in terms of finding (and keeping) a decent paying professional job in this day and age, people skills are important, regardless of the hows, whys and any other philosophical argument. if money is no object though, of course you are free to introvert it up all you like.
I know how to avoid distraction and stay on task without supervision
that may be true for you, but if it were the case universally then TFA would have no point because everyone would be efficient little busybodies regardless of where they worked.
if you've worked in an open office before, you'll probably have noticed that there is (usually) much less useless banter when the boss is in the room. a good boss will discourage it and keep people engaged in their work, so if banter gets to the point where it affects the bottom-line, it really says more about the boss than the workers. good strong leadership is the answer to controlling non-work-related banter, not solitude.
There's a lot to be said for having a discussion, then all going about their tasks undisturbed. Later a regroup should happen to bring the bits together and start the next segment.
i totally agree. however, in a well formed team, a reasonable amount of socializing while working doesn't hinder productivity, but it probably depends on the type of work. i'm experienced in design offices (drafting/engineering) but i'm also quite capable of programming in a social environment (even at home with two kids sitting on my lap). people who can't work with a bit of yakking in the background are more likely to be the reclusive introverted type (such as many in this thread). there are often lots of productive conversations in an office environment that have little or nothing to do with you, but that doesn't mean they aren't productive or shouldn't happen or that you shouldn't have to work while they are going on. a bit of banter is also good for morale, and morale is usually a much bigger factor in productivity than socializing (the latter is often a result of a drop in the former).
i work better sometimes with less disturbances, but if it got to the point where those disturbances seriously affected my productivity, i would address it by asking the person doing the disturbing to come back at a later time, or i would go see my boss, who would most likely find out what the root cause of the disturbance was (maybe the disturber was asking many questions due to a lack of training in a particular area). being able to manage your time in a team and/or social environment is part of what interviewers mean when they talk about this "communication" and "teamwork" stuff.
i've seen comments here about people bullshitting interviewers, but unfortunately for them they will always get caught out eventually because it will become obvious when they actually start work.
if you're an introvert, i would recommend not engaging in self-gratification about it and tack it onto your "weaknesses" column in your career SWOT/planner and look at ways that you can overcome the associated workplace problems that might be caused by this weakness. TFA isn't doing anyone any favors by promoting solitude in a workplace, because decision makers will never agree with it so it is only damaging to people that need a bit more support. anti-social behavior is acceptable to some degree, but lack of social skills in any workplace is a bad thing.
you're ok with your government putting your country into unrecoverable debt (15 trillion and counting) and propping up your "essential" multinational banks, and spending billions fighting wars in other countries while common Americans can't even afford healthcare or their own home.
as if the US is a model nation. the only reason why you even matter at all is because of your reserve currency status. when that fails, you're totally fucked.
a programmer bashes out a quick php script to automate a task with many repetitive computations
another guy comes along, has a look at the code and notices that the script includes another file inside a loop and says to the original programmer "hey, if you just include that file at the start of the script and put things into functions, you'll reduce the amount of disk access from including a file in every pass"
the first guy says, "gee, i was so wrapped up in getting the job done i didn't see that"
original programmer takes the time to tweak the code and for a calculation with 10,000 passes reduces the script run time from 19.4 seconds to 4.5 seconds
...its called tunnel vision, and anybody who works on a problem long enough on their own will always suffer it eventually, regardless of how obvious the mistake is (in fact its usually the simple things that get missed - like not seeing the forest through the trees)
constantly changing priorities are also a major cause of productivity loss, but that's why teams are important. nobody is perfect on their own, so a "well formed" team can take advantage of the positive attributes of many... the doers, the thinkers, the talkers, the problem solvers, the practicals, the coffee makers, the paper shufflers, the bureaucrats, the scrooges. he will put everyone in the sort of work environment that will best achieve the goal of the team (and if solitude works best for one team member to get a specific task done then he will make it so).
solitude is good for some people, but it is usually only a small piece of a bigger puzzle. solitude on its own rarely achieves much.
a good leader will make the best use of all the personalities in his team (even those that are traditionally frowned upon like bullies and lazies). if he can't, he's not a good leader.
and there are many sayings that support teamwork: "many hands make light work", "two heads are better than one", etc.
a team environment can sometimes stifle creativity, but working on your own is asking for trouble. not having anyone to bounce ideas off and check your work makes a "homer simpson car" more likely (http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1033/1033363934_dc44fb5b8f_z.jpg?zz=1) than something balanced and profitable.
i find it the least bit surprising that all the introverts are on here giving each other pats on the back, because that would be about as much praise as you all get. just because you think you are the most productive and creative thinkers that come up with awesome ideas on your own doesn't mean anybody else thinks that.
teamwork is productive, but teams need strong leadership. lack of strong leadership is more often the problem in any team than the team concept itself. many people are allocated the leadership role who aren't suited to it or don't care.
people working on their own or at home pose increased risk in terms of productivity because lack of supervision can lead to distraction. with supervision there is a sense of belonging and pressure to perform. it has been my experience that while unrealistic pressure is counterproductive, people need realistic targets to aim for and measure their performance against. its possible to do this on your own; being your own boss requires this or you won't make yourself any money, but working on your own as a salary employee doesn't carry the same personal risk as someone who is self-employed, so any pressure that you impose on yourself is only superficial.
communication and teamwork are key attributes in most professional roles, so if you refuse to acknowledge their importance you are only severely limiting your own opportunities.
I'll side with Occam's Razor on this. If corporate wanted this information this badly, they'd have paid for it. The bad press and legal repercussions would outweigh the licensing costs.
you might think the mention of occam's razor gives some kind of scientific credibility, but it doesn't help at all. you forget that google is in business to make money. that is all. if it is cheaper to pillage an plunder, and they think they can get away with it, they will for sure.
particularly in a country like kenya where corruption is most likely expected
its built into the capitalist system because it is by its nature competitive.
communism has its own problems
a cooperative free market will also have problems, but i believe it will play less on the greed of human nature and focus more on local benefits. if companies are only in business to keep people employed (completely non-profit, with absolutely no shareholders - not even employees) then there is no need to compete because there is no need to increase profit (because there is none). employees expect their salaries to increase a little bit each year, but that is unlikely to lead to any kind of competitive spiral towards the depths of capitalist doom. shareholders are the biggest downfall of a free market. they are the leeches of society. yes there are entrepreneurial folks who take risk in setting up new businesses with their own money, but companies can be funded in other ways if they have a sound business case. there's nothing entrepreneurial about investing in the stock market. its about as risky and entrepreneurial as playing the pokies.
you will also notice that in a cooperative market, mergers would probably be commonplace because of the lack of any need to compete. companies would work together more to develop new products, expand to new locations, and reduce inefficiencies (less reinvention of the wheel).
unfortunately mass realization of the pointlessness of a competitive free market merely servicing the leeching shareholder elite will require massive global economic meltdown. this is gradually happening now, and will continue. eventually the world will wake up and smell the rotting turds that the wealthy have left all over the place. the remaining scars will be massive, and despite major shareholders losing their grip, they will walk away with their prizes and many mum and dad investors will be left with the scraps and debt. the smaller investors will learn their lesson and start over. the elitist few will be left with a huge hole in their income and will learn nothing and blame the rest of the world for their misfortune.
To me that's asking the fox to guard your hen house
not really, because in this case the fox is the people responsible for writing the viruses in the first place. what logical reason would microsoft have for infecting its own product with viruses?
on the other hand, what incentive is there for antivirus companies to stop the influx of new viruses? if all of a sudden there weren't any new threats, they would all gradually go out of business, so there is definitely a reason to question the motives of such companies. you have to remember that the primary reason for any capitalist enterprise doesn't have anything to do with a particular product or service, its to make money... always. symantec is in business to make money (by selling "antivirus" software), not stop viruses.
microsoft is in business to make money also, by selling operating systems (among other things), but surely viruses that infect windows would (and does) harm the image of windows, so creating new windows viruses would seem to be against the interest of selling windows, which makes their money.
i wouldn't be surprised if microsoft had a whole department dedicated to trying to come up with new viruses and malware for competing platforms like linux and mac (not that they would admit it).
using a microsoft product is really like asking the guy who built the hen house to guard it (with all his building materials and tools). he may not be an expert or be able to stop new types of attacks (nobody can) but he has the best understanding of where holes might be and he has the best opportunity to patch them up sometimes before they are even noticed by the fox.
btw before anyone berates me as a shill, i despise microsoft products and prefer debian squeeze gnu/linux over everything else. i run clamav merely to help prevent anything i download from infecting my wife's laptop with windows vista on it (though i realize nothing can really help any poor soul suffering from the "vista" virus).
Like it or not, software design is actually *hard*
software engineers design software for the sake of designing software. non-software engineers design software for a particular purpose. just because they may not develop software in the same way as a software engineer doesn't mean it won't satisfy its purpose.
as a professional mechanical/structural/aeronautical engineer, i write engineering software in php that does what i need it to do, on a keep it simple stupid model because i've found this to result in increased reliability. my current project is only a few thousand lines of code, which is no doubt tiny in the big bold world of software development, but it does the same job as software packages that are marketed for thousands of dollars per seat. i don't spend a heap of wasted time trying to design the program to meet the needs of an impractically varied user base (i design it for me and my engineering colleagues only). it produces correct results that are spot checked and scrutinized by good ol' "engineering judgment". commercial packages might have all sorts of bells and whistles and be checked a million times, but my little php script fulfills its purpose. i've come across numerical bugs in commercial engineering software, so even expensive matrix testing and whatnot, while reducing the probability of incorrect results, doesn't eliminate the possibility outright.
i refuse to use code from the web as most of it is garbage (good for ideas though), and many web programming "experts" (in blogs etc) seem to be incapable of simple things like maintaining code etiquette, which i think is perhaps the most important programming habit, and good code etiquette can reduce the need for blathering documentation and pointless flowcharts. maybe i was fortunate because i broke my teeth on delphi for a good ten years before i got into php (borland VCL source is good basis for developing code etiquette, and pascal is a very typecast language so less laziness with variable assignment).
there's nothing wrong with newbies writing useless code. i scoff at code i wrote years ago, and i'm sure even software engineers would do the same. its how we learn. everything must be taken in context - i might not buy any software written by an inexperienced programmer, but at the same time i wouldn't trust a software engineer to be competent in developing software for engineering compliance without input from experienced engineers in the respective fields.
many software bugs are harmless, and even bugs with security implications are usually at most embarrassing and/or expensive. the bugs that are scary are the ones that can kill people - in engineering software, the "garbage in = garbage out" idiom has more significance than in a lot of other software because if your program incorrectly indicates compliance when in reality the inputs can result in an unsafe condition, people might be hurt or killed, and being a "software engineer" doesn't imply any sort of expertise in finding or preventing this type of bug because they aren't specific to software development.
and while i'm sure software engineers could bitch about the pitfalls of my php code and/or philosophy till they're blue in the face, at the end of the day i'm glad i don't have to put up with or rely on their elitist bullshit.
no actually most people used IE (as a web browser) because it meant they didn't have to go get a different browser. there was no coercion, arm twisting or blackmail involved.
microsoft simply took advantage of the fact that most consumers are lazy cheapskates, and many other companies strive to do the same
but... it only worked because of their monopolization of the x86 operating system market
two cores would be fine, but for most people one of those could be clocked at maybe a couple of GHz at the most.
there wouldn't be too many people requiring two or more high performance CPUs simultaneously for more than a few seconds at a time
i remember what is what like before: software running on single core machines was about as slow as their equivalents today, because their current equivalents are more bloated and inefficient than their predecessors (more useless libraries, features and eyecandy, as well as programming laziness and commercial lack of interest in producing quality software if they can sell buggy versions and let the consumer find the bugs for them). maybe not generally, but for me this was the case. i've never personally had the need for multi core, but i have one because they are the norm - i have an amd dual core at home. i run debian with conky on a gnome desktop, and i can see core usage on two fluctuating bars and at most only one ever peaks at 100% at a time.
it would be more efficient to run most things on a low performance core, and high load tasks (the active program) operating on a separate high speed core. even multi-tasking operating systems only have one task "active" at a time. there are cases where you might be doing a couple of hard disk searches simultaneously, but having two bleeding edge cores at 100% are still going to butt up against front side bus blockages (or HDD transfer rate limitations), and better programming features like indexing in RAM are probably better solutions to these problems than throwing more CPU grunt at them anyway (RAM is often another wasted feature of modern PCs, even with Windows' prefetch/readyboost).
actually i think that a lot of those scenarios you mention would be in violation of other statutes, so while you may be free to say things, the consequences of what you say may result in criminal charges (such as "unmarked advertisement for known-dangerous products" most likely being in violation of OH&S laws). some people are stupid enough to think that "free speech" is the be all and end all, but they don't realize that its still possible for your mouth to write cheques that your body can't cash.
its nothing more than a glorified shout box. there's nothing "social" about it.
your legs and mouth/larynx are also excellent social communication tools, and they are underutilized in this day and age. twatter and facecrap are killing traditional conversation.
no one cares how many bits of toast you are having
i totally agree. its not me you have to convince though - its all the twats out there that thinks the world wants nothing more than to know how many bits of toast they're having (or what color the shit that they just pushed out was). its pretty sad.
get off your own lawn
that's a new one, but ok.
my lawn is my own (well, the part that's paid off anyway - which is probably not much really) so i'll preach from it till i can't be bothered any more
i think i see your point though. i consider myself an "optimistic pessimist" - meaning simply that i often expect the worst. However, in doing so, when things fuck up i can't be disappointed, but if things work out its a pleasant surprise. optimists probably find this irritating, but i feel sorry for them.
and hence the reason why microcontrollers will win out, because when a 6 GHz micro comes out (eventually), everything else will be designed around it, except maybe the HDD access problem, but connection between north and south bridges, memory etc will obviously be increased because they are on the same die and you're less affected by voltage drops across lengthy copper tracks
Let's say that the main problem I had was with "7 cores"....
fair call. the 7 core thing was probably because i'm typing this at home rather than at work where the i7 actually is. i keep an eye on the task manager when using autodesk inventor for assemblies with 10,000+ parts in them because i'm interested to know why things are slow, but its actually more to keep an eye on memory usage (had to upgrade recently to 16 Gb because it was beginning to page to the hard disk at 12 Gb).
if the OS could somehow parallelize the opening of 10,000+ part files so that Inventor is more responsive, then great. but it's really up to Autodesk to multi-thread Inventor more, not the OS vendor. it's also limited by hdd access speeds, fsb speeds, etc.
you might say that having multiple cores is great because the OS runs those 160 odd processes in your task manager in parallel, but if you look in task manager, pretty much all those processes aren't using the processor at all, with the idle process using 99%+ of the processor most of the time, so it would work just as well with one core.
to use your porche analogy, if you are limited to legally driving at 100 km/h or 110 km/h (which you are in Australia) then buying a porche that can do anything higher is a retarded waste of money if you only bought it to go fast. if you needed lots of power for towing a semi-trailer, then you would be retarded for buying a porche but for different reasons. if you buy a porche because you think they make you look awesome, you need your head checked, but anyway...
if i had the choice of getting a single core CPU running at 6 GHz or a 4 core CPU with each core running at 3 GHz, I would go for the single core every time, because even though there is more cumulative grunt in the quad, i can't access that grunt where i need it so much of it is wasted (like buying a family size pizza when you can only eat a small).
and so i'm still waiting for that 6 GHz core... hint hint Intel (where's that darned Moore when you need him?)
tit for tat means equivalent argument (i looked it up before i used it actually). you say google isn't forcing you to use google+, i say microsoft didn't force you to use IE. how can i make it any more obvious than that? maybe its you who should get a clue.
integration of IE wasn't the reason for microsoft's antitrust case, it was bundling the browser for "free" with windows, which essentially eliminated the entire browser market due to microsoft's operating system monopoly (dodgy oem deals and the like). the frogshit about its integration so as not being able to remove it was merely microsoft's defence against being forced to remove it from the windows default install.
if "IE" was merely an integrated API for supporting windows explorer and office, there would have been no case because netscape would still have had a market.
google can't bundle anything in the same way as IE was bundled because it uses a different software model (software as a service). there is no "product" that can be bundled in the traditional sense, but it could be argued that even putting a link to google+ on the google search home page could be considered bundling in the world of SaaS, which is the same world that facebook and twitter are playing in.
the real question is does google have a web search monopoly that it could abuse to eliminate the personalized search market? i don't think so, because there is nothing forcing you to use any google services. windows is different because you basically can't go to a computer shop and get anything x86 that doesn't run windows. also, because of the legacy of the oem deals, there is so much legacy software and data out there so many users are forced to continue to use windows because of their vested interest.
yeah, so google bundling/integrating their personalized search into google search is analgous to microsoft bundling/integrating IE into windows
while google isn't forcing you to use either, it is offering both and is leveraging its significant google search market share to support its entry into personalized search (like Microsoft putting an IE icon on the Windows desktop).
i imagine if microsoft put a bing search icon on the windows 8 desktop, google would get all pissy too, or if intel built-in a linux operating system into its next generation microprocessors then microsoft would get all pissy.
whether you call them cores or instruction queues or cowbells doesn't really matter that much. according to the article you linked, seven "logical" processors appear to the host operating system, and i don't think this semantics confuses the intent of what i was trying to originally get across.
at the end of the day, the user is tricked into thinking their computer is faster than it actually is because much of the resources is inaccessible to a single process (hence most of the grunt in the processor is wasted in idle).
your operating system is optimized for multiple cores
that's fine. multi-threading has been around for a long time, but i don't "use" an operating system (humans don't even really multi-task that much on a computer beyond listening to music while using something else - having multiple windows open isn't really human multi-tasking, and doesn't require significant processor grunt). processor grunt only counts for applications that are processor-intensive. without finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, 3D modeling/CAD, early games (most are GPU-driven now) etc, Intel wouldn't have a market at all. nobody needs a 3GHz+ processor to play freecell (even if they had 100 instances of it running at once because you can only actually "use" one at a time).
I think you're basically saying that hyper threading is a crock of shit, and I agree with that.
It's weird that you seem to start criticizing my "old canard" that applications aren't written for multi-core CPUs, and then you proceed to agree with it. Obviously a multi-tasking operating system is designed to create a new thread for each process, but its not common to run multiple processor-intensive applications at the same time. I might have CAD, 3D modeling, FEA, Access, etc, all open at the same time but as you eluded each of these are idle the majority of the time while waiting for user input.
thanks for the terminology correction. i do normally like to try get things like that right.
why would samsung give a flying fuck what google does in the handset market? i'm sure if google pisses samsung off enough it will boycott google and fork its own phone os. its not like samsung doesn't have the resources to be able to achieve that in a hurry if they saw a need. what would happen to google's android without models like galaxy s2? sorry google fans, but when it comes to devices, you're not on the same playing field.
samsung electronics: rank 22 in forbes global 500 (133.8 billion revenue 2011)
google: rank 325 in forbes global 500 (29.3 billion revenue 2011)
Slashdot Mirror
in terms of finding (and keeping) a decent paying professional job in this day and age, people skills are important, regardless of the hows, whys and any other philosophical argument. if money is no object though, of course you are free to introvert it up all you like.
I know how to avoid distraction and stay on task without supervision
that may be true for you, but if it were the case universally then TFA would have no point because everyone would be efficient little busybodies regardless of where they worked.
if you've worked in an open office before, you'll probably have noticed that there is (usually) much less useless banter when the boss is in the room. a good boss will discourage it and keep people engaged in their work, so if banter gets to the point where it affects the bottom-line, it really says more about the boss than the workers. good strong leadership is the answer to controlling non-work-related banter, not solitude.
There's a lot to be said for having a discussion, then all going about their tasks undisturbed. Later a regroup should happen to bring the bits together and start the next segment.
i totally agree. however, in a well formed team, a reasonable amount of socializing while working doesn't hinder productivity, but it probably depends on the type of work. i'm experienced in design offices (drafting/engineering) but i'm also quite capable of programming in a social environment (even at home with two kids sitting on my lap). people who can't work with a bit of yakking in the background are more likely to be the reclusive introverted type (such as many in this thread). there are often lots of productive conversations in an office environment that have little or nothing to do with you, but that doesn't mean they aren't productive or shouldn't happen or that you shouldn't have to work while they are going on. a bit of banter is also good for morale, and morale is usually a much bigger factor in productivity than socializing (the latter is often a result of a drop in the former).
i work better sometimes with less disturbances, but if it got to the point where those disturbances seriously affected my productivity, i would address it by asking the person doing the disturbing to come back at a later time, or i would go see my boss, who would most likely find out what the root cause of the disturbance was (maybe the disturber was asking many questions due to a lack of training in a particular area). being able to manage your time in a team and/or social environment is part of what interviewers mean when they talk about this "communication" and "teamwork" stuff.
i've seen comments here about people bullshitting interviewers, but unfortunately for them they will always get caught out eventually because it will become obvious when they actually start work.
if you're an introvert, i would recommend not engaging in self-gratification about it and tack it onto your "weaknesses" column in your career SWOT/planner and look at ways that you can overcome the associated workplace problems that might be caused by this weakness. TFA isn't doing anyone any favors by promoting solitude in a workplace, because decision makers will never agree with it so it is only damaging to people that need a bit more support. anti-social behavior is acceptable to some degree, but lack of social skills in any workplace is a bad thing.
you're ok with your government putting your country into unrecoverable debt (15 trillion and counting) and propping up your "essential" multinational banks, and spending billions fighting wars in other countries while common Americans can't even afford healthcare or their own home.
as if the US is a model nation. the only reason why you even matter at all is because of your reserve currency status. when that fails, you're totally fucked.
Who the hell brainstorms for coding, anyway?
real world scenario...
...its called tunnel vision, and anybody who works on a problem long enough on their own will always suffer it eventually, regardless of how obvious the mistake is (in fact its usually the simple things that get missed - like not seeing the forest through the trees)
a programmer bashes out a quick php script to automate a task with many repetitive computations
another guy comes along, has a look at the code and notices that the script includes another file inside a loop and says to the original programmer "hey, if you just include that file at the start of the script and put things into functions, you'll reduce the amount of disk access from including a file in every pass"
the first guy says, "gee, i was so wrapped up in getting the job done i didn't see that"
original programmer takes the time to tweak the code and for a calculation with 10,000 passes reduces the script run time from 19.4 seconds to 4.5 seconds
constantly changing priorities are also a major cause of productivity loss, but that's why teams are important. nobody is perfect on their own, so a "well formed" team can take advantage of the positive attributes of many... the doers, the thinkers, the talkers, the problem solvers, the practicals, the coffee makers, the paper shufflers, the bureaucrats, the scrooges. he will put everyone in the sort of work environment that will best achieve the goal of the team (and if solitude works best for one team member to get a specific task done then he will make it so).
solitude is good for some people, but it is usually only a small piece of a bigger puzzle. solitude on its own rarely achieves much.
a good leader will make the best use of all the personalities in his team (even those that are traditionally frowned upon like bullies and lazies). if he can't, he's not a good leader.
and there are many sayings that support teamwork: "many hands make light work", "two heads are better than one", etc.
a team environment can sometimes stifle creativity, but working on your own is asking for trouble. not having anyone to bounce ideas off and check your work makes a "homer simpson car" more likely (http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1033/1033363934_dc44fb5b8f_z.jpg?zz=1) than something balanced and profitable.
i find it the least bit surprising that all the introverts are on here giving each other pats on the back, because that would be about as much praise as you all get. just because you think you are the most productive and creative thinkers that come up with awesome ideas on your own doesn't mean anybody else thinks that.
teamwork is productive, but teams need strong leadership. lack of strong leadership is more often the problem in any team than the team concept itself. many people are allocated the leadership role who aren't suited to it or don't care.
people working on their own or at home pose increased risk in terms of productivity because lack of supervision can lead to distraction. with supervision there is a sense of belonging and pressure to perform. it has been my experience that while unrealistic pressure is counterproductive, people need realistic targets to aim for and measure their performance against. its possible to do this on your own; being your own boss requires this or you won't make yourself any money, but working on your own as a salary employee doesn't carry the same personal risk as someone who is self-employed, so any pressure that you impose on yourself is only superficial.
communication and teamwork are key attributes in most professional roles, so if you refuse to acknowledge their importance you are only severely limiting your own opportunities.
I'll side with Occam's Razor on this. If corporate wanted this information this badly, they'd have paid for it. The bad press and legal repercussions would outweigh the licensing costs.
you might think the mention of occam's razor gives some kind of scientific credibility, but it doesn't help at all. you forget that google is in business to make money. that is all. if it is cheaper to pillage an plunder, and they think they can get away with it, they will for sure.
particularly in a country like kenya where corruption is most likely expected
its built into the capitalist system because it is by its nature competitive.
communism has its own problems
a cooperative free market will also have problems, but i believe it will play less on the greed of human nature and focus more on local benefits. if companies are only in business to keep people employed (completely non-profit, with absolutely no shareholders - not even employees) then there is no need to compete because there is no need to increase profit (because there is none). employees expect their salaries to increase a little bit each year, but that is unlikely to lead to any kind of competitive spiral towards the depths of capitalist doom. shareholders are the biggest downfall of a free market. they are the leeches of society. yes there are entrepreneurial folks who take risk in setting up new businesses with their own money, but companies can be funded in other ways if they have a sound business case. there's nothing entrepreneurial about investing in the stock market. its about as risky and entrepreneurial as playing the pokies.
you will also notice that in a cooperative market, mergers would probably be commonplace because of the lack of any need to compete. companies would work together more to develop new products, expand to new locations, and reduce inefficiencies (less reinvention of the wheel).
unfortunately mass realization of the pointlessness of a competitive free market merely servicing the leeching shareholder elite will require massive global economic meltdown. this is gradually happening now, and will continue. eventually the world will wake up and smell the rotting turds that the wealthy have left all over the place. the remaining scars will be massive, and despite major shareholders losing their grip, they will walk away with their prizes and many mum and dad investors will be left with the scraps and debt. the smaller investors will learn their lesson and start over. the elitist few will be left with a huge hole in their income and will learn nothing and blame the rest of the world for their misfortune.
To me that's asking the fox to guard your hen house
not really, because in this case the fox is the people responsible for writing the viruses in the first place. what logical reason would microsoft have for infecting its own product with viruses?
on the other hand, what incentive is there for antivirus companies to stop the influx of new viruses? if all of a sudden there weren't any new threats, they would all gradually go out of business, so there is definitely a reason to question the motives of such companies. you have to remember that the primary reason for any capitalist enterprise doesn't have anything to do with a particular product or service, its to make money... always. symantec is in business to make money (by selling "antivirus" software), not stop viruses.
microsoft is in business to make money also, by selling operating systems (among other things), but surely viruses that infect windows would (and does) harm the image of windows, so creating new windows viruses would seem to be against the interest of selling windows, which makes their money.
i wouldn't be surprised if microsoft had a whole department dedicated to trying to come up with new viruses and malware for competing platforms like linux and mac (not that they would admit it).
using a microsoft product is really like asking the guy who built the hen house to guard it (with all his building materials and tools). he may not be an expert or be able to stop new types of attacks (nobody can) but he has the best understanding of where holes might be and he has the best opportunity to patch them up sometimes before they are even noticed by the fox.
btw before anyone berates me as a shill, i despise microsoft products and prefer debian squeeze gnu/linux over everything else. i run clamav merely to help prevent anything i download from infecting my wife's laptop with windows vista on it (though i realize nothing can really help any poor soul suffering from the "vista" virus).
Like it or not, software design is actually *hard*
software engineers design software for the sake of designing software. non-software engineers design software for a particular purpose. just because they may not develop software in the same way as a software engineer doesn't mean it won't satisfy its purpose.
as a professional mechanical/structural/aeronautical engineer, i write engineering software in php that does what i need it to do, on a keep it simple stupid model because i've found this to result in increased reliability. my current project is only a few thousand lines of code, which is no doubt tiny in the big bold world of software development, but it does the same job as software packages that are marketed for thousands of dollars per seat. i don't spend a heap of wasted time trying to design the program to meet the needs of an impractically varied user base (i design it for me and my engineering colleagues only). it produces correct results that are spot checked and scrutinized by good ol' "engineering judgment". commercial packages might have all sorts of bells and whistles and be checked a million times, but my little php script fulfills its purpose. i've come across numerical bugs in commercial engineering software, so even expensive matrix testing and whatnot, while reducing the probability of incorrect results, doesn't eliminate the possibility outright.
i refuse to use code from the web as most of it is garbage (good for ideas though), and many web programming "experts" (in blogs etc) seem to be incapable of simple things like maintaining code etiquette, which i think is perhaps the most important programming habit, and good code etiquette can reduce the need for blathering documentation and pointless flowcharts. maybe i was fortunate because i broke my teeth on delphi for a good ten years before i got into php (borland VCL source is good basis for developing code etiquette, and pascal is a very typecast language so less laziness with variable assignment).
there's nothing wrong with newbies writing useless code. i scoff at code i wrote years ago, and i'm sure even software engineers would do the same. its how we learn. everything must be taken in context - i might not buy any software written by an inexperienced programmer, but at the same time i wouldn't trust a software engineer to be competent in developing software for engineering compliance without input from experienced engineers in the respective fields.
many software bugs are harmless, and even bugs with security implications are usually at most embarrassing and/or expensive. the bugs that are scary are the ones that can kill people - in engineering software, the "garbage in = garbage out" idiom has more significance than in a lot of other software because if your program incorrectly indicates compliance when in reality the inputs can result in an unsafe condition, people might be hurt or killed, and being a "software engineer" doesn't imply any sort of expertise in finding or preventing this type of bug because they aren't specific to software development.
and while i'm sure software engineers could bitch about the pitfalls of my php code and/or philosophy till they're blue in the face, at the end of the day i'm glad i don't have to put up with or rely on their elitist bullshit.
no actually most people used IE (as a web browser) because it meant they didn't have to go get a different browser. there was no coercion, arm twisting or blackmail involved.
microsoft simply took advantage of the fact that most consumers are lazy cheapskates, and many other companies strive to do the same
but... it only worked because of their monopolization of the x86 operating system market
It has other advantages, and they are not in top speed
i would have been interested to hear some of them
if i was going to blow a heap of money on a car, i would personally go for something a little more comfortable and easy to drive.
i'm not much of a luxury car expert, but maybe a bentley (imho)
two cores would be fine, but for most people one of those could be clocked at maybe a couple of GHz at the most.
there wouldn't be too many people requiring two or more high performance CPUs simultaneously for more than a few seconds at a time
i remember what is what like before: software running on single core machines was about as slow as their equivalents today, because their current equivalents are more bloated and inefficient than their predecessors (more useless libraries, features and eyecandy, as well as programming laziness and commercial lack of interest in producing quality software if they can sell buggy versions and let the consumer find the bugs for them). maybe not generally, but for me this was the case. i've never personally had the need for multi core, but i have one because they are the norm - i have an amd dual core at home. i run debian with conky on a gnome desktop, and i can see core usage on two fluctuating bars and at most only one ever peaks at 100% at a time.
it would be more efficient to run most things on a low performance core, and high load tasks (the active program) operating on a separate high speed core. even multi-tasking operating systems only have one task "active" at a time. there are cases where you might be doing a couple of hard disk searches simultaneously, but having two bleeding edge cores at 100% are still going to butt up against front side bus blockages (or HDD transfer rate limitations), and better programming features like indexing in RAM are probably better solutions to these problems than throwing more CPU grunt at them anyway (RAM is often another wasted feature of modern PCs, even with Windows' prefetch/readyboost).
actually i think that a lot of those scenarios you mention would be in violation of other statutes, so while you may be free to say things, the consequences of what you say may result in criminal charges (such as "unmarked advertisement for known-dangerous products" most likely being in violation of OH&S laws). some people are stupid enough to think that "free speech" is the be all and end all, but they don't realize that its still possible for your mouth to write cheques that your body can't cash.
Twitter is an amazing social communication tool
its nothing more than a glorified shout box. there's nothing "social" about it.
your legs and mouth/larynx are also excellent social communication tools, and they are underutilized in this day and age. twatter and facecrap are killing traditional conversation.
no one cares how many bits of toast you are having
i totally agree. its not me you have to convince though - its all the twats out there that thinks the world wants nothing more than to know how many bits of toast they're having (or what color the shit that they just pushed out was). its pretty sad.
get off your own lawn
that's a new one, but ok.
my lawn is my own (well, the part that's paid off anyway - which is probably not much really) so i'll preach from it till i can't be bothered any more
i think i see your point though. i consider myself an "optimistic pessimist" - meaning simply that i often expect the worst. However, in doing so, when things fuck up i can't be disappointed, but if things work out its a pleasant surprise. optimists probably find this irritating, but i feel sorry for them.
and hence the reason why microcontrollers will win out, because when a 6 GHz micro comes out (eventually), everything else will be designed around it, except maybe the HDD access problem, but connection between north and south bridges, memory etc will obviously be increased because they are on the same die and you're less affected by voltage drops across lengthy copper tracks
although even with a 6 GHz CPU, the bottlenecks would be in FSB and HDD access etc, so I guess one is rather pointless without the other
sigh
Let's say that the main problem I had was with "7 cores"....
fair call. the 7 core thing was probably because i'm typing this at home rather than at work where the i7 actually is. i keep an eye on the task manager when using autodesk inventor for assemblies with 10,000+ parts in them because i'm interested to know why things are slow, but its actually more to keep an eye on memory usage (had to upgrade recently to 16 Gb because it was beginning to page to the hard disk at 12 Gb).
if the OS could somehow parallelize the opening of 10,000+ part files so that Inventor is more responsive, then great. but it's really up to Autodesk to multi-thread Inventor more, not the OS vendor. it's also limited by hdd access speeds, fsb speeds, etc.
you might say that having multiple cores is great because the OS runs those 160 odd processes in your task manager in parallel, but if you look in task manager, pretty much all those processes aren't using the processor at all, with the idle process using 99%+ of the processor most of the time, so it would work just as well with one core.
to use your porche analogy, if you are limited to legally driving at 100 km/h or 110 km/h (which you are in Australia) then buying a porche that can do anything higher is a retarded waste of money if you only bought it to go fast. if you needed lots of power for towing a semi-trailer, then you would be retarded for buying a porche but for different reasons. if you buy a porche because you think they make you look awesome, you need your head checked, but anyway...
if i had the choice of getting a single core CPU running at 6 GHz or a 4 core CPU with each core running at 3 GHz, I would go for the single core every time, because even though there is more cumulative grunt in the quad, i can't access that grunt where i need it so much of it is wasted (like buying a family size pizza when you can only eat a small).
and so i'm still waiting for that 6 GHz core... hint hint Intel (where's that darned Moore when you need him?)
tit for tat means equivalent argument (i looked it up before i used it actually). you say google isn't forcing you to use google+, i say microsoft didn't force you to use IE. how can i make it any more obvious than that? maybe its you who should get a clue.
integration of IE wasn't the reason for microsoft's antitrust case, it was bundling the browser for "free" with windows, which essentially eliminated the entire browser market due to microsoft's operating system monopoly (dodgy oem deals and the like). the frogshit about its integration so as not being able to remove it was merely microsoft's defence against being forced to remove it from the windows default install.
if "IE" was merely an integrated API for supporting windows explorer and office, there would have been no case because netscape would still have had a market.
google can't bundle anything in the same way as IE was bundled because it uses a different software model (software as a service). there is no "product" that can be bundled in the traditional sense, but it could be argued that even putting a link to google+ on the google search home page could be considered bundling in the world of SaaS, which is the same world that facebook and twitter are playing in.
the real question is does google have a web search monopoly that it could abuse to eliminate the personalized search market? i don't think so, because there is nothing forcing you to use any google services. windows is different because you basically can't go to a computer shop and get anything x86 that doesn't run windows. also, because of the legacy of the oem deals, there is so much legacy software and data out there so many users are forced to continue to use windows because of their vested interest.
has everyone forgotten that most windows software (still) comes on CD?
yeah, so google bundling/integrating their personalized search into google search is analgous to microsoft bundling/integrating IE into windows
while google isn't forcing you to use either, it is offering both and is leveraging its significant google search market share to support its entry into personalized search (like Microsoft putting an IE icon on the Windows desktop).
i imagine if microsoft put a bing search icon on the windows 8 desktop, google would get all pissy too, or if intel built-in a linux operating system into its next generation microprocessors then microsoft would get all pissy.
and yeah i know you're going to say "oh but microsoft integrated IE with windows explorer", but then how would that drive netscape out of business?
microsoft didn't force you to open internet explorer either. tit for tat.
at the end of the day, the user is tricked into thinking their computer is faster than it actually is because much of the resources is inaccessible to a single process (hence most of the grunt in the processor is wasted in idle).
your operating system is optimized for multiple cores
that's fine. multi-threading has been around for a long time, but i don't "use" an operating system (humans don't even really multi-task that much on a computer beyond listening to music while using something else - having multiple windows open isn't really human multi-tasking, and doesn't require significant processor grunt). processor grunt only counts for applications that are processor-intensive. without finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, 3D modeling/CAD, early games (most are GPU-driven now) etc, Intel wouldn't have a market at all. nobody needs a 3GHz+ processor to play freecell (even if they had 100 instances of it running at once because you can only actually "use" one at a time).
I think you're basically saying that hyper threading is a crock of shit, and I agree with that.
It's weird that you seem to start criticizing my "old canard" that applications aren't written for multi-core CPUs, and then you proceed to agree with it. Obviously a multi-tasking operating system is designed to create a new thread for each process, but its not common to run multiple processor-intensive applications at the same time. I might have CAD, 3D modeling, FEA, Access, etc, all open at the same time but as you eluded each of these are idle the majority of the time while waiting for user input.
thanks for the terminology correction. i do normally like to try get things like that right.
why would samsung give a flying fuck what google does in the handset market? i'm sure if google pisses samsung off enough it will boycott google and fork its own phone os. its not like samsung doesn't have the resources to be able to achieve that in a hurry if they saw a need. what would happen to google's android without models like galaxy s2? sorry google fans, but when it comes to devices, you're not on the same playing field.
samsung electronics: rank 22 in forbes global 500 (133.8 billion revenue 2011)
google: rank 325 in forbes global 500 (29.3 billion revenue 2011)