safe.
Seconded, another Apple II / C64 programmer here.
Although I would recommend a Mac mini with a 4GB RAM upgrade ($650) for those who are uncomfortable with the idea of getting a Mac.
If you are nostalgic another post may amuse you: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3011761&cid=40804991
Interesting, how did you distribute your apps back then? Was there an store that distributed your applications and took less than a 30% cut?
Up front costs:
1. You bought a second floppy drive so that you could more easily duplicate a floppy.
2. You had a local print shop print stick-on labels and 8.5x11 heavy paper stock for cover and manual.
3. You bought a case of blank floppies and and a case of zip lock bags.
Manufacturing:
1. You duplicate the floppy and apply the stick-on label.
2. You put a floppy and a page or three of cover art and instructions into a ziplock baggie.
3. Repeat 1-2 as necessary.
Distribution:
1. You load up the car with 50 to 100 baggies.
2. You drive to a mom-and-pop computer store.
3. You do a demo for mom or pop.
4. You offer the product at 50% off retail, mom or pop probably insists on 60% off.
5. Repeat 2-4 as necessary, until you run out of baggies or all the stores are closed.
6a. In the evening you use phone books, newspaper ads, magazine ads, word-of-mouth, etc to locate mom-and-pop stores beyond driving range.
7a. Mail a demo copy to long distance mom-and-pops.
8a. Repeat 6a-7a as necessary.
9a. Check for orders in the mail.
10a. Arrange for UPS pickup on days you are doing development. Drive by UPS drop-off on days you are on the road selling.
OR
6b. In the evening attend local user group get togethers, well those whose copying parties don't include pirated software.
7b. Do a demo/presentation for the group.
8b. Offer to sell directly to attendees at 25% off retail.
9b. Repeat 6b-8b as necessary.
OR
6c. Get a publisher/distributor.
7c. Collect 10-15% royalty on what the store pays. Remember the 50-60% off retail, so maybe you get something more like 5-7.5/4-6% of retail.
I haven't seen any new computers in the Apple store that go for less than $1200...I suppose I could be wrong about that.
The Mac mini is $600. It is perfectly fine for iOS development. But lets go wild and spend $650 to get the RAM to 4G. I used a 2008 era MacBook of similar configuration for a few years. Technically the mini would be better since the CPU and RAM are of more recent designs.
MBAs are taught finance.
Wrong. An MBA program is not about accounting and finance. An MBA program actually is an overview of all the pieces of a company/organization. Accounting and finance is just one piece. To avoid redundancy see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010671&cid=40801865
Agree - but this can be simplified. There's a rule.
Managers are of two types.
There are managers who believe that management itself is a profession that stands outside of any other profession or industry; that is, that a manager only manages people. It doesn't matter what those people do. Nor does it matter what the manager knows about the business he/she manages. A good manager will deliver goodness, regardless.
Then there are managers who believe that they'd best excel at the specifics of the industry they find themselves in. Because one should understand the 'why' of making decisions, outside of the people involved.
The first type are MBAs. The second type are filthy rich.
Funny, but wrong. I'm a somewhat recent MBA grad and we were definitely taught that understanding your product, your market, your industry, the economic forces that effect your industry, etc was critical. About 1/3 of my class were engineers and scientist.
To avoid redundancy see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010671&cid=40801865
I'll buy that familiarity with the technology is a factor, but it's also about the thrill of technology as a motivator. Business types don't have it. Everybody knows what their SOLE motivation in life is ... How can we rake in the bucks and rip off the people?
Few engineers know the reality of business and MBAs - been there, done that, I am guilty - just as few business types understand the reality of engineering and other technical disciplines. When I eventually attended business school I thoroughly enjoyed it for two reasons. (1) Learning new and different things. (2) Laughing at myself, laughing at how ignorant and misinformed I had been about business, marketing, etc. Here's a clue: the professors in business school love Dilbert as much as any geek.
To avoid redundancy here is the reality of MBA degrees: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010671&cid=40801865
The short story: Its just an add-on to your current degree and experience, it gives you an overview of all the pieces of a business/organization. They actually do teach you to do the "right thing", whether you do as you were taught is something else.
An MBA degree program is not what you think. An MBA is not like other Master's Degrees where you become more of an expert in a particular field. An MBA makes you generally knowledgeable of all the parts of an organization, not just the one you are currently experienced in. An MBA is an add-on to whatever degree you already have. An MBA does not make you an accountant, it does not make you a manager, it does not make you an executive. It helps one become a better manager or executive because you now have an understanding of other fields beyond your own, you can understand other people's perspectives a little more.
... but that is not what they were trained to do. It is much like computer science where a person is trained to write well designed, reliable and maintainable code in school and then when they get a job they just slap together crap as fast as they can to generate the illusion of performance rather than create good products.
30% of my MBA class were engineers, they left with the same technical perspective they came in with. However they could now more effectively communicate their perspective with people from other fields and they could more effectively persuade these people because they had some understanding of the perspectives of their respective fields. These are good skills.
That said. In an MBA program you really are taught to do the "right" thing. Manage for the long term, have some flexibility with people (there is no one way of doing things, different people may be more efficient/productive taking different approaches), marketing and new product development is based on careful study of consumer wants and needs and projections are based on careful modeling of the market (I was shocked by the amount of advanced math we used, pleasantly surprised by the scientific and mathematical approach), etc. However an individual person may be taught these things but not put them into practice in the real world. MBAs may manage for the quarterly results, have one size fits all approaches, pull numbers out of the air