"If it ain't Boeing I ain't going" -> So, is Gulf-stream out? Cessna? I could go on.
Airbus is typically seen as the European competitor to Boeing. They both, as per my understanding, make good planes, and tend to be comparable feature-wise. When other countries submit requests for bids for aircraft, they tend to send requests to both companies.
However, as with Boeing in the United States, Airbus suffers from some heavy politics in the EU. Each economic block cares to protect its 'precious,' and isn't above sniping the other.
And fly by wire systems are the future. The military uses them in a number of aircraft, including the F-117 and B-2 (both aircraft that the military, IMHO, hates losing). In short, the theory is sound, has been tested, with any possible problems stemming from individual implementations of said theory.
Yes, it is the SR-71, which requires a generator or two to jump start, and a refueling in mid-air since it tends to lose a lot of fuel before getting off the ground.
Fair enough. Just how far did these wings flex before failing the test?
6.9 meters? 1 meter? 4 meters?
Airplanes are required to have some flexibility (the idea of which appears at odds with airplane construction to the layman), for the simple reason that, among other things, airplanes that are too rigid will crack on landing. Mind you, we are speaking about an aircraft's wings here, not the fuselage of the aircraft, so there may be different reasons for flexibility, but the theory is still sound. A wing which cannot absorb a shock safely will probably sheer off during heavy turbulence, but then, I am not an aviation engineer, and I do not know the reasonings behind the institution of this test.
The long and short of it, is that this bill is, put charitably, penny-wise and pound-foolish. We will lose $300 billion to get back $10 billion. And that's just the monetary aspect. From the freedoms aspect, we stand to lose a fair amount more.
Two points need to made here: 1.) Steam figured out how to use DRM and not piss off its customer base. That members of the MPAA and RIAA are seemingly incapable of doing the same is a reason I would not invest in either their constituent's companies, given the choice (leadership failure, lack of vision). 2.) Using jack-booted thugs (off-duty police offices dressed like members of SWAT) to bust into people's homes, and arrest someone's grandmother for copyright violations is f*cked up. Any sane politician would cut off his own arm to NOT be associated with that kind of imagery.
The only possible reason I can contemplate that some members of government are getting on board with this is some sort of power-grab. Which is cute. The people you are going after are already US citizens, but for some reason you feel the need to degrade and humiliate your own people. Basically, it's a form of power masturbation: it gives our country something to do, but in the end, we're f*cking themselves.
Does anyone else wake up in the morning, spend a moment thinking through all the various systems of rule the human race has conceived of, and feel that none of them are satisfactory? Not one of them.
Democracy when you're younger -> everyone gets a vote, everyone is intelligent / cares to carefully understand or weigh each issue before casting a vote. Democracy when you're older -> why am I always in the minority? if everyone is intelligent, why are they constantly voting for plans that will backfire in a year or so? why do people espouse no desire to learn anything outside of their chosen field? why is justice always being streamlined? why is everyone seemingly so happy to remain a part of / go along with a group, even if it means they will suffer for it? why is acting stupid in vogue? why am I finding out that everything I've been taught is a complete lie?
And so on. As per Penny-Arcade, sometimes in order to hurt someone very badly, you need to tell them terrible lies.
If we are talking about programming in general, I think I started with Logo, then Java / Q-Basic, then C, then JavaScript, then C++. Something like that, with HTML / VRML mixed in for good measure. Ah, good old VRML.
Currently enjoying C# as my primary language, and doing PHP work for a small project. Have a book on Ruby to finish reading, the AMD APP OpenCL reference for when I have some free time.
Indeed. It's our weird world of thinking -> "We won't build new nuclear power plants (which are safer, and benefit from technology advances), because nuclear power is unsafe; but we will continue to operate the older nuclear power plants (which are less safe, and are slowly crumbling) because we have already spent the money building them."
There are days when I think the inmates are running the asylum.
I think C++ is a good starting point simply because it teaches memory management and class design.
Understanding the concept of a class is one of the most difficult programming concepts a novice will encounter. And they are used everywhere.
Just try explaining the concept of a class to a non-programmer. I will bet money that they will nod their heads, and still have no idea what you're talking about.
And memory management -> something you need to understand, even if you use a garbage collector.
If he's just taking a programming class to get a taste (dilettante) for programming, then by all means teach him Visual Basic or JavaScript or whatever. However, if he's taking a programming class to learn programming (he wants the programmer skillset a.k.a. a real programmer), then C++ is where he wants to be. Once you understand the concepts in C++ (which can be brutal / metal when it comes to learning), the hardest part of learning how to program is past.
Why, do you ask? Because otherwise you end up in sad scenarios, like when the PhDs in your Computer Science department do not know how to install an operating system, when the undergrads in your class have difficulty understanding the difference between an AMD processor and an Intel processor, or why one should never write a program in JavaScript that consumes 8 GB of the client computer's memory.
TLDR; C++ will expose him to the greatest number of programming concepts in the shortest period of time, and give him the minimal amount of understanding necessary to eventually grow into a respected programmer.
Keep it voluntary. While technological skills are almost required today, it's important to give the kids a choice. Helps weed out kids who do not want to learn technology, and also removes teachers who would sabotage things ("the State mandates that everyone have 72 hours of technology learning, now sit down and shutup, as I teach you things I myself do not understand; do not deviate from the lesson / lab or try to learn anything / create anything on your own / do anything cool and we will be done with learning about these infernal machines before you know it!").
And for the record, LOGO is probably the language you want to use when showing kids what taking your class is about.
Congress proposes bill -> The populace realizes they're getting fucked, and complains loudly about it -> Congress tables the bill -> The populace quiets down -> Congress passes the bill into law.
That is fairly accurate. Since governments tend to work on the basis of control of information (the peasants do not need to know things that might trouble them), the internet could be seen as an interfering party.
Additionally, it uses a paradigm that most power structures are having significant difficulty adapting to -> in so far as most power structures work on the basis of fiefdoms or a cloaked variant of feudalism, it's a real bastard trying to divide up and section the internet (a power structure tries to control a section of the internet, the internet responds by rerouting around the 'damaged' section, the power structure doesn't understand, the power structure thinks it just needs better laws / more jack-booted thugs to get what it wants). It's really quite amusing.
The US government can't understand the internet, or how their legislative / executive / judicial abilities do not extend to virtual space. The very height of arrogance that our Senators cannot understand that there are some things in this universe that do not tremble in fear at the sound of their footsteps, or that their power does not extend to machines. I long for the day when one of them will walk down to the shore, and command the tide not to come in. ^_^
That was part of possibility #1 -> they (the city council) squashes the movement.
Since it's immaterial to guess what the city council might be thinking when you bring a motion to the floor (to be honest, from their side, probably 98% of the motions brought before them are by people who might be labeled crackpots, and they desperately want to be anywhere else rather than trying to calmly listen to any number of pedantic items; but it's part of the job, and if they want to get paid / retain power, that's how it's done), I only care to summarize their possible actions (rulings, and likely interests). I do not pretend that I am encapsulating or summarizing all possible actions or motivations; and yes, I can / do make mistakes.
At the heart of the matter is an attempt to deal with an overbearing federal organ, and do so effectively while not interfering with people's daily coming and goings. The TSA is used as a sword by various political members, and it's humiliating / denigrating to the unfortunate human beings who seem to find themselves at the end of it. Since once you've found yourself at the end of that particular sword, the only possibly way of successfully negating its negative effects is to simply not be in that situation (a classic Catch-22), and since I am capable of putting myself in the shoes of any number of innocent and badgered American citizens who have come under its sway, I cannot say that I do not have an interest in having others come to a conclusion similar to my own -> "the TSA is bad for America." It's bad for trade (foreign investors are avoiding the United States in droves, which is having a noticeable impact on our economy), it's bad for individual freedoms and liberties (who can forget the TSA hassling a elderly woman in an adult diaper, stealing personal items or effects, and their 'liberal' policy towards the searching of school age children's bodies), and it's bad for the defense of America in general (it puts scarce resources and public focus into outdated and dis-proven military / defense doctrines).
Perhaps part of the problem is the current environmental variables. We've told the car companies, in so many words, that they need only care about designing an engine with a top speed slightly over 80 MPH (I believe 80 MPH is the top speed limit in the United States, perhaps 100 MPH). Then we told them to design an engine that is fuel efficient given that top speed.
A greater efficiency might be gained with a more radical redesign of the combustion engine (just speculating here), but that would require a larger investment in R&D, and with a larger investment comes a greater risk, which also requires a greater reward in compensation. Before this can happen, there must a an untapped market for investors to care about. Lifting the speed limit might do wonders here. New market -> higher performance engine, capable of higher speeds, and since the average customer (rich or otherwise) does not like the idea of their net wealth dropping a percentage point every time they fill up at the gas station, arguably something efficient.
Or we could just pop a RTG into the back of a Chevy Volt. A Mr. Fission in the back would be oddly amusing.
Though I think a greater gain may be had with better coatings for cars. Reducing friction with better coatings for cars might improve things fuel efficiency. But I am not an engineer, only a scientist, so it's best to ask them what they've tried before looking for a new solution.
To fight the TSA requires any number of resources in your favor: time, money, influence, or numbers.
Perhaps the easiest way to fight this particular group is by pulling a SEP -> someone else's problem. Attend a city council meeting, and move that the local Boston Police Department have its budget slashed, reasoning that since the TSA is doing their job, the city no longer needs to pay for benefits that the Boston PD is not providing. 3 possibilities are likely -> 1.) the city council will squash the movement (but doing so will draw attention to your plight, and paint the current politicians as being in bed with the TSA -> not a good place to be when the TSA is chafing potential voters), 2.) the city will cut Boston PD's budget (at which point the Boston PD will have to make a tough choice of pissing off the populace because of a pay cut, or letting it slide), or 3.) the Boston PD will become wise to the situation, and take out a jurisdictional grievance against the TSA (they get to keep their budget, remove some competition, and look like the heroes -> kid gloves from the officers reassigned to the public transit beat, something of a junket for the officers concerned as it may be 'easy' compared to other patrols).
This is how you handle problems that you do not have the resources to fight properly -> get someone who has the proper resources to do the fighting for you. It helps if you appeal to this person's / group's best interest in a truthful, sincere way (the untruthful / insincere stuff tends to fall apart before a victory).
And yes, given the Amtrak PD's response to various TSA shenanigans, it has a precedent. And the danger to the Boston PD (or whoever patrolled that beat prior to the TSA) is quite real; you don't want a generation of Bostonians growing up thinking that it takes a guy in tactical gear with a SMG to keep public transportation safe; once they do, the original patrollers will never get that beat back (loss of territory),
Perhaps a better way of explaining that is "the US is losing its technological prowess, which grants it immunity to its actions and allows it to wage uncontested war; it is now remembering all the friends and enemies it has stepped on, and how countries tend to have long memories..."
We (the US) are now pushing for a war with Iran (which we can't afford), and wish to hitch ourselves to Asia, in an attempt to both stay relevant and acquire a new source of revenue. The reason for our increased presence in Asia is directly linked to a historical context -> he who controls the silk road, earns a lot of money; Similar idea here, if we control the trade routes through the use of our military (under the guise of protection), we stand to profit from it.
Most things, software and mechanical, are trivial to reverse engineer.
A slight tweak on a screw can mean all the difference in a number of applications, leaving many engineers shaking their heads; this tweak, however, can easily be copied in a week's time.
Ease of replication is not a measure of effort, novelty, or invention.
"Fair and speedy trial" with regards to the defendant, not the DA or FBI. If the defendant wants to wait in comfortable surroundings for a higher court to make a decision that may alter the outcome of his / her case, then by all means, let him / her. It will be cheaper to assign a FBI agent to watch him / her, and put them both up in a posh hotel, than to find out what kind of damages his lawyer will be suing the feds for if and when the SCOTUS decides to rule on things (because we all know that when lawyers sue, they do it for small change). I was not aware, given the current recession, that there was any place left in the US that still had the kind of money to engage in these kinds of gambling exercises; I guess I learn something new every day.
Slashdot Mirror
Potentially useful. Does anyone have a link to a map detailing which areas of the earth are covered?
"If it ain't Boeing I ain't going" -> So, is Gulf-stream out? Cessna? I could go on.
Airbus is typically seen as the European competitor to Boeing. They both, as per my understanding, make good planes, and tend to be comparable feature-wise. When other countries submit requests for bids for aircraft, they tend to send requests to both companies.
However, as with Boeing in the United States, Airbus suffers from some heavy politics in the EU. Each economic block cares to protect its 'precious,' and isn't above sniping the other.
And fly by wire systems are the future. The military uses them in a number of aircraft, including the F-117 and B-2 (both aircraft that the military, IMHO, hates losing). In short, the theory is sound, has been tested, with any possible problems stemming from individual implementations of said theory.
Yes, it is the SR-71, which requires a generator or two to jump start, and a refueling in mid-air since it tends to lose a lot of fuel before getting off the ground.
Fair enough. Just how far did these wings flex before failing the test?
6.9 meters? 1 meter? 4 meters?
Airplanes are required to have some flexibility (the idea of which appears at odds with airplane construction to the layman), for the simple reason that, among other things, airplanes that are too rigid will crack on landing. Mind you, we are speaking about an aircraft's wings here, not the fuselage of the aircraft, so there may be different reasons for flexibility, but the theory is still sound. A wing which cannot absorb a shock safely will probably sheer off during heavy turbulence, but then, I am not an aviation engineer, and I do not know the reasonings behind the institution of this test.
How good can you be if you haven't accidentally created a plague or two?
Thank You.
The long and short of it, is that this bill is, put charitably, penny-wise and pound-foolish. We will lose $300 billion to get back $10 billion. And that's just the monetary aspect. From the freedoms aspect, we stand to lose a fair amount more.
Two points need to made here:
1.) Steam figured out how to use DRM and not piss off its customer base. That members of the MPAA and RIAA are seemingly incapable of doing the same is a reason I would not invest in either their constituent's companies, given the choice (leadership failure, lack of vision).
2.) Using jack-booted thugs (off-duty police offices dressed like members of SWAT) to bust into people's homes, and arrest someone's grandmother for copyright violations is f*cked up. Any sane politician would cut off his own arm to NOT be associated with that kind of imagery.
The only possible reason I can contemplate that some members of government are getting on board with this is some sort of power-grab. Which is cute. The people you are going after are already US citizens, but for some reason you feel the need to degrade and humiliate your own people. Basically, it's a form of power masturbation: it gives our country something to do, but in the end, we're f*cking themselves.
Does anyone else wake up in the morning, spend a moment thinking through all the various systems of rule the human race has conceived of, and feel that none of them are satisfactory? Not one of them.
Democracy when you're younger -> everyone gets a vote, everyone is intelligent / cares to carefully understand or weigh each issue before casting a vote.
Democracy when you're older -> why am I always in the minority? if everyone is intelligent, why are they constantly voting for plans that will backfire in a year or so? why do people espouse no desire to learn anything outside of their chosen field? why is justice always being streamlined? why is everyone seemingly so happy to remain a part of / go along with a group, even if it means they will suffer for it? why is acting stupid in vogue? why am I finding out that everything I've been taught is a complete lie?
And so on. As per Penny-Arcade, sometimes in order to hurt someone very badly, you need to tell them terrible lies.
So, where did the inmates run off to? Seriously, I am almost sober enough that I might want to follow in their footsteps / escape plan. ^_^
If we are talking about programming in general, I think I started with Logo, then Java / Q-Basic, then C, then JavaScript, then C++. Something like that, with HTML / VRML mixed in for good measure. Ah, good old VRML.
Currently enjoying C# as my primary language, and doing PHP work for a small project. Have a book on Ruby to finish reading, the AMD APP OpenCL reference for when I have some free time.
Indeed. It's our weird world of thinking -> "We won't build new nuclear power plants (which are safer, and benefit from technology advances), because nuclear power is unsafe; but we will continue to operate the older nuclear power plants (which are less safe, and are slowly crumbling) because we have already spent the money building them."
There are days when I think the inmates are running the asylum.
I think C++ is a good starting point simply because it teaches memory management and class design.
Understanding the concept of a class is one of the most difficult programming concepts a novice will encounter. And they are used everywhere.
Just try explaining the concept of a class to a non-programmer. I will bet money that they will nod their heads, and still have no idea what you're talking about.
And memory management -> something you need to understand, even if you use a garbage collector.
If he's just taking a programming class to get a taste (dilettante) for programming, then by all means teach him Visual Basic or JavaScript or whatever. However, if he's taking a programming class to learn programming (he wants the programmer skillset a.k.a. a real programmer), then C++ is where he wants to be. Once you understand the concepts in C++ (which can be brutal / metal when it comes to learning), the hardest part of learning how to program is past.
Why, do you ask? Because otherwise you end up in sad scenarios, like when the PhDs in your Computer Science department do not know how to install an operating system, when the undergrads in your class have difficulty understanding the difference between an AMD processor and an Intel processor, or why one should never write a program in JavaScript that consumes 8 GB of the client computer's memory.
TLDR; C++ will expose him to the greatest number of programming concepts in the shortest period of time, and give him the minimal amount of understanding necessary to eventually grow into a respected programmer.
Keep it voluntary. While technological skills are almost required today, it's important to give the kids a choice. Helps weed out kids who do not want to learn technology, and also removes teachers who would sabotage things ("the State mandates that everyone have 72 hours of technology learning, now sit down and shutup, as I teach you things I myself do not understand; do not deviate from the lesson / lab or try to learn anything / create anything on your own / do anything cool and we will be done with learning about these infernal machines before you know it!").
And for the record, LOGO is probably the language you want to use when showing kids what taking your class is about.
Just curious -> why? Personal interest, or business venture?
And someone make sure he starts with C++. If he survives that, he won't have any trouble picking up other languages.
Congress proposes bill -> The populace realizes they're getting fucked, and complains loudly about it -> Congress tables the bill -> The populace quiets down -> Congress passes the bill into law.
That is fairly accurate. Since governments tend to work on the basis of control of information (the peasants do not need to know things that might trouble them), the internet could be seen as an interfering party.
Additionally, it uses a paradigm that most power structures are having significant difficulty adapting to -> in so far as most power structures work on the basis of fiefdoms or a cloaked variant of feudalism, it's a real bastard trying to divide up and section the internet (a power structure tries to control a section of the internet, the internet responds by rerouting around the 'damaged' section, the power structure doesn't understand, the power structure thinks it just needs better laws / more jack-booted thugs to get what it wants). It's really quite amusing.
The US government can't understand the internet, or how their legislative / executive / judicial abilities do not extend to virtual space. The very height of arrogance that our Senators cannot understand that there are some things in this universe that do not tremble in fear at the sound of their footsteps, or that their power does not extend to machines. I long for the day when one of them will walk down to the shore, and command the tide not to come in. ^_^
That was part of possibility #1 -> they (the city council) squashes the movement.
Since it's immaterial to guess what the city council might be thinking when you bring a motion to the floor (to be honest, from their side, probably 98% of the motions brought before them are by people who might be labeled crackpots, and they desperately want to be anywhere else rather than trying to calmly listen to any number of pedantic items; but it's part of the job, and if they want to get paid / retain power, that's how it's done), I only care to summarize their possible actions (rulings, and likely interests). I do not pretend that I am encapsulating or summarizing all possible actions or motivations; and yes, I can / do make mistakes.
At the heart of the matter is an attempt to deal with an overbearing federal organ, and do so effectively while not interfering with people's daily coming and goings. The TSA is used as a sword by various political members, and it's humiliating / denigrating to the unfortunate human beings who seem to find themselves at the end of it. Since once you've found yourself at the end of that particular sword, the only possibly way of successfully negating its negative effects is to simply not be in that situation (a classic Catch-22), and since I am capable of putting myself in the shoes of any number of innocent and badgered American citizens who have come under its sway, I cannot say that I do not have an interest in having others come to a conclusion similar to my own -> "the TSA is bad for America." It's bad for trade (foreign investors are avoiding the United States in droves, which is having a noticeable impact on our economy), it's bad for individual freedoms and liberties (who can forget the TSA hassling a elderly woman in an adult diaper, stealing personal items or effects, and their 'liberal' policy towards the searching of school age children's bodies), and it's bad for the defense of America in general (it puts scarce resources and public focus into outdated and dis-proven military / defense doctrines).
Perhaps part of the problem is the current environmental variables. We've told the car companies, in so many words, that they need only care about designing an engine with a top speed slightly over 80 MPH (I believe 80 MPH is the top speed limit in the United States, perhaps 100 MPH). Then we told them to design an engine that is fuel efficient given that top speed.
A greater efficiency might be gained with a more radical redesign of the combustion engine (just speculating here), but that would require a larger investment in R&D, and with a larger investment comes a greater risk, which also requires a greater reward in compensation. Before this can happen, there must a an untapped market for investors to care about. Lifting the speed limit might do wonders here. New market -> higher performance engine, capable of higher speeds, and since the average customer (rich or otherwise) does not like the idea of their net wealth dropping a percentage point every time they fill up at the gas station, arguably something efficient.
Or we could just pop a RTG into the back of a Chevy Volt. A Mr. Fission in the back would be oddly amusing.
Though I think a greater gain may be had with better coatings for cars. Reducing friction with better coatings for cars might improve things fuel efficiency. But I am not an engineer, only a scientist, so it's best to ask them what they've tried before looking for a new solution.
To fight the TSA requires any number of resources in your favor: time, money, influence, or numbers.
Perhaps the easiest way to fight this particular group is by pulling a SEP -> someone else's problem. Attend a city council meeting, and move that the local Boston Police Department have its budget slashed, reasoning that since the TSA is doing their job, the city no longer needs to pay for benefits that the Boston PD is not providing. 3 possibilities are likely -> 1.) the city council will squash the movement (but doing so will draw attention to your plight, and paint the current politicians as being in bed with the TSA -> not a good place to be when the TSA is chafing potential voters), 2.) the city will cut Boston PD's budget (at which point the Boston PD will have to make a tough choice of pissing off the populace because of a pay cut, or letting it slide), or 3.) the Boston PD will become wise to the situation, and take out a jurisdictional grievance against the TSA (they get to keep their budget, remove some competition, and look like the heroes -> kid gloves from the officers reassigned to the public transit beat, something of a junket for the officers concerned as it may be 'easy' compared to other patrols).
This is how you handle problems that you do not have the resources to fight properly -> get someone who has the proper resources to do the fighting for you. It helps if you appeal to this person's / group's best interest in a truthful, sincere way (the untruthful / insincere stuff tends to fall apart before a victory).
And yes, given the Amtrak PD's response to various TSA shenanigans, it has a precedent. And the danger to the Boston PD (or whoever patrolled that beat prior to the TSA) is quite real; you don't want a generation of Bostonians growing up thinking that it takes a guy in tactical gear with a SMG to keep public transportation safe; once they do, the original patrollers will never get that beat back (loss of territory),
Perhaps a better way of explaining that is "the US is losing its technological prowess, which grants it immunity to its actions and allows it to wage uncontested war; it is now remembering all the friends and enemies it has stepped on, and how countries tend to have long memories..."
We (the US) are now pushing for a war with Iran (which we can't afford), and wish to hitch ourselves to Asia, in an attempt to both stay relevant and acquire a new source of revenue. The reason for our increased presence in Asia is directly linked to a historical context -> he who controls the silk road, earns a lot of money; Similar idea here, if we control the trade routes through the use of our military (under the guise of protection), we stand to profit from it.
Too familiar. I wonder why empires always follow the same path to their deaths...I wonder what they are chasing?
Most things, software and mechanical, are trivial to reverse engineer.
A slight tweak on a screw can mean all the difference in a number of applications, leaving many engineers shaking their heads; this tweak, however, can easily be copied in a week's time.
Ease of replication is not a measure of effort, novelty, or invention.
"Fair and speedy trial" with regards to the defendant, not the DA or FBI. If the defendant wants to wait in comfortable surroundings for a higher court to make a decision that may alter the outcome of his / her case, then by all means, let him / her. It will be cheaper to assign a FBI agent to watch him / her, and put them both up in a posh hotel, than to find out what kind of damages his lawyer will be suing the feds for if and when the SCOTUS decides to rule on things (because we all know that when lawyers sue, they do it for small change). I was not aware, given the current recession, that there was any place left in the US that still had the kind of money to engage in these kinds of gambling exercises; I guess I learn something new every day.
Because then the court will have to free the guy and pay out an ass-load of money if the SCOTUS reverses the decision.
But f*ck it, it's not actually the court's money, it's the taxpayer's money, and there is plenty more where that came from, AMIRIGHT?
By all means, point to another ideology whose constituents you would consider mature in comparison.
Because that's totally the kind of behavior you want to promote among the peace-loving populace -> distrust for your neighbor.
You know, I enjoyed reading dystopian novels when I was younger, I did not expect to live in one!