Anaheim, for example, has an extremely sophisticated system, especially when it comes to monitoring activity and helping first responders deal with things like car accidents, fires and hazardous material incidents.
Thank Disneyland and Major League Baseball. Between these two there must have been a lot of homeland security dollars available for such a system. I guess the US taxpayer deserves some thanks as well.
OK the above is somewhat exaggerated. I used to work in Anaheim and I also recall some effort to run fiber optic all over the place long before 9/11. So there was also a symbiotic modernization effort that supported the above.
Actually, I went to catholic school. Jesuits, to be more precise. Out science lab teacher was a priest (quite an old one, 70+ years old). He used to say:
"It is not the duty of religion to say HOW things happen, but WHO is behind it. Science, on the other hand, will tell you HOW, but now WHO is behind it. I see no conflict whatsoever between the Big Bang and my faith. Between evolution and my faith. When I see Darwin's evolution, I see God's hand behind it."
Its not surprising one catholic priest would accept the Big Bang theory given that the theory was proposed by another catholic priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre
Interestingly some leading scientists of the day dismissed the theory because it came from a priest, it "smelled of creationism".
Hell, it took literally years and a bunch of lawsuits to buy a whitebox PC without Microsoft getting paid for the OS even if you didn't want it and weren't going to use it
That is not true. As far back as 16-bit 286 systems run DOS I recall being able to go to the local clone shop and buy a system without Windows or a "Microsoft tax". And later when Windows came out I was able to buy a system with WIndows or Office. The situation you describe was only true if you were buying a Dell, HP, IBM, or some other major vendor. Alternative independent vendors existed.
The UN would be the best way to protect from any bad government. And you have to admit it.
Really? The same U.N. that chose North Korea to head the U.N. Conference on Disarmament? The same U.N. that chose Gaddafi's Libya to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commission?
All those 'blah.com' addresses would need to choose one or more country codes to occupy... 'blah.com.us' or 'blah.co.uk' or... . This would be an improvement on the current situation
Why? The contrary seems to be true at first glance. If a user fails to enter a country code there needs to be some default. What should that default be? The local country would often be wrong and users now need to know where the company is located.
Then perhaps they've changed how it works, but last time I checked you needed iTunes. Without it you're stuck on the configuration screen.
The GP was speaking from a beta testing perspective, iOS 5 is not out yet. However it is expected very soon. For now we have this on Apple's webiste:
"With iOS 5, you no longer need a computer to own an iPad, iPhone, or iPod touch. Activate and set up your device wirelessly, right out of the box. Download free iOS software updates directly on your device."
Tablets largely complement the traditional PC and laptop. Perhaps they compete against netbooks.
Personally I think the future will more likely offer some sort of convergence between computer and tablet. When on the go and traveling light take the tablet and use it as a touch device. When at the desktop or on the road carrying a full load the tablet is accompanied with a wireless keyboard and mouse and functions more like the CPU and display of a traditional laptop, not a touch device. Alternatively the tablet can be plugged into (wireless ?) an external display and function more like the CPU in a traditional PC setup, again not as a touch device.
And a thesis and accompanying software tend to be written for your advisor(s) and the committee that will review your work (mostly the written thesis). Spending time tailoring software for the public is often considered a waste of time, something to be done after graduation.
How bout the design error of the cargo bay doors on the DC-10? Which Douglas Corp. KNEW about because it failed their own testing, but let it slide anyway and tried to sweep it under the rug. Several crashes and deaths were attributed to this door problem. Of course then they re-designed the door after the deaths.
I think you are misunderstanding. I am *not* saying that problems don't exist in brand new designs. What I am claiming is that such problems are a relatively small percentage of overall fatalities. To not fly on a 787 because it is new seems to have a bit of hysteria about it. Maintenance, pilot training, pilot fatigue, etc seem to be far greater hazards. The possibility of design issues arising is probably outweighed by the more experienced pilots and mechanics being assigned to these new 787s. I'd be more concerned about a US airline that outsources its maintenance of more established aircraft to the lowest bidder outside of the US.
For the record. I'd categorize your example as failed management not failed design. As you say the problem was found during testing.
Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet for a while.
He said nothing of the kind. A sensible reading of his comment is that until there has been at least one failure there is a significant risk that there are undetected problems with the aircraft.
A sensible reading would not include narrowing the scope to such an unrealistic degree that one is talking in a purely theoretical ivory tower manner.
Given the novelty of the design this is not unreasonable at all. I know/. no longer has many actual technical people on it, but any technical person should know that the first million hours of 787 flights have a very high probability of revealing more and more significant issues than the second million hours, and so on. Philosophers and other innumerate people who have no grasp of Bayesian epistemology won't understand this, of course, and so will continue to draw bizarrely unjustified conclusions from otherwise unproblematic statements.
Correction. Slashdot includes technical people of both types, those that never left the office/lab/basement and those who have visited the real world. Those that understand the statistical distribution of various component failures, the inadequacy of hardware and software validation, etc understand that these issues are subordinate to various human failures involved in air travel.
You have done nothing other than dress up the original poster's statement with an academic style facade. Such a facade does little to hide the underlying hysteria. Get back to us when you can apply your mastery of statistics in a comparison of commercial air travel fatalities by cause, showing design errors in comparison to pilot, mechanic, management, etc errors.
No thanks, I will wait for the first crash/accident before I fly on one...
Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet for a while. More aircraft have probably gone down to pilot error, mechanic error, or management (ex lack of proper maintenance) than have gone down to designer error. That said, being a guinea pig for the airlines is safer than being a potential target for an idiot on the highway. Life is full of risks, one has to leave mom's basement sometimes.:-)
"Why did you take a job doing X when you wanted to do Y?" That's a pretty dumb question considering where things are today with the economy. Try to answer it politely.:)
Also do a lot of coding on your spare time. However do not present these projects merely as something to maintain your coding skills. Present these projects as something you did for fun, for your own curiosity, for your own amusement, etc. They do not need to be big or useful projects, just things that your started and *finished*. The real goal is to show that you have an inherent interest in programming. This will set you apart from those who got the CS degree merely because they thought it was a good career path.
This of course assumes that you have an inherent interest in programming. If you did CS merely for the career angle then just make sure the IT job has a potential career path to management. Without the inherent interest you will probably not be that good at programming and that will limit your career path more than having taken that first job in IT.
I couldn't follow the link without a subscription.
I apologize. I don't know how I got in the first time. When I repeat my google search and follow the link I too get the paywall.
But anyways, we are talking about different classes of income. It's meaningless to say "80% of millionares are first-generation" because $1M in 1980 is equivalent to $2.6M now. If you start retirement with $1M in the bank right now and a 3.5% withdrawl rate (which is reasonable), you'll only be taking out $35K/year to live on!
If you are retired then you probably have already paid off a mortgage and have fewer expenses. $35K may not be so bad, especially when augmented by social security.
That said, I get your point. However the regrettably paywalled article also said that about 14% (IIRC) of the self employed are making $500K or more a year. I think the notions that there is no upward mobility and that NBA stars are representative (wrt rarity) of the wealthy are debunked.
I agree with the notion that some hedge fund managers, bankers, CEOs and the like are grossly overpaid. However like the NBA star example they are quite misrepresentative of the wealthy. Again the regrettably paywalled article was pointing out this misrepresentation and offering the boring and normal looking list of what the more representative wealthy are doing. It was literally offering examples of people who started cement factories, feed lots, etc IIRC.
Might I suggest that the portrayal of the wealthy we see on TV and in the movies is no more accurate than the portrayal of computer programmers and hackers.
Their stock didn't go up due to that. In fact it went down more than $100 a share, or16%, from the time google+ launched to that milestone.
Stock price measures many things. Market factors, industry factors and company factors. The first two are beyond Google's control. The phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" is often used to say not to read too much into a rising stock price when everyone else is also going up. The same is true when everyone is going down.
Steve Jobs was a "Computer Guy", and Lee Iaccoca was a "Car Guy."
Folks around here may be more familiar with Steve than Lee. Lee Iacocca wasn't just a car guy, he was one of those behind bringing the Ford Mustang to the market in 1964. Also, like Steve, Lee started out doing technical stuff not marketing.
I have to say, that would be extremely interesting to see what Steve Jobs could do at HP. Even more interesting to see the competition between him at HP and his proteges at Apple.
Another far fetched but slightly more likely scenario would be that Apple buys HP. Business schools teach that there are two ways to grow, organically and through acquisition. Apple could acquire HP to become a major player in the enterprise overnight rather than try to crack open the door with an iPad.
That's the lottery ticket mentality. For some reason people have no problem spotting it among inner-city youths neglecting their schooling in the hopes of becoming an NBA star - yet they're blind to the same syndrome among wanna-be plumbers who are just sure they'll be running a big prosperous business one day and want to slash taxes right now, just in case.
The problem with your argument is that there are far more self employed millionaires. Replace "NBA star" with "doctor" and the flaw should start to become apparent. Upward mobility exists.
"Who is the prototypical American millionaire?... self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants... About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent." http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
Instead of anecdotes, let's look at "Study: CEO pay negatively linked to profitability." That doesn't mean we shouldn't "allow" people to be Steve Jobs, it means we shouldn't let a bunch of overpaid pretenders ride his coat tails.
That is a different topic. However there is a flaw in that study. When a company is failing they often have to pay *more* for a highly qualified individual. Without extra compensation the potential CEO would not take on the extra risk. The study seems to be missing the classic requirement of statistical comparisons: "all other things being equal".
if we're talking about Steve Jobs, you've missed the mark; he's where he is because he's a ruthless narcissist. When you're as driven as he is, you can make anyone accept anything.
You are making a different claim than the GP. The GP claimed there is no upward mobility, clearly false. You are merely describing one path of upward mobility.
Frankly, if I were her, I'd think long and hard before attaching my name to the trainwreck that is HP.
Actually there is minimal risk. HP is currently such a mess that if it fails on her watch many would accept the notion that it was inevitable, that HP was beyond the point of no return. However if she turns it around she may be viewed in a manner "comparable" to Steve Jobs 2.0 at Apple. As an investor may say, there is far more potential upside than there is potential downside.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you mean Texans....
Yes because texans have no interest in hydrogen production and distribution ... oh wait ... http://www.texash2coalition.com/
Now they just need to do that with CO2. Release the O2 and sequester the carbon to make graphite, graphene, and/or diamond.
The artificial leaf epithet would seem to be a better fit for binding up carbon and producing O2.
Anaheim, for example, has an extremely sophisticated system, especially when it comes to monitoring activity and helping first responders deal with things like car accidents, fires and hazardous material incidents.
Thank Disneyland and Major League Baseball. Between these two there must have been a lot of homeland security dollars available for such a system. I guess the US taxpayer deserves some thanks as well.
OK the above is somewhat exaggerated. I used to work in Anaheim and I also recall some effort to run fiber optic all over the place long before 9/11. So there was also a symbiotic modernization effort that supported the above.
Unfortunately there are some specific areas of cosmology and evolution where it seems many religious people are unable to follow scientific methods.
One exception would be the catholic priest that proposed the big bang theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre
Actually, I went to catholic school. Jesuits, to be more precise. Out science lab teacher was a priest (quite an old one, 70+ years old). He used to say:
"It is not the duty of religion to say HOW things happen, but WHO is behind it. Science, on the other hand, will tell you HOW, but now WHO is behind it. I see no conflict whatsoever between the Big Bang and my faith. Between evolution and my faith. When I see Darwin's evolution, I see God's hand behind it."
Its not surprising one catholic priest would accept the Big Bang theory given that the theory was proposed by another catholic priest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre
Interestingly some leading scientists of the day dismissed the theory because it came from a priest, it "smelled of creationism".
It was their turn. Everyone saw the irony.
Wrong. For example Gaddafi's Libya was elected in a secret ballot to the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Hell, it took literally years and a bunch of lawsuits to buy a whitebox PC without Microsoft getting paid for the OS even if you didn't want it and weren't going to use it
That is not true. As far back as 16-bit 286 systems run DOS I recall being able to go to the local clone shop and buy a system without Windows or a "Microsoft tax". And later when Windows came out I was able to buy a system with WIndows or Office. The situation you describe was only true if you were buying a Dell, HP, IBM, or some other major vendor. Alternative independent vendors existed.
The UN would be the best way to protect from any bad government. And you have to admit it.
Really? The same U.N. that chose North Korea to head the U.N. Conference on Disarmament? The same U.N. that chose Gaddafi's Libya to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commission?
All those 'blah.com' addresses would need to choose one or more country codes to occupy... 'blah.com.us' or 'blah.co.uk' or ... . This would be an improvement on the current situation
Why? The contrary seems to be true at first glance. If a user fails to enter a country code there needs to be some default. What should that default be? The local country would often be wrong and users now need to know where the company is located.
Then perhaps they've changed how it works, but last time I checked you needed iTunes. Without it you're stuck on the configuration screen.
The GP was speaking from a beta testing perspective, iOS 5 is not out yet. However it is expected very soon. For now we have this on Apple's webiste:
"With iOS 5, you no longer need a computer to own an iPad, iPhone, or iPod touch. Activate and set up your device wirelessly, right out of the box. Download free iOS software updates directly on your device."
Tablets largely complement the traditional PC and laptop. Perhaps they compete against netbooks.
Personally I think the future will more likely offer some sort of convergence between computer and tablet. When on the go and traveling light take the tablet and use it as a touch device. When at the desktop or on the road carrying a full load the tablet is accompanied with a wireless keyboard and mouse and functions more like the CPU and display of a traditional laptop, not a touch device. Alternatively the tablet can be plugged into (wireless ?) an external display and function more like the CPU in a traditional PC setup, again not as a touch device.
And a thesis and accompanying software tend to be written for your advisor(s) and the committee that will review your work (mostly the written thesis). Spending time tailoring software for the public is often considered a waste of time, something to be done after graduation.
How bout the design error of the cargo bay doors on the DC-10? Which Douglas Corp. KNEW about because it failed their own testing, but let it slide anyway and tried to sweep it under the rug. Several crashes and deaths were attributed to this door problem. Of course then they re-designed the door after the deaths.
I think you are misunderstanding. I am *not* saying that problems don't exist in brand new designs. What I am claiming is that such problems are a relatively small percentage of overall fatalities. To not fly on a 787 because it is new seems to have a bit of hysteria about it. Maintenance, pilot training, pilot fatigue, etc seem to be far greater hazards. The possibility of design issues arising is probably outweighed by the more experienced pilots and mechanics being assigned to these new 787s. I'd be more concerned about a US airline that outsources its maintenance of more established aircraft to the lowest bidder outside of the US.
For the record. I'd categorize your example as failed management not failed design. As you say the problem was found during testing.
Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet for a while.
He said nothing of the kind. A sensible reading of his comment is that until there has been at least one failure there is a significant risk that there are undetected problems with the aircraft.
A sensible reading would not include narrowing the scope to such an unrealistic degree that one is talking in a purely theoretical ivory tower manner.
Given the novelty of the design this is not unreasonable at all. I know /. no longer has many actual technical people on it, but any technical person should know that the first million hours of 787 flights have a very high probability of revealing more and more significant issues than the second million hours, and so on. Philosophers and other innumerate people who have no grasp of Bayesian epistemology won't understand this, of course, and so will continue to draw bizarrely unjustified conclusions from otherwise unproblematic statements.
Correction. Slashdot includes technical people of both types, those that never left the office/lab/basement and those who have visited the real world. Those that understand the statistical distribution of various component failures, the inadequacy of hardware and software validation, etc understand that these issues are subordinate to various human failures involved in air travel.
You have done nothing other than dress up the original poster's statement with an academic style facade. Such a facade does little to hide the underlying hysteria. Get back to us when you can apply your mastery of statistics in a comparison of commercial air travel fatalities by cause, showing design errors in comparison to pilot, mechanic, management, etc errors.
No thanks, I will wait for the first crash/accident before I fly on one...
Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet for a while. More aircraft have probably gone down to pilot error, mechanic error, or management (ex lack of proper maintenance) than have gone down to designer error. That said, being a guinea pig for the airlines is safer than being a potential target for an idiot on the highway. Life is full of risks, one has to leave mom's basement sometimes. :-)
"Why did you take a job doing X when you wanted to do Y?" That's a pretty dumb question considering where things are today with the economy. Try to answer it politely. :)
Also do a lot of coding on your spare time. However do not present these projects merely as something to maintain your coding skills. Present these projects as something you did for fun, for your own curiosity, for your own amusement, etc. They do not need to be big or useful projects, just things that your started and *finished*. The real goal is to show that you have an inherent interest in programming. This will set you apart from those who got the CS degree merely because they thought it was a good career path.
This of course assumes that you have an inherent interest in programming. If you did CS merely for the career angle then just make sure the IT job has a potential career path to management. Without the inherent interest you will probably not be that good at programming and that will limit your career path more than having taken that first job in IT.
Or perhaps we could sell things to asia. If the containers going from the US to asia were not empty then there would be no need for them to fold.
I couldn't follow the link without a subscription.
I apologize. I don't know how I got in the first time. When I repeat my google search and follow the link I too get the paywall.
But anyways, we are talking about different classes of income. It's meaningless to say "80% of millionares are first-generation" because $1M in 1980 is equivalent to $2.6M now. If you start retirement with $1M in the bank right now and a 3.5% withdrawl rate (which is reasonable), you'll only be taking out $35K/year to live on!
If you are retired then you probably have already paid off a mortgage and have fewer expenses. $35K may not be so bad, especially when augmented by social security.
That said, I get your point. However the regrettably paywalled article also said that about 14% (IIRC) of the self employed are making $500K or more a year. I think the notions that there is no upward mobility and that NBA stars are representative (wrt rarity) of the wealthy are debunked.
I agree with the notion that some hedge fund managers, bankers, CEOs and the like are grossly overpaid. However like the NBA star example they are quite misrepresentative of the wealthy. Again the regrettably paywalled article was pointing out this misrepresentation and offering the boring and normal looking list of what the more representative wealthy are doing. It was literally offering examples of people who started cement factories, feed lots, etc IIRC.
Might I suggest that the portrayal of the wealthy we see on TV and in the movies is no more accurate than the portrayal of computer programmers and hackers.
Their stock didn't go up due to that. In fact it went down more than $100 a share, or16%, from the time google+ launched to that milestone.
Stock price measures many things. Market factors, industry factors and company factors. The first two are beyond Google's control. The phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" is often used to say not to read too much into a rising stock price when everyone else is also going up. The same is true when everyone is going down.
Steve Jobs was a "Computer Guy", and Lee Iaccoca was a "Car Guy."
Folks around here may be more familiar with Steve than Lee. Lee Iacocca wasn't just a car guy, he was one of those behind bringing the Ford Mustang to the market in 1964. Also, like Steve, Lee started out doing technical stuff not marketing.
I have to say, that would be extremely interesting to see what Steve Jobs could do at HP. Even more interesting to see the competition between him at HP and his proteges at Apple.
Another far fetched but slightly more likely scenario would be that Apple buys HP. Business schools teach that there are two ways to grow, organically and through acquisition. Apple could acquire HP to become a major player in the enterprise overnight rather than try to crack open the door with an iPad.
That's the lottery ticket mentality. For some reason people have no problem spotting it among inner-city youths neglecting their schooling in the hopes of becoming an NBA star - yet they're blind to the same syndrome among wanna-be plumbers who are just sure they'll be running a big prosperous business one day and want to slash taxes right now, just in case.
The problem with your argument is that there are far more self employed millionaires. Replace "NBA star" with "doctor" and the flaw should start to become apparent. Upward mobility exists.
... self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants ... About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent."
"Who is the prototypical American millionaire?
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
Instead of anecdotes, let's look at "Study: CEO pay negatively linked to profitability." That doesn't mean we shouldn't "allow" people to be Steve Jobs, it means we shouldn't let a bunch of overpaid pretenders ride his coat tails.
That is a different topic. However there is a flaw in that study. When a company is failing they often have to pay *more* for a highly qualified individual. Without extra compensation the potential CEO would not take on the extra risk. The study seems to be missing the classic requirement of statistical comparisons: "all other things being equal".
if we're talking about Steve Jobs, you've missed the mark; he's where he is because he's a ruthless narcissist. When you're as driven as he is, you can make anyone accept anything.
You are making a different claim than the GP. The GP claimed there is no upward mobility, clearly false. You are merely describing one path of upward mobility.
Golden parachutes are dependent upon proper behavior.
Frankly, if I were her, I'd think long and hard before attaching my name to the trainwreck that is HP.
Actually there is minimal risk. HP is currently such a mess that if it fails on her watch many would accept the notion that it was inevitable, that HP was beyond the point of no return. However if she turns it around she may be viewed in a manner "comparable" to Steve Jobs 2.0 at Apple. As an investor may say, there is far more potential upside than there is potential downside.