I use C# in Visual Studio. C++, yes even C++11, looks like a dinosaur in comparison.
Even if I am working on FreeBSD or Linux, C# is better. Mono is easy to install and the MonoDevelop is already friendlier than any other open source IDE out there.
But both Java and C# make C++11 look slow. The syntactical bloat needed to code the same features in C++ compared to C# and Java is just not acceptable.
It isn't just the language that makes C++11 old. It is the fact that IDEs suck. Visual Studio is so far ahead of all other IDEs that everything else is abysmal. However, VS is not as feature rich for C++ so even C++ on Visual Studio is a pain.
#1. Fix syntax. If I were to fix C++, I would change the compiler to support hundreds of the C#/Java syntax. Sure it is syntactical sugar, but that sugar is what makes those languages awesome. #2. Fix references. Make stupid simple. Check out NuGet and the Java equivalent and implement something. Maybe this is an IDE fix, I don't care. The language is does not stand alone, but the tools around it are important too.
Now for all Langauges, C++, Java, C#, and others. Make the same freaking libraries with the same signatures.
Drop the books. Unless you are going to be tested on them or have to do exercises from the end of a chapter. And if you are going to do that, get a friend in class and share the book.
Books are awesome, but not for Computer Science. There are plenty of online tutorials/videos that are free.
Adoption takes time and is driven by money. Right now a home user for 3D printing is not really going to see money savings by owning a 3D printer.
Some industry will though. My guess . . . First, you are going to see 3D printing take over an industry, like autoparts. Think how much cheaper it is to sell a 3D model than to actually manufacture a part. So your Autozone, NAPA, Checker and other auto parts store will stop being warehouses of parts. Instead, they will have 3D printers.
You need a new alternator. We'll print you one.
The company that makes the 3D model gets a royalty on the part. However, the royalty is far smaller than the cost of storing so many parts.
After this, multiple industries do this. The price goes down on 3D printing and the features improve. More complex parts are printed with every lease.
"Man observed his universe and, lacking any other kind of explanation, invented some Gods that explain his observation."
Until the theory of intelligent design is disproven, as it has yet to be disproven, your statement is a theory. You theorize that humanity made up the idea of God. What evidence do you have to prove your theory? Do you have any?
Now what evidence do we have to disprove your theory. We have a lot. The possibility exists that intelligent design happened. There are thousands of accounts of interaction with superior beings in our past. There are thousands of eye witness accounts for thousands of years that provide evidence for intelligent design. Not to mention DNA is very similar to "software code" and can be reused. Almost as if it is a biological programming language. DNA itself is an example of intelligent design. I could go on showing you evidence after evidence of intelligent design. There's masses of evidence.
Actually, many scientist do doubt those theories, or at least parts of them.
For example, DNA is just as much proof of good code reuse (biological code in this case) by an intelligent being as it is proof of evolution.
Evolution is nearly law in some things, such as species drift. But it is still the "theory" of evolution because it isn't 100% a proven law. Why everyone wants us to except as doctrine something that isn't 100% proven yet, while at the same time attacking religion for the same reason, is just silly.
Also, evolution has yet to prove how life began. It is a limited theory and there is a lot of work to be done on it yet.
As for the big bang theory, there are a lot of possibilities. Everything appears to be expanding from a central point. That is done with math and is very good. However, saying that everything was smashed into a dense object that one moment just exploded is a major reach that has pretty much zero evidence. Hey, it isn't disproven, but let's face it, it is a wild theory with very little to back it up.
It is quite surprising that those outside of the US are so gungho "believing" in hypothesis and theories before they have become proven laws.
Gravity: Hypothesis, Theory, or proven Law? Law It is proven. It has a test. Take any object. Raise it above the ground with nothing but grown underneath. Let it go. It falls to the ground. All objects, regardless of magnetism do this. It is a law. It has a proof.
Big Bang: Hypothesis, Theory, or proven Law? Theory Why is it just a theory? We have very little proof of this. Just a little mathematically calculations based on the expanding universe. I've never met a scientists who fully believes this.
Climate Change being causes by humans: Hypothesis, Theory, or proven Law? Theory It started as a hypothesis. Some evidence exists which allowed it to graduate from hypothesis to theory, but not enough evidences of the past exists to compare it to. Also evidence shows that one volcanoe can do more damage in one eruption that humans have done in hundreds of years, so this one is harder to prove than those scientists studying it admit. Not to mention all the controversial falsification of data that came to light a few years ago. Fudging the numbers to prove human caused global warming is going to increase disbelievers.
The earth being 4.7 billion years old: Hypothesis, Theory, or proven Law? Hypothesis/Educated Guess There is some evidence but it is based on controversial dating techniques that have been proven to be fallible. There is no proof that some of the earth doesn't appear this old because it was floating matter in space for billions of years. Scientists are doing their best trying to determine that though. Also, the rate of decay may have been far greater before the atmosphere or due to any of a million unforeseen reasons. Basically we do some carbon dating and a few other advanced dating techniques and then we've pulled a number out of are butt for this hypothesis.
So it isn't that in the US we don't believe in these scientific hypothesis. It is that we believe when it is a law. We are taught the scientific method year after year and we understand that a bunch of hypothesis make it to theory before finally being proven false.
This is what I did. I got an English degree AND I learned to code. 120 credits for English vs 190 credits for CS.
Learn to code on the side by reading free onlne tutorials and watching free online videos. CS classes in college, especially undergrad courses, are horribly slow paced, and don't teach you much. There is masses of repetition. And it is extremely expensive when the same learning is free on the internet.
So get an English Degree and get a certificate in development on the side. Now you have a degree and you can code.
Now due to your English degree you can communicate and write better.
Not to mention most Tech jobs have Tuition reimbursement.
I got a 5k loan to go to MSCE training. Not a completely useless cert for me as I wasn't paper only. Then I got a job doing technical support for Windows, then technical support for Nortel Networks. I paid off my 5k loan in a few months. And that job had tuition reimbursement. 6 years later, I had a degree, zero debt, and 6 years of intense technical experience and a 60k a year job.
If I had gone to school full-time using loans and not worked, I would have finished school in four years with zero experience, 100k in debt, and no job. At the six year mark, I would have 2 years experience, a 40k job and 80k in debt.
There are two things important: 1. Education. 2. Proof of education
College is just one type of "Proof of Education." Certifications are others. I have seen pleny of proof that in the technical industry, if you get all certifications and work full-time for four years, you will be just as highly revered as those who got a degree.
Remember, Microsoft and other companies give perks to companies with so many engineers that have their certification. So you are actually more valuable financially to a company with certifications than you are with a degree.
Look, we have too many projects in Open Source. We don't need GNOME, KDE, Fluxbox, Blackbox, and dozens of other UIs.
Cooperation, not competition, is what will benefit Open Source projects most.
Think about it. What if all the GNOME and KDE developers and testers had been one on a single desktop? Lets call it OneDesktop. What if all the light-weight desktop makers were working on making OneDesktop have a light-weight install. The OneDesktop is built for addons. Then the bloat becomes well-designed addons.
It isn't just the coding either? One documentation set, one set of tests, one set of training videos.
And integration would become awesome, because there would be one API.
Open Source projects should compete against each other LESS.
Being a developer myself, I believe him completely.
"I missed validating a variable containing a length"
Developers half the time and floundering in the dark, only understanding one small portion of someone else's code. Years were spent developing the whole, and we usually need one change in one piece. When making changes we simple hope the code compiles. Unit Tests help a ton. It increases our understanding and it assures us that we didn't break anything else.
If the change is made and the code compiles and unit tests passed, why would anyone be worried?
This shows that we need more tools that scan code. Can we write a new rule in source code scanners that can detect such a vulnerability and make sure it never happens again?
You can have diverse children without different people. Just take sperm and eggs from other females. Then every child could be completely diverse.
I also don't think that genetic diversity will be as much of a problem as assumed. The chance of birth doubles, which sounds a lot worse than it really is. It goes from 2% to 4%. So 96 of 100 kids instead of 98 of 100 kids will likely be fine.
Also, since there is a great genetic shuffling in each generation (and that means a lot of shuffling in multiple generations), everything will be fine and by the fourth generation, everyone will wonder what the concern of genetic diversity ever was.
Coders code because there is something about it that they love. I am not sure if it is passion/curiosity/interest or what. But when we have a free moment after school or after work or after the kids go to bed, we think of something to code or we work on something we want to code.
I believe that anyone can learn to write code in 6 months. But they can't become a quality Software Developer in that time. They aren't going to become experts in 5 years like those who have passion for it.
Why won't they become experts very fast? Remember the 10,000 hour rule. You are expert when you have put 10,000 hours on something. That is 5 years right?
Wrong! Sure a job gives you 2000 hours a year, but since many coders only code for only part of their job due to meetings, interruptions, etc.. coders usually only get 1200 to 1500 hours of coding time a year at work. So it is going to take between six and nine years for them to become experts.
However, many of us with passion code at night and on weekends. We work longer hours at work. I know people who code for 16 hours straight some days. They are coding more like 2500 to 3000 hours a year. So they reach their 1000 hours in 3-1/3 to 4 years.
The first one is straight forward. You take the water from the ocean, remove the salt and other impurities and pump it into agriculture.
The second one is pretty easy too. California gets a lot of its water from States just to the East. Did you know that there a simple solution that increases water from Utah to California? Pump salt water to the Great Salt Lake. Keep the Great Salt Lake overflowing. You don't have to desalinize the water. You only have to sterilize it. The Great Salt Lake is actually a very good lake for evaporation because it covers a large area and is not extremely deep. Water evaporates, fills the Rocky Mountains with more water, which runs to the rivers and then on to California. This helps Utah, Nevada and CA.
Also, in the event of a flood of the Great Salt Lake (happens like every 20 years), the pipe can reverse and pump water out.
Am I the only one who notices that California borders the Pacific Ocean? Am I the only one who things that California should desalinate the water, and pump from the ocean? California doesn't have water because they just want to steal water from other states at a cheaper cost than it would take to produce their own.
Ok, so desalinization is too expensive?
What if California could increase the water supply without desalinization? If only there was a Great Salt Lake a few states to the east that had a natural evaporation system to desalinate water. This natural evaporation system would increase water that flows from the Rocky Mountains mountains to California. Then California could pump Ocean salt water into such a lake, keeping it full so more water is in the rivers running toward California.
Now, are their problems to solve to make these solutions work? Sure. But they are solvable.
Here is what I would do:
1. Release Zelda and other Nintendo only brands on other platforms, but with characters like Disney Infinity.
2. Make a Zelda movie series. Seriously epic movies, like Lord of the Rings.
Or
1. Convince Microsoft or Sony or some other company (Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Tivo, etc...) to buy you. Microsoft is imagining the XBox being a Video and Game Console. Your whole media center. Someone else who wants that market could snatch up Nintendo.
This is actually going to change the publishing game.
It may take time to roll this out, but soon, novels will have to be uploaded digitally to agents and publishing houses electronically. They will buy this software and let it "proofread" the authors work.
Only if the book has all the qualities of a best seller, will it be read by the agent or publishing house (or one of their lackeys).
Then an online site will rise that allows authors to check their work before they submit it.
My brother built a computer for a guy who just graduated college with a degree in Computer Science. This was back in about 2001. He had dial-up internet and wanted to upgrade to DSL, but he had chosen to get the motherboard without the onboard NIC because it was cheaper. So he needed a network card. I had an extra one, so doing my brother a favor, I took it to him. I handed the NIC to him and he gave me a dear in headlights look and started stammering. I got the pleasure of teaching this Computer Scientist how to install a PCI NIC into his desktop. Such a simple task. Shameful that you can get a degree in computer science without knowing much about computers. I think his degree taught him to write java code and that was pretty much it.
Ironically, this person was an "exceptionally dull weirdo" but was exactly the opposite of someone who should become a software developer.
I know that you always here that speed causes many accidents but what they don't tell you is that most accidents where speed was partially at fault does NOT mean that going over the speed limit actually occurred.
Lets say you are on a freeway and a big SUV/Semi/Whatever is in front of you. You come around a bend and low and behold the traffic is stopped, but it takes you a second longer to see it because of the big SUV in front of you. The speed limit is 65 and you are actually only going 60, you try to break but you impact the vehicle in front of you at about 20 mph. Many freeway accidents are rear ends.
The speed minimum on a freeway is 45 MPH.
The reason speed was a factor in this accident is because cars were actually going below the speed minimum. However, all you will here is that the driver was going to fast. Well, they were going 5 miles per hour under the speed limit.
Now accidents in cities usually occur at intersections. You hear that the driver was going to fast as they entered the intersection, but what you don't hear is that the speed limit was 30 mph and the driver was going 42 mph.
Sorry, but a governor is not going to prevent the speeder from going 42 mph in a 30 mph. Even if, as the article says, it reads the speed limit sign. Well, in the city there is not a speed limit sign everywhere. I can often enter a road and go a mile before seeing a speed limit sign.
So the governor is only going to prevent accidents that occur on freeways by drivers going over the posted freeway speed limit. Well, go do your research and you will find those type of accidents are some of the least common.
So no, governors on cars will probably not reduce hardly accidents.
In fact, driving 80 mph has proven to keep people awake on long freeway drives, so what you are likely to see, at a controlled 60 mph speed, is a lot more drousy drivers falling asleep.
What will happen when the number of accidents by drowsy drivers increase?
I like to drive. But I also like to get things done. A two hour drive to my parents, (4 hours when you add both ways) seems like such a waste of time. There is so much I could do with my time. My kids are usually watching some Disney/Pixar movie that I can't watch. It would be nice to watch it. I usually want to write something (I am both an Author and a Software Developer so by write, I could mean code, blog article, or fiction). Also, I have five classes left in my Masters of Computer Science, so homework during driving time would rock.
Even my ten minute commute to work each day (I know it is short) I could get a lot done.
Slashdot Mirror
Quote: "Cops got better things to do than get killed." --Wang from Big Trouble in Little China
Me too. English major. Now I am a Senior Software Developer. I have my thesis left for my Masters of CS.
I feel that I have the best of both worlds.
I use C# in Visual Studio. C++, yes even C++11, looks like a dinosaur in comparison.
Even if I am working on FreeBSD or Linux, C# is better. Mono is easy to install and the MonoDevelop is already friendlier than any other open source IDE out there.
But both Java and C# make C++11 look slow. The syntactical bloat needed to code the same features in C++ compared to C# and Java is just not acceptable.
It isn't just the language that makes C++11 old. It is the fact that IDEs suck. Visual Studio is so far ahead of all other IDEs that everything else is abysmal. However, VS is not as feature rich for C++ so even C++ on Visual Studio is a pain.
#1. Fix syntax. If I were to fix C++, I would change the compiler to support hundreds of the C#/Java syntax. Sure it is syntactical sugar, but that sugar is what makes those languages awesome.
#2. Fix references. Make stupid simple. Check out NuGet and the Java equivalent and implement something. Maybe this is an IDE fix, I don't care. The language is does not stand alone, but the tools around it are important too.
Now for all Langauges, C++, Java, C#, and others. Make the same freaking libraries with the same signatures.
Drop the books. Unless you are going to be tested on them or have to do exercises from the end of a chapter. And if you are going to do that, get a friend in class and share the book.
Books are awesome, but not for Computer Science. There are plenty of online tutorials/videos that are free.
Adoption takes time and is driven by money. Right now a home user for 3D printing is not really going to see money savings by owning a 3D printer.
Some industry will though. My guess . . . First, you are going to see 3D printing take over an industry, like autoparts. Think how much cheaper it is to sell a 3D model than to actually manufacture a part. So your Autozone, NAPA, Checker and other auto parts store will stop being warehouses of parts. Instead, they will have 3D printers.
You need a new alternator. We'll print you one.
The company that makes the 3D model gets a royalty on the part. However, the royalty is far smaller than the cost of storing so many parts.
After this, multiple industries do this. The price goes down on 3D printing and the features improve. More complex parts are printed with every lease.
"Man observed his universe and, lacking any other kind of explanation, invented some Gods that explain his observation."
Until the theory of intelligent design is disproven, as it has yet to be disproven, your statement is a theory. You theorize that humanity made up the idea of God. What evidence do you have to prove your theory? Do you have any?
Now what evidence do we have to disprove your theory. We have a lot. The possibility exists that intelligent design happened. There are thousands of accounts of interaction with superior beings in our past. There are thousands of eye witness accounts for thousands of years that provide evidence for intelligent design. Not to mention DNA is very similar to "software code" and can be reused. Almost as if it is a biological programming language. DNA itself is an example of intelligent design. I could go on showing you evidence after evidence of intelligent design. There's masses of evidence.
So in essence you ridicule with hypocrisy.
Actually, many scientist do doubt those theories, or at least parts of them.
For example, DNA is just as much proof of good code reuse (biological code in this case) by an intelligent being as it is proof of evolution.
Evolution is nearly law in some things, such as species drift. But it is still the "theory" of evolution because it isn't 100% a proven law. Why everyone wants us to except as doctrine something that isn't 100% proven yet, while at the same time attacking religion for the same reason, is just silly.
Also, evolution has yet to prove how life began. It is a limited theory and there is a lot of work to be done on it yet.
As for the big bang theory, there are a lot of possibilities. Everything appears to be expanding from a central point. That is done with math and is very good. However, saying that everything was smashed into a dense object that one moment just exploded is a major reach that has pretty much zero evidence. Hey, it isn't disproven, but let's face it, it is a wild theory with very little to back it up.
It is quite surprising that those outside of the US are so gungho "believing" in hypothesis and theories before they have become proven laws.
Gravity:
Hypothesis, Theory, or proven Law? Law
It is proven. It has a test. Take any object. Raise it above the ground with nothing but grown underneath. Let it go. It falls to the ground. All objects, regardless of magnetism do this. It is a law. It has a proof.
Big Bang:
Hypothesis, Theory, or proven Law? Theory
Why is it just a theory? We have very little proof of this. Just a little mathematically calculations based on the expanding universe. I've never met a scientists who fully believes this.
Climate Change being causes by humans:
Hypothesis, Theory, or proven Law? Theory
It started as a hypothesis. Some evidence exists which allowed it to graduate from hypothesis to theory, but not enough evidences of the past exists to compare it to. Also evidence shows that one volcanoe can do more damage in one eruption that humans have done in hundreds of years, so this one is harder to prove than those scientists studying it admit. Not to mention all the controversial falsification of data that came to light a few years ago. Fudging the numbers to prove human caused global warming is going to increase disbelievers.
The earth being 4.7 billion years old:
Hypothesis, Theory, or proven Law? Hypothesis/Educated Guess
There is some evidence but it is based on controversial dating techniques that have been proven to be fallible. There is no proof that some of the earth doesn't appear this old because it was floating matter in space for billions of years. Scientists are doing their best trying to determine that though. Also, the rate of decay may have been far greater before the atmosphere or due to any of a million unforeseen reasons. Basically we do some carbon dating and a few other advanced dating techniques and then we've pulled a number out of are butt for this hypothesis.
So it isn't that in the US we don't believe in these scientific hypothesis. It is that we believe when it is a law. We are taught the scientific method year after year and we understand that a bunch of hypothesis make it to theory before finally being proven false.
This is what I did. I got an English degree AND I learned to code. 120 credits for English vs 190 credits for CS.
Learn to code on the side by reading free onlne tutorials and watching free online videos. CS classes in college, especially undergrad courses, are horribly slow paced, and don't teach you much. There is masses of repetition. And it is extremely expensive when the same learning is free on the internet.
So get an English Degree and get a certificate in development on the side. Now you have a degree and you can code.
Now due to your English degree you can communicate and write better.
Not to mention most Tech jobs have Tuition reimbursement.
I got a 5k loan to go to MSCE training. Not a completely useless cert for me as I wasn't paper only. Then I got a job doing technical support for Windows, then technical support for Nortel Networks. I paid off my 5k loan in a few months. And that job had tuition reimbursement. 6 years later, I had a degree, zero debt, and 6 years of intense technical experience and a 60k a year job.
If I had gone to school full-time using loans and not worked, I would have finished school in four years with zero experience, 100k in debt, and no job. At the six year mark, I would have 2 years experience, a 40k job and 80k in debt.
There are two things important:
1. Education.
2. Proof of education
College is just one type of "Proof of Education." Certifications are others. I have seen pleny of proof that in the technical industry, if you get all certifications and work full-time for four years, you will be just as highly revered as those who got a degree.
Remember, Microsoft and other companies give perks to companies with so many engineers that have their certification. So you are actually more valuable financially to a company with certifications than you are with a degree.
Look, we have too many projects in Open Source. We don't need GNOME, KDE, Fluxbox, Blackbox, and dozens of other UIs.
Cooperation, not competition, is what will benefit Open Source projects most.
Think about it. What if all the GNOME and KDE developers and testers had been one on a single desktop? Lets call it OneDesktop. What if all the light-weight desktop makers were working on making OneDesktop have a light-weight install. The OneDesktop is built for addons. Then the bloat becomes well-designed addons.
It isn't just the coding either? One documentation set, one set of tests, one set of training videos.
And integration would become awesome, because there would be one API.
Open Source projects should compete against each other LESS.
Being a developer myself, I believe him completely.
"I missed validating a variable containing a length"
Developers half the time and floundering in the dark, only understanding one small portion of someone else's code. Years were spent developing the whole, and we usually need one change in one piece. When making changes we simple hope the code compiles. Unit Tests help a ton. It increases our understanding and it assures us that we didn't break anything else.
If the change is made and the code compiles and unit tests passed, why would anyone be worried?
This shows that we need more tools that scan code. Can we write a new rule in source code scanners that can detect such a vulnerability and make sure it never happens again?
First off, nothing can be created from nothing.
Oh, by "nothing" you didn't mean "nothing" you meant "quantum fluctuations". Well, that clears things up, except for this:
"Quantum Fluctuations" > "Nothing"
You can have diverse children without different people. Just take sperm and eggs from other females. Then every child could be completely diverse.
I also don't think that genetic diversity will be as much of a problem as assumed. The chance of birth doubles, which sounds a lot worse than it really is. It goes from 2% to 4%. So 96 of 100 kids instead of 98 of 100 kids will likely be fine.
Also, since there is a great genetic shuffling in each generation (and that means a lot of shuffling in multiple generations), everything will be fine and by the fourth generation, everyone will wonder what the concern of genetic diversity ever was.
Coders code because there is something about it that they love. I am not sure if it is passion/curiosity/interest or what. But when we have a free moment after school or after work or after the kids go to bed, we think of something to code or we work on something we want to code.
I believe that anyone can learn to write code in 6 months. But they can't become a quality Software Developer in that time. They aren't going to become experts in 5 years like those who have passion for it.
Why won't they become experts very fast? Remember the 10,000 hour rule. You are expert when you have put 10,000 hours on something. That is 5 years right?
Wrong!
Sure a job gives you 2000 hours a year, but since many coders only code for only part of their job due to meetings, interruptions, etc.. coders usually only get 1200 to 1500 hours of coding time a year at work. So it is going to take between six and nine years for them to become experts.
However, many of us with passion code at night and on weekends. We work longer hours at work. I know people who code for 16 hours straight some days. They are coding more like 2500 to 3000 hours a year. So they reach their 1000 hours in 3-1/3 to 4 years.
I just posted this but I'll post again.
California should do two things:
1. Desalinization
2. Increase water upstream
The first one is straight forward. You take the water from the ocean, remove the salt and other impurities and pump it into agriculture.
The second one is pretty easy too. California gets a lot of its water from States just to the East. Did you know that there a simple solution that increases water from Utah to California? Pump salt water to the Great Salt Lake. Keep the Great Salt Lake overflowing. You don't have to desalinize the water. You only have to sterilize it. The Great Salt Lake is actually a very good lake for evaporation because it covers a large area and is not extremely deep. Water evaporates, fills the Rocky Mountains with more water, which runs to the rivers and then on to California. This helps Utah, Nevada and CA.
Also, in the event of a flood of the Great Salt Lake (happens like every 20 years), the pipe can reverse and pump water out.
Desalinization: solution to near unlimited water
Am I the only one who notices that California borders the Pacific Ocean?
Am I the only one who things that California should desalinate the water, and pump from the ocean?
California doesn't have water because they just want to steal water from other states at a cheaper cost than it would take to produce their own.
Ok, so desalinization is too expensive?
What if California could increase the water supply without desalinization? If only there was a Great Salt Lake a few states to the east that had a natural evaporation system to desalinate water. This natural evaporation system would increase water that flows from the Rocky Mountains mountains to California. Then California could pump Ocean salt water into such a lake, keeping it full so more water is in the rivers running toward California.
Now, are their problems to solve to make these solutions work? Sure. But they are solvable.
If you break the rules you get more scrutinized?
Wow! That isn't far. (Dripping with sarcasm) The world doesn't work that way! I am shocked and appalled.
[sourcode]
If (YouAreACheater()) CheckForMoreEvidenceOfYourCheating();
[/sourcecode]
Move along.
Nothing new to see here and nothing than really violates your rights or privacy.
Here is what I would do: 1. Release Zelda and other Nintendo only brands on other platforms, but with characters like Disney Infinity. 2. Make a Zelda movie series. Seriously epic movies, like Lord of the Rings. Or 1. Convince Microsoft or Sony or some other company (Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Tivo, etc...) to buy you. Microsoft is imagining the XBox being a Video and Game Console. Your whole media center. Someone else who wants that market could snatch up Nintendo.
This is actually going to change the publishing game. It may take time to roll this out, but soon, novels will have to be uploaded digitally to agents and publishing houses electronically. They will buy this software and let it "proofread" the authors work. Only if the book has all the qualities of a best seller, will it be read by the agent or publishing house (or one of their lackeys). Then an online site will rise that allows authors to check their work before they submit it.
My brother built a computer for a guy who just graduated college with a degree in Computer Science. This was back in about 2001. He had dial-up internet and wanted to upgrade to DSL, but he had chosen to get the motherboard without the onboard NIC because it was cheaper. So he needed a network card. I had an extra one, so doing my brother a favor, I took it to him. I handed the NIC to him and he gave me a dear in headlights look and started stammering. I got the pleasure of teaching this Computer Scientist how to install a PCI NIC into his desktop. Such a simple task. Shameful that you can get a degree in computer science without knowing much about computers. I think his degree taught him to write java code and that was pretty much it. Ironically, this person was an "exceptionally dull weirdo" but was exactly the opposite of someone who should become a software developer.
I know that you always here that speed causes many accidents but what they don't tell you is that most accidents where speed was partially at fault does NOT mean that going over the speed limit actually occurred. Lets say you are on a freeway and a big SUV/Semi/Whatever is in front of you. You come around a bend and low and behold the traffic is stopped, but it takes you a second longer to see it because of the big SUV in front of you. The speed limit is 65 and you are actually only going 60, you try to break but you impact the vehicle in front of you at about 20 mph. Many freeway accidents are rear ends. The speed minimum on a freeway is 45 MPH. The reason speed was a factor in this accident is because cars were actually going below the speed minimum. However, all you will here is that the driver was going to fast. Well, they were going 5 miles per hour under the speed limit. Now accidents in cities usually occur at intersections. You hear that the driver was going to fast as they entered the intersection, but what you don't hear is that the speed limit was 30 mph and the driver was going 42 mph. Sorry, but a governor is not going to prevent the speeder from going 42 mph in a 30 mph. Even if, as the article says, it reads the speed limit sign. Well, in the city there is not a speed limit sign everywhere. I can often enter a road and go a mile before seeing a speed limit sign. So the governor is only going to prevent accidents that occur on freeways by drivers going over the posted freeway speed limit. Well, go do your research and you will find those type of accidents are some of the least common. So no, governors on cars will probably not reduce hardly accidents. In fact, driving 80 mph has proven to keep people awake on long freeway drives, so what you are likely to see, at a controlled 60 mph speed, is a lot more drousy drivers falling asleep. What will happen when the number of accidents by drowsy drivers increase?
Anybody read Anthem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella) The society in that book felt light bulbs would take the jobs from the candle workers.
I like to drive. But I also like to get things done. A two hour drive to my parents, (4 hours when you add both ways) seems like such a waste of time. There is so much I could do with my time. My kids are usually watching some Disney/Pixar movie that I can't watch. It would be nice to watch it. I usually want to write something (I am both an Author and a Software Developer so by write, I could mean code, blog article, or fiction). Also, I have five classes left in my Masters of Computer Science, so homework during driving time would rock. Even my ten minute commute to work each day (I know it is short) I could get a lot done.
I do. It is included in Windows 8. It is easy to use.