OK, you get no headaches. I do. Just realize your experience may not be typical (in my company, you buy a new computer, the IT department *will* image it with Office, its part of our default loadout and you don't get an option about whether you want the license or not). It isn't quite compatible enough for our engineering group, who generally have more important things to do than go through a file making sure everything lines up nicely after a conversion (my main complaint is that it screws up formatting royally).
Office viruses really a big problem? I've never known anyone who got one. Of course, our company also pays for a license for NAV for every machine that talks to the corporate network (this includes my home machine when I VPN in - they know its better to pay the 30 bucks or whatever the extra license runs them than to worry about viruses).
Most places, it isn't a case of "purchase another license", its a case of "the license was already bought".
I can't interchange documents. We use lots of tables, and presentations, areas where compatibility is very, very weak. Thus, I can't interchange when I use OO.o, which makes no one happy, including me.
And really, Office isn't worse than OO.o, so what have you gained? You've traded a couple additional headaches for a license. It isn't worth it for most people.
My parade comes from the real world, where people aren't willing to mess around. I've seen problems between versions of Office, I've seen problems between OpenOffice and Office versions, and the OO.o problems are *usually* worse.
I tried using OO.o at my job; it worked okay for some things, but screwed up often enough I just gave up and went back to Office.
Export as PDF is worthless if the recipient needs to be able to edit it. Nice try, though.
Nonetheless, it annoys the fuck out of me that I have to highlight the text of the chat to read it. Whatever you may think of their parent companies, some of their sports journalism is good, and I do like to read it with minimal extra effort.
And again - Firefox is the one that fails to render it. This may be because the site is at fault, but really, no one except web geeks cares - everyone else just wants it to look right.
The answer is, your dad will kill you when OpenOffice produces a "Word-compatible" file that renders badly at a client's site, because it isn't actually all that compatible.
No one needs MS Office if all they do is internal, but the second you talk to the outside world, you're gonna need to get you some Word.
Apple is a UNIX developer, but that has very little to do with arguing about whether Linux's UI is miserable.
A) OS X ain't Linux. B) Apple's UI is *not* open source - Aqua and related technologies (like, for example, Expose) are not available to be studied and to have their code copied.
As to the consistency thing - the point was that almost all Windows apps, and basically all OS X apps use the same UI and widgets and whatnot. Don't even try to claim the same to be true for Linux; it isn't. It isn't even close. And UI isn't just about widgets, either - Mandrake's themeing may do well for making the 'close window' icon the same, but can it fix things like how to handle hotkeys or button placement or any of the other things that MS and Apple set down in writing as to "This is the one true way"? Of course not.
By the way, you should really re-read your last sentence; it seems to apply to you equally well.
Appeals. Not all judges are owned by DSC/Alcatel, assuming this one is, and *dated* *notarized* lab notes aren't the sort of thing a judge can ignore if he doesn't want to risk censure.
Let me put it this way - a judge ignoring evidence of that variety would be pretty much finished as a judge.
Clean power supply in an environment with gigahertz switching is a hilariously funny joke, especially when you move off a lab supply (which the Sun guys were almost certainly using) and into the real world with real power supplies.
Also, there are EMI issues with the specific arrangement you mentioned (side by side pads) relating to something called inductive loops. The skin effect would basically say that all of your highfrequency currents would return along the edges of your big pads, leaving a big loop area which in turn leads to high inductance and large amounts of electromagnetic interference. Better design practice is to have small power pads, where each seperate section of the chip has its input and output placed physically close together in order to minimize loop area.
No, there isn't. The official terminology acknowledges attempts as tries, as does the English language. Do you think trying to launch starts when they hit "Go" on the main motors? It starts a lot earlier than that; launch procedure usually starts with fueling (for liquid-fueled motors). Solid rockets have much shorter launch procedures, but are generally not used for launch all by themselves (only as strap-on boosters, for the most part).
The writeup is correct as written. 'NASA made two launch tries, and succeeded in launching on the second try'. This sentence is equivalent to 'NASA made two launch attempts, and succeeded in launching on the second attempt.' There is no difference in the two. NONE.
And here are the common English definitions, just to drive the point home:
Attempt - To try to perform, make, achieve. Try - To make an effort to do or accomplish (something); to attempt (something).
When a launch is canceled due to mechanical failures, weather, or any other reason, it's considered a try as long as the launch procedure has been started. Since launch procedures can range from 6 hours to 6 days, there are a lot more tries than launches.
Yoda wisdom or no Yoda wisdom, you're still wrong.
(With rockets, if you try and don't succeed, its pretty much SOP - most things don't launch on the first attempt. Now, if you were to say "ignite" instead of try, you'd be correct - most rockets don't do too well on a second ignition.)
We need our CD players to operate 24-7. That's the big need; 3 decks, and most DJs alternate between the bottom 2 in the stack, so CD2 and CD3 get more work than CD1.
But yeah, I didn't like the Denon interface either (I've done a lot of live theater work too, not just radio, and started in theater, so I still think like a theater person.) For the most part, our demand was - "skip to this track and go". Maybe, if you know a track, you might pre-cue it a bit, but it's rare.
122MKIII is a badass tape deck. We have a couple of them in main, and a Marantz unit. The TASCAM's we're currently using in on-air and production studios are TASCAM CD450s, which are a cheaper or comparable than the Denons we used to have, and work a lot better. I've never tried their CDJ units; we have a Pioneer our DJ DJs seem to like pretty well.
We were using Denon's pro line (older versions of the 635 and the DNC680s - we need rackmountable for our studio, the 951s would not physically fit, and we're poor anyway). Every single one lasted 6 months. Without fail. Its crap, in our experience, and we refuse to buy them anymore.
Audiophile SO does not equal pro audio. Please never confuse the two again. I was referring to products used in radio, TV, recording, etc. I.E. professionals, not people who like spending thousands on a CD player because some mythical enhancement makes it sound better. If Denon wants to follow consumer product practices, they should stop advertising and pricing their products as if they were professional grade.
You know who makes good pro CD players? TASCAM. TEAC makes one good model too. HHB makes nice stuff. But TASCAM - we've had 3 of them in 24-hour-per-day heavy use at my old station for over 5 years. We've had to pull one once every 18-24 months for something minor, and their service department fixed our one fully broken one cheap and quick. Contrast that with the Denons we used to use, which would (without fail) break massively, usually the transport, at 6 months. And then we'd have to hassle the service department to get them to agree to even look at, much less fix, them.
Marantz's tape gear is great; we have a tape/CD-RW unit for doing straight-to-disc recording of the air signal and its pretty decent, but I've never used one of their pure CD players. Denon, on the other hand, makes crap.
Yeah.... Denon knows exactly how to build pro audio gear that sounds okay and breaks in six months, and then how to refuse to fix it.
Several different places I've worked refuse to buy Denon gear now, due to their crap quality and completely incompetent and hostile service department.
There are some that I know of, but not a ton. MATLab has a X port available, and anything that was running on X on AIX is probably a fairly trivial port.
That said, a lot of our engineers have been trading their personal workstations in for Windows laptops, VNC, and big freaking Solaris servers to do the actual work on. I can't see why you couldn't replace the Windows laptops with a Powerbook.
Documentation in Word. Report-writing in Word. Presenting results in Powerpoint.
Quick and dirty calculation is sometimes easier in Excel than in your_favorite_numerical_environment_here. Most of our FMEAs are done in Excel as well, simply because its an easy table-oriented way to do it.
Many engineers also wind up doing minimal budget work. Excel, usually.
Then there are the non-office 'business applications', which for engineers are things that most people would call 'engineering applications' - MATLab, MATHCad, FMEA tools, AutoCAD, crap like that.
Why would you think any engineer could do their job without running a single business application?
For repeatable BSODs, take a Dell laptop, plug it into a docking station, run something that accesses docking station hardware (in my case, ClearCase seems to run some background process that likes to play with the parallel port), and then when it refuses to eject from the station because you can't kill the process that's accessing it ("Access denied" message - WTF?) just manually jack the bastard out.
Within 2 minutes, it *will* BSOD as Windows attempts to access the missing hardware.
That said, the only time our corporation has virus issues is when someone has their personal (non-managed) computer logged in via the network with a virus. Corporate PCs aren't even locked down all that tight, but they force updates and virus definitions to the PCs. Every once in a while, I have to tell it to reboot at the beginning or end of the day, but the 5 minutes to reboot is no bigger than the 5 minutes it'd take me to fix some errant UNIX behavior that annoys me.
No better, no worse, if you have competent admins.
That'd be nice, if the UNIX apps are compiled to run on a PowerPC and *if* they'll run on OS X.
Most aren't compiled for PowerPC, because most UNIX workstations for engineers are Solaris and HP-UX boxes, not AIX. As to running on OS X, well, some do, some don't.
I know our engineers that do mechanical parts design do most of their work in ANSYS and Pro/E on Solaris. Pro/E definitely has a Linux edition available; I think there may be Linux versions of ANSYS available, though I'm not sure. I think Pro/E is aimed at solid modeling (I'm not an ME), so I can't tell you for sure whether its suitable for structural stuff.
Also, just a quick search turned up CYCAS, which looks promising from a quick view of the homepage. ICAADS might also be an option.
I do embedded. Most embedded code is C and C++. I've never seen Java or C# or Perl or any of those (Perl for pretty obvious reasons - you need a substantial base underneath it). In fact, embedded is pretty much a death knell for anything interpreted, and for very HLL.
We use VB and LabWindows to write interfaces to talk to our embedded boards, and MATLab to do data analysis.
Remember that there's a *lot* of programming that has nothing to do with PCs.
Too bad. If Creative made a desirable enough piece of hardware, Real would have written code to port their DRM to a Creative-compatible DRM framework. But they don't. No one is clamoring at the door for Real to port their DRM to a Zen. The simple fact is that the iPod has locked up what, 60% of the market for HDD players? Real is simply trying to expand the market for their store to include that additional (very, very large, and generally fairly well-off considering iPods aren't cheap) group of customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Deprecated, not depreciated.
OK, you get no headaches. I do. Just realize your experience may not be typical (in my company, you buy a new computer, the IT department *will* image it with Office, its part of our default loadout and you don't get an option about whether you want the license or not). It isn't quite compatible enough for our engineering group, who generally have more important things to do than go through a file making sure everything lines up nicely after a conversion (my main complaint is that it screws up formatting royally).
Office viruses really a big problem? I've never known anyone who got one. Of course, our company also pays for a license for NAV for every machine that talks to the corporate network (this includes my home machine when I VPN in - they know its better to pay the 30 bucks or whatever the extra license runs them than to worry about viruses).
Most places, it isn't a case of "purchase another license", its a case of "the license was already bought".
I can't interchange documents. We use lots of tables, and presentations, areas where compatibility is very, very weak. Thus, I can't interchange when I use OO.o, which makes no one happy, including me.
And really, Office isn't worse than OO.o, so what have you gained? You've traded a couple additional headaches for a license. It isn't worth it for most people.
Yes and no - you can do that if you aren't re-lossy encoding it, otherwise you're going to suffer the doubled artifacts of two lossy conversions.
My parade comes from the real world, where people aren't willing to mess around. I've seen problems between versions of Office, I've seen problems between OpenOffice and Office versions, and the OO.o problems are *usually* worse.
I tried using OO.o at my job; it worked okay for some things, but screwed up often enough I just gave up and went back to Office.
Export as PDF is worthless if the recipient needs to be able to edit it. Nice try, though.
Nonetheless, it annoys the fuck out of me that I have to highlight the text of the chat to read it. Whatever you may think of their parent companies, some of their sports journalism is good, and I do like to read it with minimal extra effort.
And again - Firefox is the one that fails to render it. This may be because the site is at fault, but really, no one except web geeks cares - everyone else just wants it to look right.
The answer is, your dad will kill you when OpenOffice produces a "Word-compatible" file that renders badly at a client's site, because it isn't actually all that compatible.
No one needs MS Office if all they do is internal, but the second you talk to the outside world, you're gonna need to get you some Word.
Apple is a UNIX developer, but that has very little to do with arguing about whether Linux's UI is miserable.
A) OS X ain't Linux.
B) Apple's UI is *not* open source - Aqua and related technologies (like, for example, Expose) are not available to be studied and to have their code copied.
As to the consistency thing - the point was that almost all Windows apps, and basically all OS X apps use the same UI and widgets and whatnot. Don't even try to claim the same to be true for Linux; it isn't. It isn't even close. And UI isn't just about widgets, either - Mandrake's themeing may do well for making the 'close window' icon the same, but can it fix things like how to handle hotkeys or button placement or any of the other things that MS and Apple set down in writing as to "This is the one true way"? Of course not.
By the way, you should really re-read your last sentence; it seems to apply to you equally well.
I've seen a similar bug on espn's chats, where the text overlaps the right sidebar.
Appeals. Not all judges are owned by DSC/Alcatel, assuming this one is, and *dated* *notarized* lab notes aren't the sort of thing a judge can ignore if he doesn't want to risk censure.
Let me put it this way - a judge ignoring evidence of that variety would be pretty much finished as a judge.
Clean power supply in an environment with gigahertz switching is a hilariously funny joke, especially when you move off a lab supply (which the Sun guys were almost certainly using) and into the real world with real power supplies.
Also, there are EMI issues with the specific arrangement you mentioned (side by side pads) relating to something called inductive loops. The skin effect would basically say that all of your highfrequency currents would return along the edges of your big pads, leaving a big loop area which in turn leads to high inductance and large amounts of electromagnetic interference. Better design practice is to have small power pads, where each seperate section of the chip has its input and output placed physically close together in order to minimize loop area.
No, there isn't. The official terminology acknowledges attempts as tries, as does the English language. Do you think trying to launch starts when they hit "Go" on the main motors? It starts a lot earlier than that; launch procedure usually starts with fueling (for liquid-fueled motors). Solid rockets have much shorter launch procedures, but are generally not used for launch all by themselves (only as strap-on boosters, for the most part).
The writeup is correct as written. 'NASA made two launch tries, and succeeded in launching on the second try'. This sentence is equivalent to 'NASA made two launch attempts, and succeeded in launching on the second attempt.' There is no difference in the two. NONE.
And here are the common English definitions, just to drive the point home:
Attempt - To try to perform, make, achieve.
Try - To make an effort to do or accomplish (something); to attempt (something).
Admit you were wrong and move on.
When a launch is canceled due to mechanical failures, weather, or any other reason, it's considered a try as long as the launch procedure has been started. Since launch procedures can range from 6 hours to 6 days, there are a lot more tries than launches.
Yoda wisdom or no Yoda wisdom, you're still wrong.
(With rockets, if you try and don't succeed, its pretty much SOP - most things don't launch on the first attempt. Now, if you were to say "ignite" instead of try, you'd be correct - most rockets don't do too well on a second ignition.)
We need our CD players to operate 24-7. That's the big need; 3 decks, and most DJs alternate between the bottom 2 in the stack, so CD2 and CD3 get more work than CD1.
But yeah, I didn't like the Denon interface either (I've done a lot of live theater work too, not just radio, and started in theater, so I still think like a theater person.) For the most part, our demand was - "skip to this track and go". Maybe, if you know a track, you might pre-cue it a bit, but it's rare.
122MKIII is a badass tape deck. We have a couple of them in main, and a Marantz unit. The TASCAM's we're currently using in on-air and production studios are TASCAM CD450s, which are a cheaper or comparable than the Denons we used to have, and work a lot better. I've never tried their CDJ units; we have a Pioneer our DJ DJs seem to like pretty well.
We were using Denon's pro line (older versions of the 635 and the DNC680s - we need rackmountable for our studio, the 951s would not physically fit, and we're poor anyway). Every single one lasted 6 months. Without fail. Its crap, in our experience, and we refuse to buy them anymore.
Audiophile SO does not equal pro audio. Please never confuse the two again. I was referring to products used in radio, TV, recording, etc. I.E. professionals, not people who like spending thousands on a CD player because some mythical enhancement makes it sound better. If Denon wants to follow consumer product practices, they should stop advertising and pricing their products as if they were professional grade.
You know who makes good pro CD players? TASCAM. TEAC makes one good model too. HHB makes nice stuff. But TASCAM - we've had 3 of them in 24-hour-per-day heavy use at my old station for over 5 years. We've had to pull one once every 18-24 months for something minor, and their service department fixed our one fully broken one cheap and quick. Contrast that with the Denons we used to use, which would (without fail) break massively, usually the transport, at 6 months. And then we'd have to hassle the service department to get them to agree to even look at, much less fix, them.
Marantz's tape gear is great; we have a tape/CD-RW unit for doing straight-to-disc recording of the air signal and its pretty decent, but I've never used one of their pure CD players. Denon, on the other hand, makes crap.
Yeah.... Denon knows exactly how to build pro audio gear that sounds okay and breaks in six months, and then how to refuse to fix it.
Several different places I've worked refuse to buy Denon gear now, due to their crap quality and completely incompetent and hostile service department.
There are some that I know of, but not a ton. MATLab has a X port available, and anything that was running on X on AIX is probably a fairly trivial port.
That said, a lot of our engineers have been trading their personal workstations in for Windows laptops, VNC, and big freaking Solaris servers to do the actual work on. I can't see why you couldn't replace the Windows laptops with a Powerbook.
Documentation in Word. Report-writing in Word. Presenting results in Powerpoint.
Quick and dirty calculation is sometimes easier in Excel than in your_favorite_numerical_environment_here. Most of our FMEAs are done in Excel as well, simply because its an easy table-oriented way to do it.
Many engineers also wind up doing minimal budget work. Excel, usually.
Then there are the non-office 'business applications', which for engineers are things that most people would call 'engineering applications' - MATLab, MATHCad, FMEA tools, AutoCAD, crap like that.
Why would you think any engineer could do their job without running a single business application?
For repeatable BSODs, take a Dell laptop, plug it into a docking station, run something that accesses docking station hardware (in my case, ClearCase seems to run some background process that likes to play with the parallel port), and then when it refuses to eject from the station because you can't kill the process that's accessing it ("Access denied" message - WTF?) just manually jack the bastard out.
Within 2 minutes, it *will* BSOD as Windows attempts to access the missing hardware.
That said, the only time our corporation has virus issues is when someone has their personal (non-managed) computer logged in via the network with a virus. Corporate PCs aren't even locked down all that tight, but they force updates and virus definitions to the PCs. Every once in a while, I have to tell it to reboot at the beginning or end of the day, but the 5 minutes to reboot is no bigger than the 5 minutes it'd take me to fix some errant UNIX behavior that annoys me.
No better, no worse, if you have competent admins.
That'd be nice, if the UNIX apps are compiled to run on a PowerPC and *if* they'll run on OS X.
Most aren't compiled for PowerPC, because most UNIX workstations for engineers are Solaris and HP-UX boxes, not AIX. As to running on OS X, well, some do, some don't.
Depends on what you need.
Is there a good opensource CAD to replace really basic crap people do in their spare time on a pirated copy of AutoCAD? Yes.
Is there a good opensource CAD to replace Pro/E, ICEPAK, or Catia? Hell no.
I know our engineers that do mechanical parts design do most of their work in ANSYS and Pro/E on Solaris. Pro/E definitely has a Linux edition available; I think there may be Linux versions of ANSYS available, though I'm not sure. I think Pro/E is aimed at solid modeling (I'm not an ME), so I can't tell you for sure whether its suitable for structural stuff.
Also, just a quick search turned up CYCAS, which looks promising from a quick view of the homepage. ICAADS might also be an option.
I do embedded. Most embedded code is C and C++. I've never seen Java or C# or Perl or any of those (Perl for pretty obvious reasons - you need a substantial base underneath it). In fact, embedded is pretty much a death knell for anything interpreted, and for very HLL.
We use VB and LabWindows to write interfaces to talk to our embedded boards, and MATLab to do data analysis.
Remember that there's a *lot* of programming that has nothing to do with PCs.
Too bad. If Creative made a desirable enough piece of hardware, Real would have written code to port their DRM to a Creative-compatible DRM framework. But they don't. No one is clamoring at the door for Real to port their DRM to a Zen. The simple fact is that the iPod has locked up what, 60% of the market for HDD players? Real is simply trying to expand the market for their store to include that additional (very, very large, and generally fairly well-off considering iPods aren't cheap) group of customers.