The primary role of an architect in the design of bridges or buildings is to say how it should look or other human interface-related things (floorplans, etc.). Anything related to keeping the structure from collapsing is done by an engineer. If someone wants to make a type of building or bridge that's never been done before, the primary innovations involved are engineering innovations (new techniques, etc.) and they come from engineers. Architects simply don't have the expertise to do this type of work.
For other engineering fields this is even more apparent. Who designs new figher jets in your world view? who designs computers? Look around at all the technology you interact with on a day to day basis and ask yourself who designs it? 99% of the time the answer is "an engineer". It's scary to me how many people in the world think that all these things just fall from the sky.
Indeed there are engineers who focus less on R&D and more on execution using existing tools (like your brother), but that's just one corner of the universe. A large fraction of the engineers in the world are doing R&D which involves quite a bit of innovation and creativity. Most things that involve rote application of existing tools can be transferred to a technician.
I just markup how much I need an employer to pay me by the amount of the taxes such that it's equivalent to me paying no taxes.
And the employer marks up the costs of the products we sell so that it's equivalent to him not paying me at all.
And the customers of those products simply insist that their employers pay them more to cover the cost of the products, so it's like they're getting those products for free.
Wow, this is awesome. Somehow nobody ever pays for anything in this system. Money doesn't exist! It's all magic! Yippee!
---
OR...maybe all money flows in a loop and we tax it when it changes hands. Oh, that makes a lot more sense. The world makes sense again. I guess I was just temporarily a huge idiot who didn't know how economics works.
If that was true, then why did Japan refuse to surrender between the first bomb and the second bomb? Those were 3 days apart and Truman explicitly asked for surrender between the two.
Oh, right, it's only racist xenophobia when it's Americans doing it. Your entire argument is that since there are good colleges in the US (and the US has worked hard to build a strong economy) then anyone anywhere should be allowed to buy their way into American citizenship for the price of attending a US university--regardless of the impact to actual American citizens and the US economy.
Capitalism is directly or indirectly responsible for most of the technical and medical advances that exist in the world. The alternative to capitalism is that there is no reward for innovation, and thus no innovation.
That's not how capitalism works--the price of something is based on its scarcity. Housing in San Francisco is scarce and thus expensive. You said this was an American problem and that "normal" countries don't function this way--but you are completely wrong. The same dynamic exists in nearly every major city in the world.
in 'firmware' means. By your own admission you literally don't know what the word 'firmware' means.
> In practice there is basically no computer board out there where a CPU soldered or plugged into it, can be altered after it is shipped.
Microcode for both AMD & Intel cpus are frequently updated (patched) via BIOS/EFI or the OS update mechanism. On modern cpus, in modern operating systems (Windows/Linux/OSX). It's been like this forever.
> No one would ship microcode in a firmware update for a router. Tripple wrong even: no router is able to upgrade the microcode of one of its processors, that would be much to expensive.
You are talking about cheap wifi routers and I'm talking about all manner of computers and telecommunications equipment that would be covered by this law. It covers the client side, too--so that means laptops and desktops, anything that talks (or can talk) on FCC controlled frequencies.
> And it is certainly not in between the CPU and the software, it is below the CPU.
The 'firm' in firmware doesn't mean it was developed by the 'firm', it refers to the ability to change that code--as in, 'firmware' is harder to change than 'software' but easier to change than 'hardware'--get it?
Every Intel cpu uses microcode which is patchable after production. But you didn't understand where the 'firm' in 'firmware' comes from so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that you are lacking basic computer knowledge like microcode.
The problem is that fucking morons like you are now trying to write laws that say that hardware manufacturers have to open up all software layers down to the hardware. Whether you consider microcode to be 'firmware' or not doesn't matter--it is clearly a software layer between the application and the hardware so it would get swept up in these stupid rules.
that you don't realize that you just proved my point? You were able to modify setting that control thermal management. You probably knew what you were doing, or at least you understood that if the device caught on fire then you accepted the liability. But now you expect every hardware manufacturer to take on the liability for every internet idiot blindly modifying deep internal settings on devices they don't understand.
makes then you'd be able to tell me what I said that was false. But you can't.
I never said that 100mW of RF could cause any human damage--I don't know if it could or not. I said that there are pieces of code running on computers and electronic devices that, if written incorrectly, can cause physical damage--which is why we shouldn't let/. morons anywhere near that code. My whole point is that just because something is technically "software" doesn't mean it's safe to let any jackass modify it.
Most of the computers (hell, most of the electronic devices) you've used in your life have some code running at some layer which [if written incorrectly] can do some physical damage. There is code that sequences power initialization, controls the voltage levels, controls clock rates, enables/disables over-temperature sensors, controls fan speeds, yadda yadda yadda.
You are unaware that this code exists probably because you've lived your entire computer life inside a safe little virtual world created for you by people who are a lot smarter than you.
Let me use a star trek analogy: You're in the holodeck and arguing with me that there is nothing outside of the holodeck. I find your argument unconvincing because I make holodecks for a living.
Slashdot Mirror
The primary role of an architect in the design of bridges or buildings is to say how it should look or other human interface-related things (floorplans, etc.). Anything related to keeping the structure from collapsing is done by an engineer. If someone wants to make a type of building or bridge that's never been done before, the primary innovations involved are engineering innovations (new techniques, etc.) and they come from engineers. Architects simply don't have the expertise to do this type of work.
For other engineering fields this is even more apparent. Who designs new figher jets in your world view? who designs computers? Look around at all the technology you interact with on a day to day basis and ask yourself who designs it? 99% of the time the answer is "an engineer". It's scary to me how many people in the world think that all these things just fall from the sky.
Indeed there are engineers who focus less on R&D and more on execution using existing tools (like your brother), but that's just one corner of the universe. A large fraction of the engineers in the world are doing R&D which involves quite a bit of innovation and creativity. Most things that involve rote application of existing tools can be transferred to a technician.
Do you think that building bridges, skyscrapers and rockets is just 'rote application of math to science'? WTF that means.
"If exposure to C++ hasn't destroyed your ability to think logically, ..."
-- Leslie Lamport
People get together and form a government which decides how to spend societies collective wealth. You have two alternative choices:
1. "law of the jungle" : people who want your stuff just kill you and take it
2. autocratic rule : there's a king who gets all your stuff
Which alternative do you prefer?
Did you miss the part where they have an algorithm that tries not to assign the same colors to adjacent blocks of memory?
nt
I just markup how much I need an employer to pay me by the amount of the taxes such that it's equivalent to me paying no taxes.
And the employer marks up the costs of the products we sell so that it's equivalent to him not paying me at all.
And the customers of those products simply insist that their employers pay them more to cover the cost of the products, so it's like they're getting those products for free.
Wow, this is awesome. Somehow nobody ever pays for anything in this system. Money doesn't exist! It's all magic! Yippee!
---
OR...maybe all money flows in a loop and we tax it when it changes hands. Oh, that makes a lot more sense. The world makes sense again. I guess I was just temporarily a huge idiot who didn't know how economics works.
If that was true, then why did Japan refuse to surrender between the first bomb and the second bomb? Those were 3 days apart and Truman explicitly asked for surrender between the two.
the sky? How did those countries get to be wealthy?
nt
get a job there? Yes or No?
Oh, right, it's only racist xenophobia when it's Americans doing it. Your entire argument is that since there are good colleges in the US (and the US has worked hard to build a strong economy) then anyone anywhere should be allowed to buy their way into American citizenship for the price of attending a US university--regardless of the impact to actual American citizens and the US economy.
Capitalism is directly or indirectly responsible for most of the technical and medical advances that exist in the world. The alternative to capitalism is that there is no reward for innovation, and thus no innovation.
any other requests?
a job in the US at all? Are US citizens allowed to go live and work in any country they want?
but keep in mind that capitalism has outperformed (by pretty much every metric) every other economic system that has ever been tried.
nt
That's not how capitalism works--the price of something is based on its scarcity. Housing in San Francisco is scarce and thus expensive. You said this was an American problem and that "normal" countries don't function this way--but you are completely wrong. The same dynamic exists in nearly every major city in the world.
Housing prices are higher than "the cost to build" in major metropolitan areas all over the world (London, Paris, Rome, Moscow, etc., etc.).
Your definition of 'normal' is abnormal.
and they manage to have one or two tall buildings there.
Pay more for hackable hardware, or build the hardware yourself. But don't expect everyone else to subsidize your desire to fiddle with hardware.
in 'firmware' means. By your own admission you literally don't know what the word 'firmware' means.
> In practice there is basically no computer board out there where a CPU soldered or plugged into it, can be altered after it is shipped.
Microcode for both AMD & Intel cpus are frequently updated (patched) via BIOS/EFI or the OS update mechanism. On modern cpus, in modern operating systems (Windows/Linux/OSX). It's been like this forever.
> No one would ship microcode in a firmware update for a router. Tripple wrong even: no router is able to upgrade the microcode of one of its processors, that would be much to expensive.
You are talking about cheap wifi routers and I'm talking about all manner of computers and telecommunications equipment that would be covered by this law. It covers the client side, too--so that means laptops and desktops, anything that talks (or can talk) on FCC controlled frequencies.
> And it is certainly not in between the CPU and the software, it is below the CPU.
Wow.
The 'firm' in firmware doesn't mean it was developed by the 'firm', it refers to the ability to change that code--as in, 'firmware' is harder to change than 'software' but easier to change than 'hardware'--get it?
Every Intel cpu uses microcode which is patchable after production. But you didn't understand where the 'firm' in 'firmware' comes from so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that you are lacking basic computer knowledge like microcode.
The problem is that fucking morons like you are now trying to write laws that say that hardware manufacturers have to open up all software layers down to the hardware. Whether you consider microcode to be 'firmware' or not doesn't matter--it is clearly a software layer between the application and the hardware so it would get swept up in these stupid rules.
that you don't realize that you just proved my point? You were able to modify setting that control thermal management. You probably knew what you were doing, or at least you understood that if the device caught on fire then you accepted the liability. But now you expect every hardware manufacturer to take on the liability for every internet idiot blindly modifying deep internal settings on devices they don't understand.
makes then you'd be able to tell me what I said that was false. But you can't.
I never said that 100mW of RF could cause any human damage--I don't know if it could or not. I said that there are pieces of code running on computers and electronic devices that, if written incorrectly, can cause physical damage--which is why we shouldn't let /. morons anywhere near that code. My whole point is that just because something is technically "software" doesn't mean it's safe to let any jackass modify it.
Most of the computers (hell, most of the electronic devices) you've used in your life have some code running at some layer which [if written incorrectly] can do some physical damage. There is code that sequences power initialization, controls the voltage levels, controls clock rates, enables/disables over-temperature sensors, controls fan speeds, yadda yadda yadda.
You are unaware that this code exists probably because you've lived your entire computer life inside a safe little virtual world created for you by people who are a lot smarter than you.
Let me use a star trek analogy: You're in the holodeck and arguing with me that there is nothing outside of the holodeck. I find your argument unconvincing because I make holodecks for a living.