Big laptops are nothing new - what's interesting is the Samsung M70 with a detachable screen. Finally!
Consider the potential options: - LCD dies -- go buy a replacement screen instead of sending in your entire notebook for repair - keep a backup LCD - Laptop motherboard dies - keep the screen and buy the notebook without the LCD, saving $100's - buy a lower resolution LCD screen and upgrade later - Detach and use on a stand for a more ergnomic fit -- or use 2 LCD screens. - keep two screens at home and work. travel with screen-less notebook for less weight
I don't know if/when it will happen, but I look forward to the day the notebook industry implements a standard LCD/notebook cradle or other physical interface to attach LCD screens.
How can things like IPTV come into being if companies like Verizon are barred from building up and reserving the capacity to provide them?
And how did we ever end up with DSL and Broadband? If I was still using 300 Baud dialup, then you might have a case. But I don't, and your argument holds no water.
Why should Google, Microsoft, etc. be allowed access to that bandwidth since it's not impeding their ability to provide their services? Not allowing the telecoms and other large ISPs to do this would akin to not allowing Google to invest in dark fibre for its own purposes. Hmmm is that the smell of hypocrisy among the slashdot crowd once again?
No, the smell is the B.S. coming out of your fingers. Microsoft, Google, etc. already pay for their bandwidth usage, and the more they use, the more they pay, just like everyone else.
- the home user already pays for bandwith - last I checked if I want increased bandwidth I have to pay for it. - the ISP already pays for increased bandwidth to the Telcos - the ASP already pays for increased bandwidth. (example: Youtube pays $1 million a month for it's bandwidth usage).
The content companies have no right to the entire network
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The *end* user has the right to access whatever content provider they want, without a Telco surcharge. As a consumer, I neither want to nor should I have to choose between using Google or A9 or MSN search based on a surcharge. Period.
Telcos have no right to Balkanize the internet. This is a naked money grab by the Telcos. If they win, the average consumer loses, pure and simple.
Re:Moslems will kill people for becoming Christian
on
Al-Qaeda Hacker Caught
·
· Score: 1
Your pro-genocidal snap-judgement, AC, is an understandable result of raging young teen hormones. Once you have enough facial hair to shave and enough courage and understanding to post non-AC, then maybe your opinions will be worth something.
Software companies own their software only by societal agreement - as with all other property.
Like car-makers software developers must pay for R&D. However, after that, your comparison breaks down. The problem is that reproduction for software costs nearly nothing. This is unlike makers of physical products who must continuously pay to create their products, update and maintain their plants, and pay assembly workers. The costs associated with distributing a million copies of a $200.00 piece of software is *vastly* different from the costs of associated with producing and distributing a million units of a $200.00 hardware device.
Certainly software developers should recoup their costs and make a profit. But how much? Does it really benefit society to have Microsoft sit on a multi-billion dollar hoard?
Unless you are in a remote area, are serious book collectors, and/or are serving as an informal library, why in the world do you want to waste your time and house space warehousing 3,500 books? I personally agonize over selling my books but when I do I hardly ever need them again.
Expiration date method of culling unused books works for me.
This works well as it - takes minimal effort (you only mark books you are using, not all 3500 books) - gives you a visceral idea of what books you actually need and use.
1. mark your calendar 3 months from now 2. for every book you find yourself actually needing or reading, use it and put a slip in it that "extends" the expiration date another 3 months. 3. after three months, sell all the books that do not have their expiration date extended
Rinse lather and repeat every three months to maintain a sane flow of books into your house and back out again.
voila! cataloging problem removed (or at least severely reduced). Now you can use that old book space and money from the sales for that indoor pool or trampoline you've always wanted. Or paint a mural that *looks* like a whole buch of expensive books.
I tell you what -- interview a group of experienced programmers for a prospective project to write a database-backed web application with complex requirements. Tell them that they will be required to program in assembly language because "most studies show that... programmer productivity is generally independent of language chosen." Record their responses and post them to Slashdot.
Hacker elite self-aggrandizing baloney. Your mild irritation at not being allowed to run OSX on whatever system you want to run does not entitle you to run roughshod over Apple's business model.
There's several dozen free open source operating systems out there -- including Darwin -- yet you insist on trying to crack a an OS where the people who have payed for development costs are politely asking you not to hack.
This is akin to the toddler screaming because he couldn't get the exact action figure he wanted. Grow up.
"What is this medium for? It's to entertain, and it's to inform and it's to help us sustain the great marketplace of ideas that's the foundation of American democracy. We need to be using it to appeal to the better angels of our nature. And we can still be well and amply entertained and much better informed if we can get back to that. But I'm just worried now that commercialization of it, it's become, 'how do you keep people tuned in so they can watch the advertisements?'"
Sounds like a real villain.
Sorry, but you're just going out of your way to bash Democrats. Either that or you're a rabid Howard Stern fan (poor guy, crying over all his millions).
You mention four aspects of love and then focuses on only on a Bible-oriented version of agape. Why not devote equal time to phileo, eros and storge?
I would recommend praticing what you preach, "wrf3". Your attack on scientists certainly is un-agape-like, as well as doing a disservice to the Slashdot community.
- A biologist wrote "The Life of a Cell", a paen to the wonder of biology and creation. - Einstein loved Mozart and was an accomplished violinist, who played with passion. - It would be very hard to characterize the famous psychiatrist Carl Jung as an unpoetic character.
Looking around this world one can, after prying their nose out of the Book of Corinthians, definitely find scientific poets, and poetic scientists. And a love of mankind certainly does not preclude a passion and love for nature and the universe.
Perhaps another poem about love is appropriate. Hopefully the this poem titled "Dust" by Rupert Brooke, will be suitable this Valentine's day.
When the white flame in us is gone, And we that lost the world's delight Stiffen in darkness, left alone To crumble in our separate night;
When your swift hair is quiet in death, And through the lips corruption thrust Has still'd the labour of my breath - When we are dust, when we are dust !
Not dead, not undesirous yet, Still sentient, still unsatisfied, We'll ride the air, and shine, and flit, Around the places where we died,
And dance as dust before the sun, And light of foot and unconfined, Hurry from road to road, and run About the errands of the wind.
And every mote, on earth or air, Will speed and gleam, down later days, And like a secret pilgrim fare By eager and invisible ways,
Nor ever rest, nor ever lie, Till, beyond thinking, out of view, One mote of all the dust that's I Shall meet one atom that was you.
Then in some garden hush'd from wind, Warm in a sunset's afterglow, The lovers in the flowers will find A sweet and strange unquiet grow
Upon the peace; and, past desiring, So high a beauty in the air, And such a light, and such a quiring, And such a radiant ecstasy there,
They'll know not if it's fire, or dew, Or out of earth, or in the height, Singing, or flame, or scent, or hue, Or two that pass, in light, to light,
Out of the garden, higher, higher. . . . But in that instant they shall learn The shattering ecstasy of our fire, And the weak passionless hearts will burn
And faint in that amazing glow, Until the darkness close above; And they will know - poor fools, they'll know! One moment, what it is to love.
You are absolutely right. What were we thinking? The whole idea is rediculous. Thank you, Mr. Kenalbaha, for providing the insight that only a person with a "minimal knowledge of biology" could provide. Us here with postdoctoral degrees have been clearly wasting our efforts on nonsense. We'll send back our grants and ask that all our peer reviewed articles be retracted.
Sincerely,
Diana W. Bianchi, M.D. Vice Chair for Research, Floating Hospital for Children, Tufts University
This is coming a little late, but I appreciate your tone and approach, so maybe I can respond in kind. Responses preceded by "----"
Actually, I am at work. It's a slow day and I have lots of time. I can only read so many research articles in a day. But you do have a greater point. If I could find a way to donate this time to something more valuable, I would. However, I find value, both personal and for humanity, in making such posts and having these important discussions. For your information, most of my charity dollars go to exactly what you described.
---- Good to hear you are putting money into helping the needy and less forunate.:)
"2) We live in a world that has exploded into a population of over 6 billion."
Birth rates are falling like a rock. Population will level off soon and then begin to fall. Most industrialized nations are facing a severe economic disaster if they don't get their birthrates up. The US is the best off of the bunch, fortunately, which is why you don't hear about it so much.
---- The current growth rate worldwide is 1.14% with many countries exceeding 3% growth rate. Population will continue to rise and will exceed 9 billion by 2050. This is based on Wikipedia and the CIA factbook - I don't know what your sources are. As for getting youthful people needing opportunities that the Industrialized nations can provide, I hear there are plenty in Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and the Middle East...
"Already we have more people than could be sustained at the current American's standard of living."
Technology will improve, drastically, long before that happens.
---- Making unsubstantiated claims about the future is not an argument. More seriously, respond to what I said, not what you wish I had said. *Right* now there is not enough resources to sustain the American standard of living. Not some far-off starry-eyed optimisic vision of the future. Go tell your "in the future agrument" to a starving kid in Sudan.
"We are already gearing up for big fights over remaining resources of energy (oil)"
We won't be burning oil in fifty years.
---- Again, this is your unsubstantiated guess. I happen to agree that the use of oil will be serverely curtailed by 2050. Whether there will be a suitable resource to replace it is not guaranteed. Yet you wish to bet the welfare of billions of people on an optimistic, unfounded guess that something, somehow will provide the necessary resources.
with other resources (potable water) to come. Unchecked, unrestrained growth will lead either to famine or war, and probably both.
Water is not an issue. Energy is. If you have energy, you have fresh water. People have been predicting the environmental apocalypse for decades. They have been wrong every time.
---- Hmmm... tell that to the Easter Islanders or the Greenland Norse. Oh, wait you can't becuase they starved and died after destroying their local ecosystems. Just because things have worked out in the past does not mean that they will in the future. But agin, you're resorting to your "in the future" argument which has nothing to do with the misallocation of resources *right now*.
"b) a myopic focus on saving lives of local kids is inefficient, non-pragmatic, nationalist and borderline racist -- why so much time spent on saving an American embryo when that energy could save 100's of kids in Sudan?"
Let's follow that logic. All American social programs should be undone and the money spent in the third world. I am for it. Are you? Given that the government is going to take my money, it at least should spend it where it is needed most.
---- Your attack on government, whether discussion-worthy or not, is off-topic. It has nothing to do with my argument that individuals, by myopically focusing on unwanted pregnancies, are making the least inefficent and pragmatic choice when it comes to saving human lives.
I am interested in why you think it is expensive to save loc
1) Your time spent on this calculation could have been spent in gainful employment. The amount made (say about $2-$10 based on your level of income and time spent constructing your post) could have been spent saving a life of an already born 3rd-world child who is dying of dysentery. This calculation also applies to all those working feverishly to save a few American embryos that were not wanted in the first place instead of working and donating resources to the truly needy (and already born) elsewhere in the world.
2) We live in a world that has exploded into a population of over 6 billion. Already we have more people than could be sustained at the current American's standard of living. We are already gearing up for big fights over remaining resources of energy (oil) with other resources (potable water) to come. Unchecked, unrestrained growth will lead either to famine or war, and probably both.
The above may seem specious, but the fact is
a) we live in a world of limited resources (fuel, water, arable land, etc.) -- mindlessly racing to save every concieved zygote (which then consumes/competes for resources) automatically continues a race to ecological disaster, famine and war.
b) a myopic focus on saving lives of local kids is inefficient, non-pragmatic, nationalist and borderline racist -- why so much time spent on saving an American embryo when that energy could save 100's of kids in Sudan?
Overall, your one-size-fits-all rule is myopic and fails when tested against a global context.
First, Apple has never been about the processors - except when trying to use them as a marketing tool. In fact, Apple has now gone through at least four separate CPU lines (6502, 6800, Power PC, and now Intel).
Second, there's a company that's already following your "software-only, leave the hardware to others" strategy -- it's called Microsoft. And at this point it's far too late (or too soon) for Apple to adopt the same strategy. If Apple decides to tackle Microsoft head-on then it will lose, because Microsoft has a death-grip on the PC OS market. OS's are not a free-flowing commodity - once you pick one for your user base, train them on it, and get apps for it, it's very hard to migrate to another system. It's not just enough to build a better OS -- just ask members of any non-Windows OS community (Linux, BSD, BeOS, Plan 9, etc). Note this is changing as browsers add more features - essentially becoming the OS on top of the OS, but is true for now.
Third, the software strategy has already been tried and it failed -- OS X (in its previous incarnation as NextSTEP) has already part of a software-only company (as of late 1993) called NeXT Software, Inc., which was sitting in limbo until it was bought up by Apple in December of 1996.
Steve Jobs and Co. has decided not to follow a software-only strategy and it would certainly be worth a lot to pick his brain to find the answer. Certainly (as Apple's stock soars into the $80.00 + range) he's found the right reasons to reject the software-only proposal.
Seeing this posting immediately brought the Great Leap Forward to mind. Possibly not the best connotation -- does Intel really want to associate their product with one of the greatest economic disasters (and subsequent famine) in history? Perhaps the Intel department should have done at least a cursory check of world history before launching this campaign.
I don't think I can express in words how worried I am at the stupidity of the comming generation.
I would personally worry about your own thought processes, in taking one data point and coming to such a broad conclusion. What if we created a study that took a representative sample average creative output of teenagers? I'm willing to bet we would see that the average "teenager creative output" (TCO) has been consistently crappy over the past decades. In fact, with better nutrition and education, I would bet it has improved significantly. This would parallel the James Flynn effect.
From a biological perspective, these kids very likely are not much different from your generation -- so I'd strongly question any claim that their inherent intelligence levels are significantly different.
In other words, humans are and will be acting (and expressing themselves) just as stupidly or cleverly as they ever did. This may be comfort for some, a source of horror and despair for others.
All you have established is that it is very *likely* that someone thought Sigenthaler was involved. But likelyhood is not proof or truth.
Because you have not established the truth of the statement, you may not conclude that it is not defamatory.
What's more, if Siegenthaler were a private figure, even if you could establish the truth, you could still be sued for defamation merely for publishing information that no "reasonable person" would publish about a private citizen.
Your reply is the standard XP one. Right out of the book. If someone doesn't do things the way XP wants it fire them and ignore them.
That's your misinterpretation. I never said that anywhere in my posting. Please don't put words into my mouth.
All the criticism (positive and negative) is disqualified.
Disqualified may be overkill, but suspect certainly is not. But I stand by my point, which is that you
1) were fired on a project using XP 2) deliberately sabotages the project because it was using XP
strongly suggests that you cannot provide an objective assessment of XP process. In fact, almost every posting I've seen so far indicates that (up until now) you had an axe to grind rather than useful information to share.
Our coach actually told us...The XP guys only got kicked out...By the way the company I got fired at folded about six months later....
Interesting information and context. It would have been nice if you had shared this sooner.
Of course the information you provide neither validates nor condemns the XP process. You've given one (admittedly extremely bad) anecdote. XP certainly was involved -- but so were the coach and the VP. How can you be sure that XP was at fault? Perhaps the VP and the coach just did a bad job? Perhaps the outcome would have been the same using SCRUM?
I never sabotaged the unit testing. Nice try at a smear.
What really gets me is that, in the next post, you complain that the project had too many unit tests. I mean, WTF? Who do you think you are kidding? You admit that you "got off" on convincing another programmer to write useless unit tests. How could it possibly come as a suprise to you that your unit tests were unmaintainable?
Oh that's right! I can't contrast them since I've done both of them and one place got fired at.
Not because you got fired, but because you made a bad-faith effort. You can't say a process doesn't work when you never really tried it in the first place.
uhm, if you think redwood city is a desert, it shows how much you know about...well, reading.
HINT: Redwoods need alot of water.......guess what they have alot of in REDWOOD city?
If you guesed redwood trees, then you'd be wrong. Redwood City, like most cities, is not a grove of trees - it's mostly pavement and buildings. Redwood City was named not for having Redwoods but for providing a port for the lumber industry that cut them down from the Santa Cruz mountains.
You want to see Redwoods, then go to the relatively close Big Basin park or even to Redwood National Park, which is, ironically, several hundred miles away from Redwood City.
While not a desert (not like Pal Springs), Redwood City is hardly a moisture-laden paradise. According to official NOAA data Redwood City averages about 20 inches of rain a year, less than 1/2 of what New York City gets annually.
If a company hires good programmers the one doing the typing does almost all the work while the other person tries desperately to keep awake
Wrong. If "the other person tries desperately to stay awake" then they're not doing their job. The keyboardist's goal is to make write the next method that will make the current test pass. Because of this narrow, simple focus, the person away from the keyboard is *not* a passive observer and in fact has several duties and responsibilities:
1) Reviewing the code as the other person types - for typos, semantic defects, and possible improvements and alternatives. 2) Reviewing the overall design of the class 3) Considering the next unit test 4) Managing the goal stack 5) Asking questions when the intention of the code is not clear (to the non-keyboardist)
If the non-keyboardist is getting bored, then she's not accepting co-responsibility for the code she and her partner are creating. This is not being a good programmer.
Re:XP level of testing leads to brittle code
on
Microsoft Lauds Scrum
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Considering you got fired after your XP experience you quitting the proejct, it's not suprising that you have a negative opinion.
I'd also have to say that you (self-admittedly) sabotaged the unit testing process automatically diqualifies you from providing an objective opinion on unit testing.
1. Your example may work for bananas, but what about electricity or medicine? I buy out the supply and then sell it back to you at double the cost. Uh oh...
2. I don't know what universe you live in, but my universe is finite - finite resources, finite capital, finite time, finite knowledge - this certainly limits the forms and types of investment. Your 70/30 figures are totally unsubstantiated. Futhermore if being in the bottom 30% doesn't concern you, then I will happily take any extra monies that you have that cause you to exceed the bottom 30% of income -- of the entire world population, by the way, not just for the U.S.
3. You naively assume that the consumer has time and resources to correctly find and procure the items that most benefits them. Unfortunatley, that is not the case. Nor can everybody make the initial investments to enter a particular market - telecommunications or electricity for example. This world of unlimited competition, easy entrance into the market and omniscient consumers exists only in your head.
In the end,
"Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed."
I confess to chuckling when I saw the mod. No, I did not ask anyone to mod you down.
Perhaps you may wish to take the time to consider the possibility that the modder did not think you "tore me a new one", and quite possibly found your post to be offensive and trollish.
You seem reasonably intelligent, so take some time to consider that you're not perfect and you're not always right, and other people might have views worth considering
I know this is not typical Slashdot behavior, but do give it a try.
Some practice in critical thinking might also be in order - maybe you'll learn some techniques to trounce me next time **and** get modded up instead of down. I would start with the fallacy files and then maybe check out "The Craft of Research". Not that I'm claiming I'm a great debater, myself. On the other hand, I'm not consistently getting modded down at this point.
BTW, I will concede that there's an argument that the funding situation is actually turning out better without Federal funding. I just don't believe that private funding is best in all situations.
Columbus' discovery of America (Spanish Monarchy) U.S. Involvement in WWII Internet (via DARPA) and important comp-sci projects (Berkeley Unix, MIT AI lab). Space program Interstate highways
So, Mr. Geeste, free yourself from addiction! All you have to do is
not use GNU tools (remember Stallman was at MIT AI lab) the internet return Europe to the Nazis not live in the U.S. (government funding discovered the new world, after all!) not use Cell phones or any satellite-based technology stay off of government funded interstate highways
The fact is that there are some projects (including the ones above) that are either too large, too basic or too far reaching political scope that only the government can and should fund and run them.
Surely, reasonable people can see a big difference between "not funding" and "actively impeding".
Yes, there is a difference. However, why not lower funding for all medical research? By selectively prohibiting Federal funding on stem-cell research (as opposed to other medical research), the Bush Administration effectively has hamstrung national research on stem-cell reasearch.
Whatever happened to the days of actually convincing people to voluntarily spend their money on your schemes?
Fine - here are some government programs that I would like to be convinced on:
If you support thses programs, please tell me why these deserve Federal funding so much more than stem-cell research that may lead to tremendous medical advances.
Oh, and I don't need to hear the "corporations are short-sighted" argument either. You're short-sighted too in that you spend money consuming things you don't really need rather than saving it or investing it in new technology.)
Translated into a syllogism:
Premise #1: Corporations are short-sighted when it comes to basic research Premise #2: People are short-sighted about stem-cell research Conclusion: The government shouldn't fund stem-cell research
Now tell me again how the conclusion follows? Because I sure don't see it.
Go ahead and mod me down
This is an attempt at reverse psychology, and a pathetic show of egocentric defensiveness. Please refrain from using this Slashdot cliche. Either stand up for your ideas or refrain from posting.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly have not watched enough Star Trek.
Go rent old Trek seasons 1 & 2 and pay particular attention to this episode.
Big laptops are nothing new - what's interesting is the Samsung M70 with a detachable screen. Finally!
Consider the potential options:
- LCD dies -- go buy a replacement screen instead of sending in your entire notebook for repair
- keep a backup LCD
- Laptop motherboard dies - keep the screen and buy the notebook without the LCD, saving $100's
- buy a lower resolution LCD screen and upgrade later
- Detach and use on a stand for a more ergnomic fit -- or use 2 LCD screens.
- keep two screens at home and work. travel with screen-less notebook for less weight
I don't know if/when it will happen, but I look forward to the day the notebook industry implements a standard LCD/notebook cradle or other physical interface to attach LCD screens.
How can things like IPTV come into being if companies like Verizon are barred from building up and reserving the capacity to provide them?
And how did we ever end up with DSL and Broadband? If I was still using 300 Baud dialup, then you might have a case. But I don't, and your argument holds no water.
Why should Google, Microsoft, etc. be allowed access to that bandwidth since it's not impeding their ability to provide their services? Not allowing the telecoms and other large ISPs to do this would akin to not allowing Google to invest in dark fibre for its own purposes. Hmmm is that the smell of hypocrisy among the slashdot crowd once again?
No, the smell is the B.S. coming out of your fingers. Microsoft, Google, etc. already pay for their bandwidth usage, and the more they use, the more they pay, just like everyone else.
- the home user already pays for bandwith - last I checked if I want increased bandwidth I have to pay for it.
- the ISP already pays for increased bandwidth to the Telcos
- the ASP already pays for increased bandwidth. (example: Youtube pays $1 million a month for it's bandwidth usage).
The content companies have no right to the entire network
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The *end* user has the right to access whatever content provider they want, without a Telco surcharge. As a consumer, I neither want to nor should I have to choose between using Google or A9 or MSN search based on a surcharge. Period.
Telcos have no right to Balkanize the internet. This is a naked money grab by the Telcos. If they win, the average consumer loses, pure and simple.
Your pro-genocidal snap-judgement, AC, is an understandable result of raging young teen hormones. Once you have enough facial hair to shave and enough courage and understanding to post non-AC, then maybe your opinions will be worth something.
In the meantime, go do your homework.
Software companies own their software only by societal agreement - as with all other property.
Like car-makers software developers must pay for R&D. However, after that, your comparison breaks down. The problem is that reproduction for software costs nearly nothing. This is unlike makers of physical products who must continuously pay to create their products, update and maintain their plants, and pay assembly workers. The costs associated with distributing a million copies of a $200.00 piece of software is *vastly* different from the costs of associated with producing and distributing a million units of a $200.00 hardware device.
Certainly software developers should recoup their costs and make a profit. But how much? Does it really benefit society to have Microsoft sit on a multi-billion dollar hoard?
Unless you are in a remote area, are serious book collectors, and/or are serving as an informal library, why in the world do you want to waste your time and house space warehousing 3,500 books? I personally agonize over selling my books but when I do I hardly ever need them again.
Expiration date method of culling unused books works for me.
This works well as it
- takes minimal effort (you only mark books you are using, not all 3500 books)
- gives you a visceral idea of what books you actually need and use.
1. mark your calendar 3 months from now
2. for every book you find yourself actually needing or reading, use it and put a slip in it that "extends" the expiration date another 3 months.
3. after three months, sell all the books that do not have their expiration date extended
Rinse lather and repeat every three months to maintain a sane flow of books into your house and back out again.
voila! cataloging problem removed (or at least severely reduced). Now you can use that old book space and money from the sales for that indoor pool or trampoline you've always wanted. Or paint a mural that *looks* like a whole buch of expensive books.
Most studies show that this is blatantly untrue -- programmer productivity is generally independent of language chosen.
p rt_computer2000.pdf
Excuse me? Which studies?
Certainly not this one:
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccp
Nor this one:
http://www.erlang.se/publications/Ulf_Wiger.pdf
Nor even this one:
http://www.theadvisors.com/langcomparison.htm
And this well-regarded programmer certainly doesn't agree that the choice of language doesn't matter:
http://www.mindview.net/WebLog/log-0025
I tell you what -- interview a group of experienced programmers for a prospective project to write a database-backed web application with complex requirements. Tell them that they will be required to program in assembly language because "most studies show that... programmer productivity is generally independent of language chosen." Record their responses and post them to Slashdot.
Hacker elite self-aggrandizing baloney. Your mild irritation at not being allowed to run OSX on whatever system you want to run does not entitle you to run roughshod over Apple's business model.
There's several dozen free open source operating systems out there -- including Darwin -- yet you insist on trying to crack a an OS where the people who have payed for development costs are politely asking you not to hack.
This is akin to the toddler screaming because he couldn't get the exact action figure he wanted. Grow up.
At the time, Michael Powell (son of Colin Powell) was the Republican FCC chairman.
3 out of the 5 FCCS commisioners were Republican.
Michel Cooperman also has fought against media consolidation and big megacorp buyups of the airwaves.
Quote:
"What is this medium for? It's to entertain, and it's to inform and it's to help us sustain the great marketplace of ideas that's the foundation of American democracy. We need to be using it to appeal to the better angels of our nature. And we can still be well and amply entertained and much better informed if we can get back to that. But I'm just worried now that commercialization of it, it's become, 'how do you keep people tuned in so they can watch the advertisements?'"
Sounds like a real villain.
Sorry, but you're just going out of your way to bash Democrats. Either that or you're a rabid Howard Stern fan (poor guy, crying over all his millions).
You mention four aspects of love and then focuses on only on a Bible-oriented version of agape. Why not devote equal time to phileo, eros and storge?
I would recommend praticing what you preach, "wrf3". Your attack on scientists certainly is un-agape-like, as well as doing a disservice to the Slashdot community.
- A biologist wrote "The Life of a Cell", a paen to the wonder of biology and creation.
- Einstein loved Mozart and was an accomplished violinist, who played with passion.
- It would be very hard to characterize the famous psychiatrist Carl Jung as an unpoetic character.
Looking around this world one can, after prying their nose out of the Book of Corinthians, definitely find scientific poets, and poetic scientists. And a love of mankind certainly does not preclude a passion and love for nature and the universe.
Perhaps another poem about love is appropriate. Hopefully the this poem titled "Dust" by Rupert Brooke, will be suitable this Valentine's day.
When the white flame in us is gone,
And we that lost the world's delight
Stiffen in darkness, left alone
To crumble in our separate night;
When your swift hair is quiet in death,
And through the lips corruption thrust
Has still'd the labour of my breath -
When we are dust, when we are dust !
Not dead, not undesirous yet,
Still sentient, still unsatisfied,
We'll ride the air, and shine, and flit,
Around the places where we died,
And dance as dust before the sun,
And light of foot and unconfined,
Hurry from road to road, and run
About the errands of the wind.
And every mote, on earth or air,
Will speed and gleam, down later days,
And like a secret pilgrim fare
By eager and invisible ways,
Nor ever rest, nor ever lie,
Till, beyond thinking, out of view,
One mote of all the dust that's I
Shall meet one atom that was you.
Then in some garden hush'd from wind,
Warm in a sunset's afterglow,
The lovers in the flowers will find
A sweet and strange unquiet grow
Upon the peace; and, past desiring,
So high a beauty in the air,
And such a light, and such a quiring,
And such a radiant ecstasy there,
They'll know not if it's fire, or dew,
Or out of earth, or in the height,
Singing, or flame, or scent, or hue,
Or two that pass, in light, to light,
Out of the garden, higher, higher. . . .
But in that instant they shall learn
The shattering ecstasy of our fire,
And the weak passionless hearts will burn
And faint in that amazing glow,
Until the darkness close above;
And they will know - poor fools, they'll know!
One moment, what it is to love.
Google stopped working on your home computer/LAN/ISP, but
Google still worked
- at your local coffee shop (Seattle bias here)
- at your local library
- at your friend's house
- at the local printshop
- even on your cell phone
In other words, your Home LAN/Computer is hardly the single point of access to Google or any other web-based application.
Dear Mr. Kernablaha,
You are absolutely right. What were we thinking? The whole idea is rediculous. Thank you, Mr. Kenalbaha, for providing the insight that only a person with a "minimal knowledge of biology" could provide. Us here with postdoctoral degrees have been clearly wasting our efforts on nonsense. We'll send back our grants and ask that all our peer reviewed articles be retracted.
Sincerely,
Diana W. Bianchi, M.D.
Vice Chair for Research,
Floating Hospital for Children, Tufts University
This is coming a little late, but I appreciate your tone and approach, so maybe I can respond in kind. Responses preceded by "----"
:)
Actually, I am at work. It's a slow day and I have lots of time. I can only read so many research articles in a day. But you do have a greater point. If I could find a way to donate this time to something more valuable, I would. However, I find value, both personal and for humanity, in making such posts and having these important discussions. For your information, most of my charity dollars go to exactly what you described.
---- Good to hear you are putting money into helping the needy and less forunate.
"2) We live in a world that has exploded into a population of over 6 billion."
Birth rates are falling like a rock. Population will level off soon and then begin to fall. Most industrialized nations are facing a severe economic disaster if they don't get their birthrates up. The US is the best off of the bunch, fortunately, which is why you don't hear about it so much.
---- The current growth rate worldwide is 1.14% with many countries exceeding 3% growth rate. Population will continue to rise and will exceed 9 billion by 2050. This is based on Wikipedia and the CIA factbook - I don't know what your sources are. As for getting youthful people needing opportunities that the Industrialized nations can provide, I hear there are plenty in Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and the Middle East...
"Already we have more people than could be sustained at the current American's standard of living."
Technology will improve, drastically, long before that happens.
---- Making unsubstantiated claims about the future is not an argument. More seriously, respond to what I said, not what you wish I had said. *Right* now there is not enough resources to sustain the American standard of living. Not some far-off starry-eyed optimisic vision of the future. Go tell your "in the future agrument" to a starving kid in Sudan.
"We are already gearing up for big fights over remaining resources of energy (oil)"
We won't be burning oil in fifty years.
---- Again, this is your unsubstantiated guess. I happen to agree that the use of oil will be serverely curtailed by 2050. Whether there will be a suitable resource to replace it is not guaranteed. Yet you wish to bet the welfare of billions of people on an optimistic, unfounded guess that something, somehow will provide the necessary resources.
with other resources (potable water) to come. Unchecked, unrestrained growth will lead either to famine or war, and probably both.
Water is not an issue. Energy is. If you have energy, you have fresh water. People have been predicting the environmental apocalypse for decades. They have been wrong every time.
---- Hmmm... tell that to the Easter Islanders or the Greenland Norse. Oh, wait you can't becuase they starved and died after destroying their local ecosystems. Just because things have worked out in the past does not mean that they will in the future. But agin, you're resorting to your "in the future" argument which has nothing to do with the misallocation of resources *right now*.
"b) a myopic focus on saving lives of local kids is inefficient, non-pragmatic, nationalist and borderline racist -- why so much time spent on saving an American embryo when that energy could save 100's of kids in Sudan?"
Let's follow that logic. All American social programs should be undone and the money spent in the third world. I am for it. Are you? Given that the government is going to take my money, it at least should spend it where it is needed most.
---- Your attack on government, whether discussion-worthy or not, is off-topic. It has nothing to do with my argument that individuals, by myopically focusing on unwanted pregnancies, are making the least inefficent and pragmatic choice when it comes to saving human lives.
I am interested in why you think it is expensive to save loc
1) Your time spent on this calculation could have been spent in gainful employment. The amount made (say about $2-$10 based on your level of income and time spent constructing your post) could have been spent saving a life of an already born 3rd-world child who is dying of dysentery. This calculation also applies to all those working feverishly to save a few American embryos that were not wanted in the first place instead of working and donating resources to the truly needy (and already born) elsewhere in the world.
2) We live in a world that has exploded into a population of over 6 billion. Already we have more people than could be sustained at the current American's standard of living. We are already gearing up for big fights over remaining resources of energy (oil) with other resources (potable water) to come. Unchecked, unrestrained growth will lead either to famine or war, and probably both.
The above may seem specious, but the fact is
a) we live in a world of limited resources (fuel, water, arable land, etc.) -- mindlessly racing to save every concieved zygote (which then consumes/competes for resources) automatically continues a race to ecological disaster, famine and war.
b) a myopic focus on saving lives of local kids is inefficient, non-pragmatic, nationalist and borderline racist -- why so much time spent on saving an American embryo when that energy could save 100's of kids in Sudan?
Overall, your one-size-fits-all rule is myopic and fails when tested against a global context.
First, Apple has never been about the processors - except when trying to use them as a marketing tool. In fact, Apple has now gone through at least four separate CPU lines (6502, 6800, Power PC, and now Intel).
Second, there's a company that's already following your "software-only, leave the hardware to others" strategy -- it's called Microsoft. And at this point it's far too late (or too soon) for Apple to adopt the same strategy. If Apple decides to tackle Microsoft head-on then it will lose, because Microsoft has a death-grip on the PC OS market. OS's are not a free-flowing commodity - once you pick one for your user base, train them on it, and get apps for it, it's very hard to migrate to another system. It's not just enough to build a better OS -- just ask members of any non-Windows OS community (Linux, BSD, BeOS, Plan 9, etc). Note this is changing as browsers add more features - essentially becoming the OS on top of the OS, but is true for now.
Third, the software strategy has already been tried and it failed -- OS X (in its previous incarnation as NextSTEP) has already part of a software-only company (as of late 1993) called NeXT Software, Inc., which was sitting in limbo until it was bought up by Apple in December of 1996.
Steve Jobs and Co. has decided not to follow a software-only strategy and it would certainly be worth a lot to pick his brain to find the answer. Certainly (as Apple's stock soars into the $80.00 + range) he's found the right reasons to reject the software-only proposal.
Seeing this posting immediately brought the Great Leap Forward to mind. Possibly not the best connotation -- does Intel really want to associate their product with one of the greatest economic disasters (and subsequent famine) in history? Perhaps the Intel department should have done at least a cursory check of world history before launching this campaign.
I would personally worry about your own thought processes, in taking one data point and coming to such a broad conclusion. What if we created a study that took a representative sample average creative output of teenagers? I'm willing to bet we would see that the average "teenager creative output" (TCO) has been consistently crappy over the past decades. In fact, with better nutrition and education, I would bet it has improved significantly. This would parallel the James Flynn effect.
From a biological perspective, these kids very likely are not much different from your generation -- so I'd strongly question any claim that their inherent intelligence levels are significantly different.
In other words, humans are and will be acting (and expressing themselves) just as stupidly or cleverly as they ever did. This may be comfort for some, a source of horror and despair for others.
(Caveat: IANAL)
All you have established is that it is very *likely* that someone thought Sigenthaler was involved. But likelyhood is not proof or truth.
Because you have not established the truth of the statement, you may not conclude that it is not defamatory.
What's more, if Siegenthaler were a private figure, even if you could establish the truth, you could still be sued for defamation merely for publishing information that no "reasonable person" would publish about a private citizen.
Source: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php
1) were fired on a project using XP
2) deliberately sabotages the project because it was using XP
strongly suggests that you cannot provide an objective assessment of XP process. In fact, almost every posting I've seen so far indicates that (up until now) you had an axe to grind rather than useful information to share.
Interesting information and context. It would have been nice if you had shared this sooner.
Of course the information you provide neither validates nor condemns the XP process. You've given one (admittedly extremely bad) anecdote. XP certainly was involved -- but so were the coach and the VP. How can you be sure that XP was at fault? Perhaps the VP and the coach just did a bad job? Perhaps the outcome would have been the same using SCRUM? You smeared yourself Carl. As you said, and (again) I quote: "After a while I got off on telling this 'smart' guy we needed another test. He fell for it all the time and our productivity with it." How selfish and mean-spirited can you get?
What really gets me is that, in the next post, you complain that the project had too many unit tests. I mean, WTF? Who do you think you are kidding? You admit that you "got off" on convincing another programmer to write useless unit tests. How could it possibly come as a suprise to you that your unit tests were unmaintainable?
Not because you got fired, but because you made a bad-faith effort. You can't say a process doesn't work when you never really tried it in the first place.
If you guesed redwood trees, then you'd be wrong. Redwood City, like most cities, is not a grove of trees - it's mostly pavement and buildings. Redwood City was named not for having Redwoods but for providing a port for the lumber industry that cut them down from the Santa Cruz mountains.
You want to see Redwoods, then go to the relatively close Big Basin park or even to Redwood National Park, which is, ironically, several hundred miles away from Redwood City.
While not a desert (not like Pal Springs), Redwood City is hardly a moisture-laden paradise. According to official NOAA data Redwood City averages about 20 inches of rain a year, less than 1/2 of what New York City gets annually.
If a company hires good programmers the one doing the typing does almost all the work while the other person tries desperately to keep awake
Wrong. If "the other person tries desperately to stay awake" then they're not doing their job. The keyboardist's goal is to make write the next method that will make the current test pass. Because of this narrow, simple focus, the person away from the keyboard is *not* a passive observer and in fact has several duties and responsibilities:
1) Reviewing the code as the other person types - for typos, semantic defects, and possible improvements and alternatives.
2) Reviewing the overall design of the class
3) Considering the next unit test
4) Managing the goal stack
5) Asking questions when the intention of the code is not clear (to the non-keyboardist)
If the non-keyboardist is getting bored, then she's not accepting co-responsibility for the code she and her partner are creating. This is not being a good programmer.
Considering you got fired after your XP experience you quitting the proejct, it's not suprising that you have a negative opinion.
I'd also have to say that you (self-admittedly) sabotaged the unit testing process automatically diqualifies you from providing an objective opinion on unit testing.
1. Your example may work for bananas, but what about electricity or medicine? I buy out the supply and then sell it back to you at double the cost. Uh oh...
a p.html
2. I don't know what universe you live in, but my universe is finite - finite resources, finite capital, finite time, finite knowledge - this certainly limits the forms and types of investment. Your 70/30 figures are totally unsubstantiated. Futhermore if being in the bottom 30% doesn't concern you, then I will happily take any extra monies that you have that cause you to exceed the bottom 30% of income -- of the entire world population, by the way, not just for the U.S.
3. You naively assume that the consumer has time and resources to correctly find and procure the items that most benefits them. Unfortunatley, that is not the case. Nor can everybody make the initial investments to enter a particular market - telecommunications or electricity for example. This world of unlimited competition, easy entrance into the market and omniscient consumers exists only in your head.
In the end,
"Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed."
source: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchoc
I confess to chuckling when I saw the mod. No, I did not ask anyone to mod you down.
Perhaps you may wish to take the time to consider the possibility that the modder did not think you "tore me a new one", and quite possibly found your post to be offensive and trollish.
You seem reasonably intelligent, so take some time to consider that you're not perfect and you're not always right, and other people might have views worth considering
I know this is not typical Slashdot behavior, but do give it a try.
Some practice in critical thinking might also be in order - maybe you'll learn some techniques to trounce me next time **and** get modded up instead of down. I would start with the fallacy files and then maybe check out "The Craft of Research". Not that I'm claiming I'm a great debater, myself. On the other hand, I'm not consistently getting modded down at this point.
BTW, I will concede that there's an argument that the funding situation is actually turning out better without Federal funding. I just don't believe that private funding is best in all situations.
Until next time, Mr. Geeste...
Your points considered and rejected.
Are people so addicted to government now...
On Addiction:
Consider major government spending projects:
Columbus' discovery of America (Spanish Monarchy)
U.S. Involvement in WWII
Internet (via DARPA) and important comp-sci projects (Berkeley Unix, MIT AI lab).
Space program
Interstate highways
So, Mr. Geeste, free yourself from addiction! All you have to do is
not use GNU tools (remember Stallman was at MIT AI lab)
the internet
return Europe to the Nazis
not live in the U.S. (government funding discovered the new world, after all!)
not use Cell phones or any satellite-based technology
stay off of government funded interstate highways
The fact is that there are some projects (including the ones above) that are either too large, too basic or too far reaching political scope that only the government can and should fund and run them.
Surely, reasonable people can see a big difference between "not funding" and "actively impeding".
Yes, there is a difference. However, why not lower funding for all medical research? By selectively prohibiting Federal funding on stem-cell research (as opposed to other medical research), the Bush Administration effectively has hamstrung national research on stem-cell reasearch.
Whatever happened to the days of actually convincing people to voluntarily spend their money on your schemes?
Fine - here are some government programs that I would like to be convinced on:
A billion dollar bridge to nowhere
A missle defense boondoggle
If you support thses programs, please tell me why these deserve Federal funding so much more than stem-cell research that may lead to tremendous medical advances.
Oh, and I don't need to hear the "corporations are short-sighted" argument either. You're short-sighted too in that you spend money consuming things you don't really need rather than saving it or investing it in new technology.)
Translated into a syllogism:
Premise #1: Corporations are short-sighted when it comes to basic research
Premise #2: People are short-sighted about stem-cell research
Conclusion: The government shouldn't fund stem-cell research
Now tell me again how the conclusion follows? Because I sure don't see it.
Go ahead and mod me down
This is an attempt at reverse psychology, and a pathetic show of egocentric defensiveness. Please refrain from using this Slashdot cliche. Either stand up for your ideas or refrain from posting.