The irony is that QBasic is structured, but nobody seemed to know how to use it. I had that problem -- I was so used to GOTO that the concept of functions seemed strange.
I started out on BASIC, moving to BASICA when my dad bought a new computer.
My first introduction was a fiction book (I wish I still had it) that told a time traveling story. At key points in the adventure, the main character had to solve some problem by writing a program... and the source was included in the text. I would type the program in and run it. Some were games that could be played, others were simulations. All could be modified to play with and understand programming concepts.
And yes, the bad guy is caught in the end: he journeyed to colonial America, but was caught because he had pristine-white teeth (no cavities or fillings) even though he had an intense sweet tooth.
I also progressed to QBasic, which got rid of line numbers (finally!!!) and added functions (although I never really learned how to use them). At the time I was introduced to C by my uncle. I never understood it at the time, mostly because the things that I needed to do were so much harder to do right: input from the user and graphics on the screen. But over time I realized the power that other languages had over BASIC because of how, well, basic it really is.
So that's the lesson: BASIC is fine as a toy, but real programmers will have to move on from it at some point.
And in the case of NewEgg, it's just somebody in the warehouse filling boxes. As long as it looks like the real thing when sitting next to it, it'll get shipped to the customer.
In fact, I bet there would have to be several significant differences before anybody would pause to make sure they're packaging a genuine product.
Chip manufacturers will often give away defective chips as demos to those thinking of using them in circuit boards. Non-functional demo chips are used in the design phase as the boards are laid out and the first parts are placed.
Imagining wasting a working chip just to find out if you're soldering things on correctly.
Partially-functional chips (might work but still failed testing for obscure reasons) are also used as demos for building prototype boards.
There are two differences between Windows/iPhone and the Linux model that need to be considered:
1) Linux is not a monopoly on its platform(s): there are several distros each trying to get marketshare 2) You can install software outside the repository (disclaimer: may not apply equally to all distros)
You're right that there's a level of trust, and that trust for Microsoft is quite lacking among slashdot readers. But the average Joe would welcome such a change! Less spyware/adware! Easier updates! Better security! Easier to install!
Microsoft would have to be careful: how do you balance restricting the applications in the store (to maintain quality) while being open enough to avoid antitrust issues? Apple, not needing to worry as much about antitrust, wields the banning button like a hand grenade instead of a scalpel. Microsoft my try some sort of certification process, but I have my doubts about that, too.
But why does it have to be Microsoft to begin with? A trusted third party could put together the package list and installer, Microsoft just supplies an integrated mechanism. This might side a little more on "open" (a odd word to apply to Microsoft) than would be ideal, but it's certainly better than what we have today.
And don't forget that you miss out on a ton of research data by using unapproved procedures instead of going through a proper research study.
If the patients from the article get cancer (or other complications), it would be a shame for the rest of us if not enough data was collected beforehand to identify risk factors, etc.
The problem with choice is information and education.
I, for one, and glad that the FDA exists to protect me, because I know absolutely nothing about medicine. I wouldn't have guessed on my own that this treatment might cause cancer, for example.
Now, I'm not saying the FDA is perfect by any means. But given the number of people that use worthless natural/homeopathic/eastern/etc remedies, I foresee a future with rampant disregard for proper medical science were we to simply throw out the FDA.
With proper disclosure, I suppose most any treatment should probably be allowed. But who do you trust more: the government (run by politics and bureaucracy) or companies (run by greed and greenbacks)?
The relationship is still slightly different. When downloading FOSS software, I rarely have to agree to any licensing agreement. When modifying the source code, however, I do (even if it's only implicitly). The relationship, therefore, is with developers and distributors, not the users.
The result is that FOSS can't be used to restrict how I use hardware, and that's a very important difference.
However, none of this diminishes your original point (that most of the time, hardware is sold while software is licensed), only your aside that this applies to Linux itself.
In this case the FOIA conflicts with another agreement. IANAL, but it seems like the FOIA "wins"... but Apple might still pull the app anyway, just out of spite.
In the asymptotic sense, you're right. However, all current lighting technology currently produces heat in some quantity. But the decrease in waste heat is exactly where CFLs and LEDs get their benefit.
So the goal, obviously, is to produce as much light as possible with as little heat as possible.
A typical CFL (such as the ones I installed) use about 13W and generate about as much light as a 60W bulb. Although I've never used them, I've seen 8W LED bulbs -- a significant power savings if true.
But heat is still a problem. In fact, high-power (8W is high in relative terms) LED bulbs are being produced with heat sinks and liquid cooling.
But Watts isn't where the story ends. The power factor of a incandescent bulb is pretty much ideal: we'll call it 1.0 for simplicity. That's because it's resistive: no capacitance or inductance. Poor power factors can be corrected to some extent, but there are significant issues even then.
CFLs have a power factor of about.5, which quadruples the power losses in distribution! LED lamps currently have similar power factors, but manufacturers haven't been working on this problem as much yet: expect the power factor of LED lamps to improve significantly with time.
That brings me to another minor point: many of the advantages I cited (oh, and I forgot the lack of flicker!) are still conceptual... we're just now starting to produce 60W-equivalent LEDs at all: the industry will work on the other aspects over time.
LEDs will likely have significant power savings and longer bulb life once the technology progresses. Don't expect to see the same sort of improvement as the jump to CFLs gave, but the long-term prospects are very promising.
But even if CFLs and LEDs were equivalent in those terms, there are other factors to consider. LEDs boast a much better power factor (the power companies love that, especially given the increase in electronics which have poor power factor characteristics). This won't directly reduce the power consumption of the user, but does equate to less waste overall.
To the consumer, however, an LED bulb has many other advantages over a CFL: no warm-up time, works in the cold, potentially good color, can use dimmer circuits, no mercury... in short, LEDs fix most of the problems that prevent adoption of CFLs.
But the technology just isn't there yet: the color is still off and efficiency is hard to achieve (it's a thermal problem: small bulbs are easy to make efficient because they don't produce much light, but scale it up to a 60W equivalent and heat starts to kill the efficiency).
... as its value in fertiliser, plastics and other materials FAR outweighs its value as an energy source.
Gas and other fossil fuels are by far the most versatile and useful resources ever discovered. But unlike a lot of natural resources, we destroy most of that utility by using it: there's no such thing as recycling natural gas.
In economic terms, we'd say that the opportunity cost of using natural gas is quite high, regardless of how you decide to use it. In fact, natural gas makes a very effective energy source (which is why we use it for cooking and heating). By using it for other, equally useful applications (you named fertilizer and plastics, a good start), we've lost the opportunity for producing heat.
This is why its so important to find replacements: once other sources make more sense, the opportunity costs shift. Energy is the current focus, and that makes sense: we should be able to make other energy sources that work just as well but without the many negative consequences of using natural gas.
Once other sources can replace it for energy, I agree: its value as an energy source will decrease and will be easily outweighed by other uses. We're getting there bit by bit, but I don't think that's happened quite yet. Until then, natural gas does have significant value in the energy markets.
Although I can't speak for such high-end chips, I did work for a small company that does the assembly for smaller parts. It's not all that common in the USA because of higher labor costs. I think the lithography was done overseas for us.
For the parts we assembled, most of it was highly automated (I'd like to see someone do wire bonding by hand! Ha!), but several processes still needed to be done part-by-part. I always thought that because we were a smaller operation the amount of manual work was higher than with larger-scale operations. But I could be wrong.
Electronic books are probably one of the iPad's killer apps. Maybe not the ones we'll see immediately -- the ones basically just ported from the Kindle or something -- but the next generation of books, or the ones after that. Interacting with the book is where the technology will really shine. Think about A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer (from The Diamond Age).
Books as a killer app? I don't think that'll be quite enough. Remember that the killer app for the iPod was not the music, but the store to access that music at a reasonable price.
Likewise, the killer app for the iPad has to be much more than just the books, no matter how you dress them up.
Unfortunately for Apple, electronic book stores already exist. And they haven't shown too much promise (yet?). There's no need for an equivalent to iTunes, either (organizing a bookshelf isn't nearly as difficult as a music library).
So, what else can be offered by the iPad? Color? Not good enough.
So, like you said, maybe interactive books: a touch screen opens some opportunities there. But even here I'm skeptical: interactive content is one of the most difficult products to make well. And it's not the sort of thing that Apple can control.
Textbooks, however, might be the key. Here is where an eReader can provide many advantages, even without providing anything more than a basic book. Searching and note-taking, to name a few... and so, so much more portable. Even at a lower price the publisher makes more money. If it's done right, every student will have one. I would have bought one, for sure (and that's saying something!).
The key, though, is the target demographic. Remember that, at least to general perception, Apple targets the young and hip (or at least those that want to appear young and hip). Literature (in general) has the perception of appealing to the old and intellectual.
Even then, I don't think we've seen what the killer app could be for the iPad or any other eReader. Maybe that's why there's so many skeptics of the lastest Apple product -- and maybe they have a point this time.
There's a relationship between slashdot and xkcd: there is a subset of his comics that touch heavily on what slashdot readers love and care about.
I wouldn't even necessarily say that those comics are very good (I'm not impressed with the posted comic #538, for example) -- but there's just enough humor and overlap that the same ones get posted repeatedly.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony is that QBasic is structured, but nobody seemed to know how to use it. I had that problem -- I was so used to GOTO that the concept of functions seemed strange.
I got over that problem as soon as I learned C.
My experience exactly.
I started out on BASIC, moving to BASICA when my dad bought a new computer.
My first introduction was a fiction book (I wish I still had it) that told a time traveling story. At key points in the adventure, the main character had to solve some problem by writing a program ... and the source was included in the text. I would type the program in and run it. Some were games that could be played, others were simulations. All could be modified to play with and understand programming concepts.
And yes, the bad guy is caught in the end: he journeyed to colonial America, but was caught because he had pristine-white teeth (no cavities or fillings) even though he had an intense sweet tooth.
I also progressed to QBasic, which got rid of line numbers (finally!!!) and added functions (although I never really learned how to use them). At the time I was introduced to C by my uncle. I never understood it at the time, mostly because the things that I needed to do were so much harder to do right: input from the user and graphics on the screen. But over time I realized the power that other languages had over BASIC because of how, well, basic it really is.
So that's the lesson: BASIC is fine as a toy, but real programmers will have to move on from it at some point.
But then, isn't the nerd just serving as a trusted software repository for the non-nerd friend?
download.com can be seen that way as well, with its ratings as a form of "trust-o-meter".
Surely we can do better!
And in the case of NewEgg, it's just somebody in the warehouse filling boxes. As long as it looks like the real thing when sitting next to it, it'll get shipped to the customer.
In fact, I bet there would have to be several significant differences before anybody would pause to make sure they're packaging a genuine product.
Depends on the demo.
Chip manufacturers will often give away defective chips as demos to those thinking of using them in circuit boards. Non-functional demo chips are used in the design phase as the boards are laid out and the first parts are placed.
Imagining wasting a working chip just to find out if you're soldering things on correctly.
Partially-functional chips (might work but still failed testing for obscure reasons) are also used as demos for building prototype boards.
Neither case applies for NewEgg, however.
There are two differences between Windows/iPhone and the Linux model that need to be considered:
1) Linux is not a monopoly on its platform(s): there are several distros each trying to get marketshare
2) You can install software outside the repository (disclaimer: may not apply equally to all distros)
You're right that there's a level of trust, and that trust for Microsoft is quite lacking among slashdot readers. But the average Joe would welcome such a change! Less spyware/adware! Easier updates! Better security! Easier to install!
Microsoft would have to be careful: how do you balance restricting the applications in the store (to maintain quality) while being open enough to avoid antitrust issues? Apple, not needing to worry as much about antitrust, wields the banning button like a hand grenade instead of a scalpel. Microsoft my try some sort of certification process, but I have my doubts about that, too.
But why does it have to be Microsoft to begin with? A trusted third party could put together the package list and installer, Microsoft just supplies an integrated mechanism. This might side a little more on "open" (a odd word to apply to Microsoft) than would be ideal, but it's certainly better than what we have today.
If you've never heard of an application, assume that it's untrusted malware.
Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories, but the concept hasn't panned out for Windows yet.
And don't forget that you miss out on a ton of research data by using unapproved procedures instead of going through a proper research study.
If the patients from the article get cancer (or other complications), it would be a shame for the rest of us if not enough data was collected beforehand to identify risk factors, etc.
The problem with choice is information and education.
I, for one, and glad that the FDA exists to protect me, because I know absolutely nothing about medicine. I wouldn't have guessed on my own that this treatment might cause cancer, for example.
Now, I'm not saying the FDA is perfect by any means. But given the number of people that use worthless natural/homeopathic/eastern/etc remedies, I foresee a future with rampant disregard for proper medical science were we to simply throw out the FDA.
With proper disclosure, I suppose most any treatment should probably be allowed. But who do you trust more: the government (run by politics and bureaucracy) or companies (run by greed and greenbacks)?
The relationship is still slightly different. When downloading FOSS software, I rarely have to agree to any licensing agreement. When modifying the source code, however, I do (even if it's only implicitly). The relationship, therefore, is with developers and distributors, not the users.
The result is that FOSS can't be used to restrict how I use hardware, and that's a very important difference.
However, none of this diminishes your original point (that most of the time, hardware is sold while software is licensed), only your aside that this applies to Linux itself.
Maybe I'm just naive ... but I do find it quite shocking that the agreement was secret, and yet there's nothing inside that can justify it.
I can understand most NDAs and the need for company-confidential information, but secrecy just for the sake of secrecy is absurd.
But does Apple care about that nitpick?
In this case the FOIA conflicts with another agreement. IANAL, but it seems like the FOIA "wins" ... but Apple might still pull the app anyway, just out of spite.
The next test is to annoy 4chan & Anonymous
In the asymptotic sense, you're right. However, all current lighting technology currently produces heat in some quantity. But the decrease in waste heat is exactly where CFLs and LEDs get their benefit.
So the goal, obviously, is to produce as much light as possible with as little heat as possible.
A typical CFL (such as the ones I installed) use about 13W and generate about as much light as a 60W bulb. Although I've never used them, I've seen 8W LED bulbs -- a significant power savings if true.
But heat is still a problem. In fact, high-power (8W is high in relative terms) LED bulbs are being produced with heat sinks and liquid cooling.
But Watts isn't where the story ends. The power factor of a incandescent bulb is pretty much ideal: we'll call it 1.0 for simplicity. That's because it's resistive: no capacitance or inductance. Poor power factors can be corrected to some extent, but there are significant issues even then.
CFLs have a power factor of about .5, which quadruples the power losses in distribution! LED lamps currently have similar power factors, but manufacturers haven't been working on this problem as much yet: expect the power factor of LED lamps to improve significantly with time.
That brings me to another minor point: many of the advantages I cited (oh, and I forgot the lack of flicker!) are still conceptual ... we're just now starting to produce 60W-equivalent LEDs at all: the industry will work on the other aspects over time.
LEDs will likely have significant power savings and longer bulb life once the technology progresses. Don't expect to see the same sort of improvement as the jump to CFLs gave, but the long-term prospects are very promising.
But even if CFLs and LEDs were equivalent in those terms, there are other factors to consider. LEDs boast a much better power factor (the power companies love that, especially given the increase in electronics which have poor power factor characteristics). This won't directly reduce the power consumption of the user, but does equate to less waste overall.
To the consumer, however, an LED bulb has many other advantages over a CFL: no warm-up time, works in the cold, potentially good color, can use dimmer circuits, no mercury ... in short, LEDs fix most of the problems that prevent adoption of CFLs.
But the technology just isn't there yet: the color is still off and efficiency is hard to achieve (it's a thermal problem: small bulbs are easy to make efficient because they don't produce much light, but scale it up to a 60W equivalent and heat starts to kill the efficiency).
... as its value in fertiliser, plastics and other materials FAR outweighs its value as an energy source.
Gas and other fossil fuels are by far the most versatile and useful resources ever discovered. But unlike a lot of natural resources, we destroy most of that utility by using it: there's no such thing as recycling natural gas.
In economic terms, we'd say that the opportunity cost of using natural gas is quite high, regardless of how you decide to use it. In fact, natural gas makes a very effective energy source (which is why we use it for cooking and heating). By using it for other, equally useful applications (you named fertilizer and plastics, a good start), we've lost the opportunity for producing heat.
This is why its so important to find replacements: once other sources make more sense, the opportunity costs shift. Energy is the current focus, and that makes sense: we should be able to make other energy sources that work just as well but without the many negative consequences of using natural gas.
Once other sources can replace it for energy, I agree: its value as an energy source will decrease and will be easily outweighed by other uses. We're getting there bit by bit, but I don't think that's happened quite yet. Until then, natural gas does have significant value in the energy markets.
It used to be that fossil fuel production was subsidized because encouraging development would improve the local economy.
Now we won't remove the subsidies because the producers will leave and favor other locations, hurting the local economy.
At least, that's what the ads say on TV whenever the issue comes around. True or not, it's a vicious cycle.
I see that "take only pictures, leave only footprints" has now changed to "take only dumps, leave only your signature as yellow snow."
So much for the pack getting lighter each day.
You pay peanuts, you get monkey's.
Or, as the summary says ... you pay peanuts, you get the elephant in the room.
Although I can't speak for such high-end chips, I did work for a small company that does the assembly for smaller parts. It's not all that common in the USA because of higher labor costs. I think the lithography was done overseas for us.
For the parts we assembled, most of it was highly automated (I'd like to see someone do wire bonding by hand! Ha!), but several processes still needed to be done part-by-part. I always thought that because we were a smaller operation the amount of manual work was higher than with larger-scale operations. But I could be wrong.
But it stinks for people like me who are equidistant from each.
Please wait while I refresh my tracking page ...
Electronic books are probably one of the iPad's killer apps. Maybe not the ones we'll see immediately -- the ones basically just ported from the Kindle or something -- but the next generation of books, or the ones after that. Interacting with the book is where the technology will really shine. Think about A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer (from The Diamond Age).
Books as a killer app? I don't think that'll be quite enough. Remember that the killer app for the iPod was not the music, but the store to access that music at a reasonable price.
Likewise, the killer app for the iPad has to be much more than just the books, no matter how you dress them up.
Unfortunately for Apple, electronic book stores already exist. And they haven't shown too much promise (yet?). There's no need for an equivalent to iTunes, either (organizing a bookshelf isn't nearly as difficult as a music library).
So, what else can be offered by the iPad? Color? Not good enough.
So, like you said, maybe interactive books: a touch screen opens some opportunities there. But even here I'm skeptical: interactive content is one of the most difficult products to make well. And it's not the sort of thing that Apple can control.
Textbooks, however, might be the key. Here is where an eReader can provide many advantages, even without providing anything more than a basic book. Searching and note-taking, to name a few ... and so, so much more portable. Even at a lower price the publisher makes more money. If it's done right, every student will have one. I would have bought one, for sure (and that's saying something!).
The key, though, is the target demographic. Remember that, at least to general perception, Apple targets the young and hip (or at least those that want to appear young and hip). Literature (in general) has the perception of appealing to the old and intellectual.
Even then, I don't think we've seen what the killer app could be for the iPad or any other eReader. Maybe that's why there's so many skeptics of the lastest Apple product -- and maybe they have a point this time.
I lol'd at the post ... and then I lol'd at your very appropriate sig. Thanks.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."
(p.s. Who originally said this, anyway?)
There's a relationship between slashdot and xkcd: there is a subset of his comics that touch heavily on what slashdot readers love and care about.
I wouldn't even necessarily say that those comics are very good (I'm not impressed with the posted comic #538, for example) -- but there's just enough humor and overlap that the same ones get posted repeatedly.