The SSC collided small particles, not the huge gold nuclei used in the RHIC. The SSC was 52 miles (I can't remember whether that was circumference or diameter, so that figure may be off by a factor of PI.)
Gold nuclei are big and complicated. Since they're big, it's easy to get high energies with a smaller collider. Since they're complicated, the reaction produces lots of crap, and there's a low signal to noise ratio. When you're trying to create and study interesting particles, it helps if all your reaction energy isn't used up making pointless boring particles that get in your way.
By offering a worse product, and then CONFIRMING that it's worse by making it cheaper than the competition, Intel is giving away the perception that their chips are the 'genuine article' and the choice for 'serious' users running workstations and servers.
AMD's problem has always been their second-fiddle market status. They can't make any money because no one wants to buy a knock-off processor unless they can get it cheap.
If Intel does this, then it will be clear to everyone that the K7 is the new standard in x86-compatible chips.
If Intel doesn't get it's act together, maybe in a year or two we'll be calling them Athlon-compatible.
Stop talking to HR people. They don't know anything. Talk to engineers. They know who is needed and who isn't.
I went looking for a job in Novemberr. Within a few weeks, I had 3 good offers. I have no degree and no certifications. I dropped out of college after 2 years. I never lied in the interviews or on my resume. The offers ranged from $55000-$75000 with stock options.
You may be right about the doing people a disservice, but that's not my experience.
Certification is simply a way to avoid responsibility for yourself.
A certificate implies that someone has evaluated your skills, and you're adequate for a job. So some moron can hire you without understanding what you can do and what you can't.
But are the certifiers responsible when you can't do the job? No.
Is the person who hired you responsible? No, you are certified so he's OK.
Is anyone responsible? Not really.
So you've spent a lot of time and money becomming certified so some corporate cowards can have some job security. Not a good deal.
Any programmer who wants mandatory certification is just trying to exclude other people so he'll have less competition. That's the whole point of occupational licensing and certification in EVERY profession.
My advice to a smart young programmer is to skip all the formal BS of college and certification and actually BUILD something that's impressive and cutting edge. Put it on your resume. Demo it. You'll get hired by a company. Maybe it won't be a corporate CYA-oriented environment, but maybe that's OK.
And if that doesn't work, get certified by some software company and go get hired anyway.
Look at the letters above. Any 'outcasts' being terrorized with GUNS?
Nope. So how about not changing the subject? How about not using tragic deaths to advance your own shallow political aims?
Besides, we're keeping the guns. Period. Anyone who wants to end gun ownership in the US will first have to kill me and a lot of other people. Hope you're up to it.
Society gets better and worse as the people get better and worse. It's not fixed by imposition of rules and codes, or through top-down measures, or by act of government.
Things can get better if a number of people decide to help INDIVIDUALLY. Over the course of many, many years, these individual acts begin to add up, and a whole society can change.
The end of slavery is an excellent example. It took CENTURIES of work by committed individuals to lead up to the founding of the US, the Declaration of Independence, and finally the civil war that ended slavery.
This is not social engineering. Social engineers would make a law or enact a policy that would 'fix the problem' over the course of a 5 year plan. And when the plan fails (they ALWAYS do) it's time for another plan.
Here's the real question: If social engineering is like gardening, which people are the weeds and which are the crop? And who gets to be the gardener?
It sounds like a lot of code words for dictatorship to me.
--- How about coming up with a few examples of social engineering projects that worked?
And when I say 'worked', I mean worked for everyone. No freedoms lost, no property seized, no taxes stolen, no fatalities or injustices. That's the standard for success.
Anyone can make things better for someone at the expense of someone else. Kill Jack, steal his money, give it to Jill. See how we've helped Jill? Do it a million times, and we can have a Great Society.
And I went to public school, so I don't know what 'Settlement Houses' are/were. Perhaps the public education project failed, or perhaps the 'Settlement Houses' didn't work that well. I don't know.
There are no SOLUTIONS to this problem. If there's a single thing that everyone needs to figure out, this is it.
JUST FACE IT: SOCIETY CAN'T BE SUCCESSFULLY ENGINEERED!
That's what people are trying to do, and that's what's caused half of the problems. When you try to ban things, you're trying to engineer society. It ALWAYS fails.
When you make school mandatory, you're engineering society. The same goes for drinking ages, gun control, DOOM control, censorship, curfews, school uniforms, speed limits, encryption controls, welfare, and a hundred other things.
And every time one of these 'solutions' is implemented, life is a little less worth living. This is doubly true for good, responsible people.
And when you push people, and push them and push them a push them some more, someday they'll be pushed too far. That won't be a happy day. The vast MAJORITY are capable of violence. You just need to create the right circumstance.
How about leaving people alone instead? Or better yet, how about personally solving the problem for yourself, or for your kid, or for a kid you know, or for a kid you haven't met yet?
When you try to help a single person, you can succeed. When you try to 'help' EVERYONE at once, you only make things worse.
You just did it yourself. Sure the "get tough on crime" stuff is BS. But so is the "get tough on guns" stuff. And the "native peoples" stuff is BS too.
1. Violence happens. 2. Crime happens. 3. We're keeping the guns. 4. Peoples fight over land. 5. Societies can't be engineered. 6. Freedom is better than safety. 7. We get it, mostly. Your descriptions of Canada are useful. Your 'solutions' are not. (Neither are anyone else's.)
Problems are solved by people taking actions in their own lives or the lives of people they know well, not by making policies for other people to live by.
I would encourage everyone to SERIOUSLY consider dropping out/leaving for a better future life. But if you can make it 'til May 19, why not 2 more weeks 'til the end of the year? Then get your GED over the summer. What can your parents say to this? You just want to try the test. If you pass, you'll have more options. It's hard to argue with options. Perhaps you'll go to college a year early? It'll be cheaper this year than next. Maybe you'll work for a year to help pay for college yourself? Hard to argue with that. Consider skipping college too. Write some software (in Java) that works and demos well. You'll find a job.
That's serious, BTW. I knew a lot of kids in school, but the one that was best off was a kid who only came to school for Calculus class. He was otherwise home schooled. He was extremely smart, and he was a nice guy, and people liked him.
And home schooling only takes 2-3 hours a day, and can work around your schedule.
And most importantly, it teaches your kids that you care about them.
That's what the anti-gun people don't understand. They have 2 choices, live with the fact that we have guns or kill us.
Is this clear? Remember when they came to get the guns from some people in Waco Texas? Remember? If you want more violence, just keep pushing and pushing and pushing on people.
(And BTW, I don't even own a gun, but someday I will.)
Slashdot Mirror
If I can save my hypothetical company $5 million and still get all the functionality my users want, wouldn't I want to do that?
And you forgot the upgrade fees. It's $500 to start with and then $75-100 per year (on average) for periodic upgrades.
I know the answer to this one.
The SSC collided small particles, not the huge gold nuclei used in the RHIC. The SSC was 52 miles (I can't remember whether that was circumference or diameter, so that figure may be off by a factor of PI.)
Gold nuclei are big and complicated. Since they're big, it's easy to get high energies with a smaller collider. Since they're complicated, the reaction produces lots of crap, and there's a low signal to noise ratio. When you're trying to create and study interesting particles, it helps if all your reaction energy isn't used up making pointless boring particles that get in your way.
I hate it when that happens.
By offering a worse product, and then CONFIRMING that it's worse by making it cheaper than the competition, Intel is giving away the perception that their chips are the 'genuine article' and the choice for 'serious' users running workstations and servers.
AMD's problem has always been their second-fiddle market status. They can't make any money because no one wants to buy a knock-off processor unless they can get it cheap.
If Intel does this, then it will be clear to everyone that the K7 is the new standard in x86-compatible chips.
If Intel doesn't get it's act together, maybe in a year or two we'll be calling them Athlon-compatible.
Should non-computer people really be making web pages? Really?
And should they really expect them to come out exactly right?
Don't send a typist (or a programmer) to do a designer's job.
Stop talking to HR people. They don't know anything. Talk to engineers. They know who is needed and who isn't.
I went looking for a job in Novemberr. Within a few weeks, I had 3 good offers. I have no degree and no certifications. I dropped out of college after 2 years. I never lied in the interviews or on my resume. The offers ranged from $55000-$75000 with stock options.
You may be right about the doing people a disservice, but that's not my experience.
Certification is simply a way to avoid responsibility for yourself.
A certificate implies that someone has evaluated your skills, and you're adequate for a job. So some moron can hire you without understanding what you can do and what you can't.
But are the certifiers responsible when you can't do the job? No.
Is the person who hired you responsible? No, you are certified so he's OK.
Is anyone responsible? Not really.
So you've spent a lot of time and money becomming certified so some corporate cowards can have some job security. Not a good deal.
Any programmer who wants mandatory certification is just trying to exclude other people so he'll have less competition. That's the whole point of occupational licensing and certification in EVERY profession.
My advice to a smart young programmer is to skip all the formal BS of college and certification and actually BUILD something that's impressive and cutting edge. Put it on your resume. Demo it. You'll get hired by a company. Maybe it won't be a corporate CYA-oriented environment, but maybe that's OK.
And if that doesn't work, get certified by some software company and go get hired anyway.
And if everyone at Littlton had guns, the death toll would have been 2-4 instead of 15.
But enough rhetorical games. The point was clear. We're keeping the guns.
Look at the letters above. Any 'outcasts' being terrorized with GUNS?
Nope. So how about not changing the subject? How about not using tragic deaths to advance your own shallow political aims?
Besides, we're keeping the guns. Period. Anyone who wants to end gun ownership in the US will first have to kill me and a lot of other people. Hope you're up to it.
See my posts above (Solutions - There are none). No 'policy' will work. You can't solve the problem all at once. You can only make things worse.
Society gets better and worse as the people get better and worse. It's not fixed by imposition of rules and codes, or through top-down measures, or by act of government.
Things can get better if a number of people decide to help INDIVIDUALLY. Over the course of many, many years, these individual acts begin to add up, and a whole society can change.
The end of slavery is an excellent example. It took CENTURIES of work by committed individuals to lead up to the founding of the US, the Declaration of Independence, and finally the civil war that ended slavery.
This is not social engineering. Social engineers would make a law or enact a policy that would 'fix the problem' over the course of a 5 year plan. And when the plan fails (they ALWAYS do) it's time for another plan.
Here's the real question: If social engineering is like gardening, which people are the weeds and which are the crop? And who gets to be the gardener?
It sounds like a lot of code words for dictatorship to me.
---
How about coming up with a few examples of social engineering projects that worked?
And when I say 'worked', I mean worked for everyone. No freedoms lost, no property seized, no taxes stolen, no fatalities or injustices. That's the standard for success.
Anyone can make things better for someone at the expense of someone else. Kill Jack, steal his money, give it to Jill. See how we've helped Jill? Do it a million times, and we can have a Great Society.
And I went to public school, so I don't know what 'Settlement Houses' are/were. Perhaps the public education project failed, or perhaps the 'Settlement Houses' didn't work that well. I don't know.
It's not possible to engineer society SUCCESSFULLY. You CAN'T make things better. You WILL make things worse.
There are no SOLUTIONS to this problem. If there's a single thing that everyone needs to figure out, this is it.
JUST FACE IT: SOCIETY CAN'T BE SUCCESSFULLY ENGINEERED!
That's what people are trying to do, and that's what's caused half of the problems. When you try to ban things, you're trying to engineer society. It ALWAYS fails.
When you make school mandatory, you're engineering society. The same goes for drinking ages, gun control, DOOM control, censorship, curfews, school uniforms, speed limits, encryption controls, welfare, and a hundred other things.
And every time one of these 'solutions' is implemented, life is a little less worth living. This is doubly true for good, responsible people.
And when you push people, and push them and push them a push them some more, someday they'll be pushed too far. That won't be a happy day. The vast MAJORITY are capable of violence. You just need to create the right circumstance.
How about leaving people alone instead? Or better yet, how about personally solving the problem for yourself, or for your kid, or for a kid you know, or for a kid you haven't met yet?
When you try to help a single person, you can succeed. When you try to 'help' EVERYONE at once, you only make things worse.
You just did it yourself. Sure the "get tough on crime" stuff is BS. But so is the "get tough on guns" stuff. And the "native peoples" stuff is BS too.
1. Violence happens.
2. Crime happens.
3. We're keeping the guns.
4. Peoples fight over land.
5. Societies can't be engineered.
6. Freedom is better than safety.
7. We get it, mostly. Your descriptions of Canada are useful. Your 'solutions' are not. (Neither are anyone else's.)
Problems are solved by people taking actions in their own lives or the lives of people they know well, not by making policies for other people to live by.
I would encourage everyone to SERIOUSLY consider dropping out/leaving for a better future life. But if you can make it 'til May 19, why not 2 more weeks 'til the end of the year? Then get your GED over the summer. What can your parents say to this? You just want to try the test. If you pass, you'll have more options. It's hard to argue with options. Perhaps you'll go to college a year early? It'll be cheaper this year than next. Maybe you'll work for a year to help pay for college yourself? Hard to argue with that. Consider skipping college too. Write some software (in Java) that works and demos well. You'll find a job.
I made this point above. We're keeping the guns. End of discussion.
Don't like it? 2 choices:
1) lump it
or 2) Send guys to my house and kill me.
You gun control nuts need to figure this out someday and learn to mind your own business.
I'm minding mine. (And BTW, I don't even own a gun yet.)
You must know others who've had home schooling. If they had it to do over again, would they home school their kids?
That's serious, BTW. I knew a lot of kids in school, but the one that was best off was a kid who only came to school for Calculus class. He was otherwise home schooled. He was extremely smart, and he was a nice guy, and people liked him.
And home schooling only takes 2-3 hours a day, and can work around your schedule.
And most importantly, it teaches your kids that you care about them.
Seriously check it out. It works.
That's what the anti-gun people don't understand. They have 2 choices, live with the fact that we have guns or kill us.
Is this clear? Remember when they came to get the guns from some people in Waco Texas? Remember? If you want more violence, just keep pushing and pushing and pushing on people.
(And BTW, I don't even own a gun, but someday I will.)